I am still trying to work out the point of Roger's post about PRS. The issuing of PRS licenses has nothing to do with local authorities' responsibility for licensing of venues and never has done.

Given certain noises about measures to deal with piracy creeping into thinking of the Bill at a late stage, it may well prove to have. But the point Hamish Birchall was making was a response to the DCMS claim that 'spontaneous' (however they define this) music was not licensable.

Difficult to see, if like every other licensable music the PRS have a fee set for it - that this form of music alone should not follow suit and be licensable also........................

This from Hamish.

The DCMS is factually incorrect in stating that spontaneous performances are not licensable.

They probably meant 'not licensable under the Licensing Bill', which is arguable, but that's not what they said.

And I wonder if they are aware of the scope of copyright licensing? If not, they should be. They should not be allowed to get away with claiming spontaneous performances are not licensed without adding 'under the Licensing Bill'.

I checked with PRS about the nature of the offence of performing copyright works without permission and in certain circumstances this can be a criminal offence.

And on the current law on outside events and Morris etc.

The discretionary element of entertainment licensing that applies outside London (Local Gov. [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act 1982) is whether or not local authorities adopt s.3 of Schedule 1, i.e. the power to licence entertainment events on private land (such as a pub car park or garden).

Most local authorities have adopted this part of the Schedule, which is why Morris dancing in such places is illegal without a PEL. The legislation does not apply to events in the open on public land, and that was why the Fat Boy Slim concert in Brighton did not hold a PEL.