The right to sing?

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 01:38 PM

The Daily Telegraph, 15th December.

Music shops to pay for listening to customers.

The owner of a music shop has been told that he must pay £114 in royalties if any of his customers try out instruments with a recognisable riff before they buy.

Steve Kowalski, of Jones Music in Macclesfield, Cheshire, has refused to pay for the annual licence from the Performing Rights Society. He said, "They say it constitutes a public performance."A spokesman for the society said that royalties were crucial to songwriters and musicians and music shops received a 30 per cent discount.
ENDS

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 02:34 PM

More often than not I find myself defending PRS in these pages, but in this case I think Steve Kowalski was right not to pay up - this is extreme. As a potential buyer of an instrument, of course I would want to try it first, and of course I will do so by playing something I already know. This is not entertainment, it is a tryout. Who in their right mind would listen to a shopful of aspiring buyers trying out various instruments for "entertainment"?

Let PRS sue, if they have the balls, and I am pretty certain they would lose - this is too extreme. Furthermore, should they sue, I would then as a member write to them bemoaning the fact that they use their cut from my royalties to fund such silly and nonsensical activities.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 03:14 PM

If PRS consider this to be public performance and they get away with this - the next logical step of course is for the Local Authority to also claim the shop needs Premises Licence entertainment permission.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: sharyn
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 12:28 AM

Herga Kitty,

I am responding to your post re: how my post fit into this thread: I believe I sank it squarely into a series of posts about copyrights and how copyrights affect public performances of songs. I also got on one of my favorite soapboxes which has to do with singers disrespecting the work of writers, songwriters in particular. I won't belabor the point but I do assure you that not all writers who write songs that are taken up by "folksingers," are grateful for having their lyrics massacred and having such singers record or perform unrecognizable versions of their finest songs. I do not speak for myself alone, but also for other careful writers, some of whom are found right here on the Mudcat. I know it is a contrary position to take in this community, but I do not believe that everyone has the right to sing or play whatever they want however they want if it is a public performance -- the issue being that work can be spread in an altered form for which the writer either gets wrongly credited (It didn't go like that when I wrote it -- that is not the song I wrote, although the second verse is vaguely familiar, and the melody is identical) or not credited at all. ("This is "Morning Shanty," a traditional shanty.").

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 04:26 AM

Sharyn,
if the writer is not credited at all it is plainly wrong and should be corrected by anyone who is present and in the know. If an altered song is credited, then the performer again should indicate that this is their arrangement or their interpretation of the original.

Clearly our attitudes are diametrically opposite on the subject of the performer's freedom to alter a song. For myself, I am happy to have others alter my songs, lyrics or even tune details, to fit their abilities better (some have difficulty pronouncing certain words, some cannot reach certain high or low notes). Indeed, this has given me much pleasure in discovering the different possibilities in my own songs, which I was not aware of when I wrote them. And in a few cases I have even modified my own performance of the song to adopt a change introduced by someone else, because I think it is better.

I don't thing there is a "wrong" or "right" attitude to take on this, it is a personal matter and that is all. I am aware of a few well-known songwriters in the UK who are adamant that they don't want their songs to be altered in the least, but the fact is that here they have little control over that - their copyright is protected, but the precise detail of their song is not. They would have to take a performer to court to obtain an injunction against them singing an altered song, and their chances of winning in court would be very, very slight.

For example, look at the different versions of "Yesterday" sung every day by performers or revellers - if anyone could take the "offenders" to court, Apple Records would be the most able; yet they don't, perhaps because like me McCartney doesn't care, and certainly because they would be unlikely to win. And this is a good thing in my view, because it allows the "folk process" to continue thriving in this country.

I think our difference of opinion might disappear in cases of extreme alterations, but here I am referring to the normal slight modifications of songs that one encounters.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM

I like to think our various uses and requirements for songs as rather like our approach to houses. Some of us like to move in and leave it just as it is – some need to knock it around a bit first to suit them better and some need to build a new one from scratch.

I am not sure if the current methods of trying meet all these requirements and fairly reward and protect the original builders is really the best we can come up with.

I am also not sure of our ability to house everyone or that the general quality of building is not going suffer if we do not find a better method.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 04:25 AM

I agree with your analogy in the first sentence, Roger. But then (so typical of you) you take the analogy referring to the folk process and altering songs and try to extrapolate to your favourite subject of licensing (protect and reward). Inappropriate, unfortunate, but typical...

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:52 AM

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/

The following (rather wide definition) of performance - from the above site.

Any performance of copyright music, whether live or recorded, that takes place outside the home is regarded as a public performance and will usually require a licence from PRS. Licences are usually issued to the owner of the premises where the music is being performed.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:13 AM

Great word "usually", isn't it?

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 11:59 AM

You may expect that it would usually be the beneficiaries and members of these organisations who usually decide these definitions.

And usually if they did not agree with the ones currently imposed and the actions based upon them and undertaken in their name - that usuually they might be expected to do something positive to change it?

Usually.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 12:40 PM

Roger, your best post for months, I nearly spread my coffee all over the screen! :-)

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 03:30 AM

Subject: RE: PRS at it again!!
From: weelittledrummer - PM
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 04:14 PM

yeh they're a gang of scufflers all right. its the fault of people like me (full members) who can't be arsed to attend meetings.

every so often they send me these awful magazines full of pictures, where clapped out rock stars from the last few hundred years hand over vast sums to classical scholars for writing a piano concerto that no one gives a shit about.

meanwhile evrybody plunders our music, and ludicrous stunts like this idiot who has raided the music shop....well it defies belief really!

Many people who honestly do not begrudge writers and performers what they are entitled to are placed in a difficult postion by this attitude from PRS members. Trying to run with the fox and hunting with the hounds is not likely to be helpful to either.

An attitude of 'I agree that it is terrible but oh dear, never mind' whilst they continue to receive their (perhaps in most cases admittedly small) returns and still do nothing or attend meetings - is hardly going to result in general public support for them and their organisations.

It is good to to see that some of these members themselves may be in agreement over some of these definitions and the actions based upon them - all taken in the name of these members - but they can hardly be surprised if a deep division appears between them and those who do consider this to be plundering our right to make our music.

That division is not desirable for anyone but it is certainly not the non-members of these organisations that are to blame. Members are being compromised by their organisations and it is up to them to prevent this.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Grab
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:09 AM

My apologies Roger - you're absolutely right, I misread PPL as PEL. I realised this shortly after posting my last, but didn't have access to a PC until now. Thanks for clearing this up, and my apologies to anyone I unintentionally confused with this.

Which begs the question - why *were* you raising the licensing laws in connection with this, when you hadn't previously mentioned anything that was related to the licensing laws? Non-sequitur...?

At the risk of continuing our off-piste expedition, Hamish Birchall's quote relates to whether he's considered part of the band or part of the premises management. The Act has the effect of making Hamish Birchall an agent of the premises rather than an agent of the band - which is pretty much what you'd expect really, given that he starts by saying "When I am contacted by the charity that sets up hospital and nursing home performances...". Checking the Act, Birchall isn't personally liable to prosecution under the act, because he isn't the person "who carries on a business which involves the use of the premises for the licensable activities to which the application relates" (Section 16 para 1a) - that would be either the charity or the hospital/home - but he could reasonably be expected to check that there was a license in place before organising an event. So if there was no license and the police arrived, the charity or hospital/home (whoever was done for it) would have pretty good grounds for saying Birchall hadn't exercised due diligence and suing him on that basis. Yes, Birchall has a bit more work to do - but he isn't liable to prosecution under the Act, so claims that he is are incorrect.

Also note that the section Birchall quotes states that if he

(a) chooses the music to be performed or played,
(b) determines the manner in which he performs or plays it,
(c) provides any facilities for the purposes of his performance or playing of the music.

then he is not concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment. In other words, a musician or bandleader is *not* liable under the Act, contrary to his assertion.

Graham.

PS. For the curious, see the Act itself. Relevant sections are section 16 and section 200 schedule 1 part 1.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 11:17 AM

Checking the Act, Birchall isn't personally liable to prosecution under the act, because he isn't the person "who carries on a business which involves the use of the premises for the licensable activities to which the application relates" (Section 16 para 1a) - that would be either the charity or the hospital/home - but he could reasonably be expected to check that there was a license in place before organising an event.

I did say that it was complicated and that the debate continues. If the situation is really the simple one that you suggest it is - perhaps the Act could say it more simply?

Thank you for the apology BTW. I am sorry if you were confused but there are many complicated ways that we are prevented by officialdom from the simple right of expressing ourselves. Perhaps you would agree that it is more important that all of these are addressed than this thread confines itself to just a few of them?

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:29 PM

A response to Graham's analysis of 19 December 05, 09.09am, concerning whether or not musicians may be liable to prosecution under the Licensing Act 2003.

Graham, you are wrong on several counts. Musicians having an organisational and/or managerial role in the provision of regulated entertainment can be prosecuted in certain circumstances. This possibility was the case under the old legislation, and was deliberately preserved in the new Act.

Apart from the descriptions of regulated entertainment, and the necessary licensing conditions for same set out in Schedule 1, the relevant sections of the Act are not 16 or 200 but s.136 'Unauthorised licensable activities' and s.139 'Defence of due diligence'.

Under s.136(1) you will see that 'a person commits an offence if - (a) he carries on or attempts to carry on a licensable activity on or from any premises otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorisation, or (b) he knowingly allows a licensable activity to be so carried on.'

The expression 'licensable activity' is defined right at the start of the Act in s.1. It includes the provision of regulated entertainment [s.1(1)(c)].

S.136(2) states that 'Where the licensable activity in question is the provision of regulated entertainment, a person does not commit an offence under this section [i.e. under s.136] if his only involvement in the provision of the entertainment is that he - ... (d) performs live music...' [Note that I have omitted the full list of activities in which someone may participate without committing an offence].

Clearly, a musician who helps to organise and manage a gig, liaising with the venue, other performers and so on, is doing more than 'only' performing live music. In those circumstances the possible s.136(2) defence would not apply.

There is of course the 'due diligence' defence in s.139 which, in summary, excuses potentially culpable persons if they have taken 'all reasonable precautions' to avoid committing an offence. This might mean, for example, that they had phoned the venue and local authority to double check that the necessary authorisations were in place, but they were given the wrong information.

Moving on to Schedule 1, admittedly it can get a little tricky here, but given that you are already familiar with this part of the Act, suffice it to say that a musician having an organisational and/or managerial live gig role is doing much more than is set out in para 1(6). In other words, they cannot claim they are 'not concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment' under this sub-paragraph.

Inevitably, therefore, there are many likely scenarios where musicians who organise, or who help to organise, live gigs may commit a criminal offence if they don't first 'take all reasonable precautions' to establish whether or not the venue is appropriately licensed.

The rationale for this approach was, I think, simple. The organisation and management of regulated entertainment is often shared between the venue, agent and performer. It therefore makes sense that all concerned may face prosecution, if you accept the government argument that licensing regulated entertainment is necessary to prevent crime and disorder, control noise, ensure public safety, and to protect children from harm.

Hamish








In s.136 you will

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Grab
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:50 PM

The trouble with "simple" language is making it simple, unambiguous AND detailed - generally you only get to choose two out of three! Although there are certainly some bits that could have been written clearer. My experience from your previous quotes of Hamish Birchall's is that they frequently haven't reflected the actual text of what the Act says, which perhaps is *why* the debate is continuing. I have much respect for his aims, but not a great deal for his implementation of those aims.

Perhaps you would agree that it is more important that all of these are addressed than this thread confines itself to just a few of them?

I'm afraid that *is* the main thing I disagree with.

As you say, the situation is complicated. There are at least four separate areas of "officialdom" in the UK (PRS, PPL, central government setting licensing laws, local government enforcing licensing laws) which have their sticky fingers in the pie, and each has their own very different areas in which they can get you. There's a danger of painting them as one generic grey-suited "officialdom" that hates freedom of expression, which simply ain't the case - yes, some of them may hate true freedom of expression (PRS for starters!), but they're very different entities, running on very different rules.

So unless we stay focussed which specific areas of "officialdom" we're looking at, any discussion is helping no-one - the specifics of each area will be lost in a tide of random issues about other areas.

Graham.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 02:06 PM

As some have said, it was a different ball game 30 or 40 years back. We did what we pretty much wanted to do---and the music reflected that folk ethic too. Now, to put out a retrospective CD from 30 year old concerts and shows, this new ball game has designated hitters and FREE AGENTS everywhere demanding stuff never ever thought about in other eras. I'm beginning to wonder if my planned CD will ever see the light of day.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 04:30 PM

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED18%20Dec%202005%2020:45:12:420

The following extract from the above.

Carol singing licensing confusion

19 December 2005 07:30

Church leaders were forced to pull the plug on a popular outdoor carol service in Norfolk over the weekend amid fears it would breach public performance legislation.

And now there are concerns that many other carol singing events in the run up to Christmas could be in breach of licensing regulations.

The confusion over licensing saw the inter-denominational Christmas carol service called off at the last minute..........................

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:32 AM

That is really sickening. Folks, this world we're building now has me shaking my head more often than not these days. By the time it's time for me to shuffle off this mortal coil, it'll be more than just o.k. with me to let go and shout my final, "Rosebud!"

Art

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: sharyn
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:07 AM

El Greko,

To date, I have never heard a version of one of my songs that was an improvement on the original. Now, there are many people who play instruments better than I do, and some who sing better than I do, but there are few who write (or rewrite) my songs as well as I do. I usually do not release a song to the public until it has attained its final words and tune. In the one recorded version of one of my songs that I know of the rhythm has been butchered such that the song cannot be learned correctly from the recording and the words to one verse have been changed. Beyond that, someone who heard that recording contacted me to say that he had made up a couple of new verses and he could imagine people making up a lot more of them! (I was horrified: the original is an -- intentionally -- short song about the fleeting nature of time together)

I am delighted to hear that others improve your songs and I await the day that that happens to one of mine.

As for Mr. McCartney, members of the Beatles had that rare privilege that songwriters long for: they got to establish their version of their songs as the standard version long before other people had their way with it.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:59 AM

I think that it should be mentioned that it is now not very easy to establish if the premises that may have booked you or that you are arranging a gig at - is licensed to enable live music.

Under the old legislation you could ask for and obtain from the local authority a list of the premises that had PELs.

I made that equiry yesterday and found that the licensing section could not tell me which of the the Premises Licensed venues had entertainment permission. And of course each licence will be different. It may be possible for a licensee on the phone to tell you that their pub has obtained entertainment permission. But this may only enable them to provide a Regulated Entertainment like Indoor Sports - but not for live music.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 04:37 AM

Roger,
a bureaucracy that cannot even trace its own doings is plain pathetic. Anyway, that would make it harder to police the licensing and eventually invalidate it for the same reason.

Sharyn,
Like in everything else, happiness is always relative to expectations... I too have heard some versions of my songs that I don't particularly like, but hey, I take the rough with the smooth.

Perhaps the difference in our approaches might stem from our reasons for songwriting in the first place. In my case, I do it to leave a "mark" behind, to make some ripples in the ether that will outlast my earthly body; and to help others find voice for their feelings through my songs. Indeed, I generally try to leave "hooks" for others to latch on, or change the melody slightly in the chorus to make it easier to learn for others (not in the verse, there I do just as I like).

Given those objectives, it is then natural to let the songs go once created, and let people hold them, touch them, change them, cuddle and abuse them as they will, rather than put them in glass cages to remain unmolested for ever. I expect some of the treatment to be good, and some bad. I wince at the bad and marvel at the good, but every time someone sings one of them I know I am one step closer to my objective.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:27 PM

I am sure that if you organised a gig in premises that were not licensed the bureaucracy would find a way to establish this quickly enough.

Even if they do not seem to be able to help musicians to avoid this happening. Venues are supposed to have their licence on display but you have to visit to read this. Not that a month after the Act came into force - all venues have been issued with these documents.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: BB
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:23 PM

If they haven't been issued with their licence to put on display, then they shouldn't be open at all. Our local has been told that if they haven't the licence on display, they have to close - even if it was stolen, they could not be open until they had been issued with a new one - and another local pub was closed down by the police as they hadn't yet been issued with their licence, even though they applied before the deadline, even if only just before.

Barbara

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:53 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19173&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Pubs with licences granted advised to operate without certificates
The Publican
Published 21st November 2005

Licensees who have had their premises licence granted but do not have their certificates are being advised to operate under the new licensing system.

The advice issued by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) has been agreed with Commander Chris Allison from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The advice comes less than a week before the new Licensing Act comes into force as only 20 per cent of licensees have received their licensing certificates.

The Act requires that the premises licence be displayed on the premises at all times.

The BBPA recommends that premises should display a notice to the effect that:
"A licence under the Licensing Act 2003 has been applied for and granted by xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Council. The premises licence summary will be displayed as soon as it is received from the Council. The Premises Licence Holder is xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx The nominated Designated Premises Supervisor is Mr/Mrs xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx."

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: stallion
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:07 PM

Traditional music , unamplified, does not fall within the licence for live music, Martin Bartlett, (Councillor) sits on the local licencing committee and is a mean fiddler, he has the clarification on record, I will see if he can post it on the message board. Bottom line is a pub doesn't need a music licence for unamplified music ( it is the definition of "Live" which is interpreted as amplified musicians and singers, juke boxes are not included)

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:56 AM

Traditional music , unamplified, does not fall within the licence for live music, Martin Bartlett, (Councillor) sits on the local licencing committee and is a mean fiddler, he has the clarification on record, I will see if he can post it on the message board. Bottom line is a pub doesn't need a music licence for unamplified music ( it is the definition of "Live" which is interpreted as amplified musicians and singers, juke boxes are not included)

Sadly it most certainly is not the way my local licensing authority see it. I hope this proves to be as you say I very much doubt that it will turn out to be quite so simple.

But if it is as you say and this area's licensing committee is openly holding such a local policy - it is vital that the details are made public for other areas are aware and can also adopt this sensible approach.....................

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: BB
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:45 AM

Which Council are we talking about here, Stallion? It's certainly not what most people have understood regarding the entertainment aspect of the licence.

The understanding I have of it is that the licencee must have 'ticked the box', but any additional unamplified music in the presence of no more than 200 people can be added without notifying the licencing authority. If your local authority is saying differently, we really need to know which one it is so that we know the precedent and can argue it with our own licencing committees.

Please share it with us.

Barbara

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:11 PM

The understanding I have of it is that the licencee must have 'ticked the box', but any additional unamplified music in the presence of no more than 200 people can be added without notifying the licencing authority.

The details and problems of S177 are discussed in detail in the following thread. It is not quite as above.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1626201

However, it could well be that some LAs are looking at this logically? What is the point of them insisting on entertainment permission for non-amplfied music in the premises that would qualify for S177 - if effectivly they would be unable to impose any conditions upon it?

As a start - it certainly would be a lot more sensible if non-amplified music was exempt altogether from the requirement for licensing permission.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: Grab
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:27 AM

That old thread is unmanageable. (300+ posts! :-) Barbara, I think the relevant point Shambles was intending to link to is the following post of his on that thread:-

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:54 AM

Some thoughts on S177 - details of which can be found earlier in this thread. The practical benefit of which was always thought a bit suspect..............

My local has been granted its extended drinking hours but cannot hold any outside amplified music. Presumambly due to local objections.
It can however stage non-amplified music outside but with the condition that this stops at 9pm!

Now if these small premises had a imposed safe capacity limit of less than 200 - effectivly no conditions could legally be place upon non amplified live music up to midnight and a condition such as this one that limited it to a 9pm finish would not be legal.

The vice-chairman of the local Licensing Committee states that the advice he has received means that this condition is legal. If so - I can only assume that the LA had not imposed a safe capacity limit. And without this of course - S177 does not apply......................

I am sure that they are not cynically omitting this safe capacity limit just so they can impose conditions on non amplified live music in these small premises and if they were that our Government would not approve. Or would they?

It's an interesting scenario, and one they should clarify. If they're regarding playing outside as restricted (but not restricting playing inside), frankly I think that'd be common sense to avoid disturbance of the pub's neighbours with late-night noise. As I remember (which may be incorrect - I'll look it up when I can), the Licensing Act is trumped by other restrictions on maintaining public order, so it could be happening under that.

Graham.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:53 AM

It's an interesting scenario, and one they should clarify. If they're regarding playing outside as restricted (but not restricting playing inside), frankly I think that'd be common sense to avoid disturbance of the pub's neighbours with late-night noise. As I remember (which may be incorrect - I'll look it up when I can), the Licensing Act is trumped by other restrictions on maintaining public order, so it could be happening under that.

Graham if common sense came into any of this - I suspect that we would not be discussing these issues or have any need to.

I made the following point to my LA: Who seem to have avoided any mention of S 177.

That any imposed condition stating the times that entertainment should cease - be confined only to case where valid objections have been made to this entertainment and otherwise these matters are best left to the experts in these matters - the licensee.

This is the answer I have received so far.

14 December 2005
I can confirm that this is the case - we are legally not able to impose time restrictions unless we receive objections.

I can't really see that anyone would have made a specific objection to outside non-amplified music or a request that it ended at 9pm - but I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: stallion
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:13 PM

I have already e-mailed " Shambles" on this. If the Landlord hasn't "ticked" the box one has the right to appeal to have it added. In so far as I been told ( This information was relayed to a councillor who sits on the licencing committee and took advice from the licencing officer) that one may play and sing between 8am and midnight inside the premises and indeed that is what we do. Also the Landlord was convinced that the midnight finish was only for instruments not for unaccompanied singing. However, if one interprets the rules there is enough leeway in the act to allow a decent folk night, I suspect some Landlords simply don't want them.
regards
Peter

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 02:03 AM

This 'guidance' to S177 from the DCMS website....
http://www.culture.gov.uk/alcohol_and_entertainment/licensing_act_2003/regulated_entertainment.htm#26

What about small-scale music events?

The venue will need an authorisation for the staging of these events.

However, section 177 of the Licensing Act provides that where:
a premises licence or club premises certificate authorises the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the provision of "music entertainment" (dance or live amplified or unamplified music)

the relevant premises are used primarily for the consumption of alcohol on the premises

and the premises have a capacity limit of 200

then any licensing authority imposed conditions relating to the provision of the music entertainment will be suspended. This is subject to the exception of where the conditions were imposed as being necessary for public safety or the prevention of crime and disorder.

In addition, where:
a premises licence or club premises certificate authorises the provision of music entertainment, which consists of the performance of unamplified, live music; and

the premises have a capacity limit of 200

then during the hours of 8am and midnight if the premises are being used for the provision of that music entertainment but, no other regulated entertainment, any licensing authority imposed conditions on the licence which relate to the provision of the music entertainment will be suspended.

These suspensions can be removed in relation to any condition of a premises licence or club premises certificate following a review of the licence or certificate when further conditions may also be added to the licence or certificate.

These provisions will apply to any premises so long as the criteria set out in section 177 of the Act are fulfilled.
ENDS

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 02:37 AM

This is what the statutory Guidance to the Act says.

Small venues providing dancing and amplified or unamplified music.

5.4 In addition, subsections (1) and (2) of section 177 of the 2003 Act provide that where
• a premises licence or club premises certificate authorises the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the provision of "music entertainment" (live music or dancing or facilities enabling people to take part in those activities),

• the relevant premises are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

• the premises have a permitted capacity limit of not more than 200 persons

then any conditions relating to the provision of the music entertainment imposed on the premises licence or club premises certificate by the licensing authority, other than those set out by the licence or certificate which are consistent with the operating schedule, will be suspended except where they were imposed as being necessary for public safety or the prevention of crime and disorder or both.

5.5 In addition, subsection (4) of section 177 provides that where
• a premises licence or club premises certificate authorises the provision of music entertainment (live music and dancing), and

Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003

• the premises have a capacity limit of not more than 200 persons

then, during the hours of 8am and midnight, if the premises are being used for the provision of unamplified live music or the facilities enabling people to take part in such entertainment, but no other description of regulated entertainment, any conditions imposed on the licence by the
licensing authority, again other than those which are consistent with the operating schedule, which relate to the provision of that music entertainment will be suspended.

5.6 Section 177 can be disapplied in relation to any condition of a premises licence or club premises certificate following a review of the licence or certificate. This means that conditions attached to the existing premises licence relating to the provision of music entertainment can be given effect at the relevant times or that new conditions may also be imposed as an outcome
of the review process.

5.7 Accordingly, those seeking to take advantage of the exemption relating to both amplified and unamplified music entertainment need to be aware that they must hold a premises licence or club premises certificate covering the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the type of regulated music entertainment involved.

Examples of premises used "primarily" for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises would include public houses and some qualifying club premises, but would not normally include, for example, a restaurant.

For the "unamplified" music exemption, any premises appropriately licensed are included, including restaurants. The area to which the 200 "capacity limit" applies concerns the area covered by the premises licence or club premises certificate and not just to part of those premises unless separately licensed.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 02:49 AM

If the Landlord hasn't "ticked" the box one has the right to appeal to have it added.

If there are any such right of appeal - these will be confined to the licensee's or the applicant. My understanding is that any change to a Premises Licence will involve application and payment for a 'variation'. In all truth can we really expect to - see small qualifying venues but who do not now have not Premises Licence permission for non-amplified music - going through the whole process of applying and paying for a variation?      

In so far as I been told ( This information was relayed to a councillor who sits on the licencing committee and took advice from the licencing officer) that one may play and sing between 8am and midnight inside the premises and indeed that is what we do.

Only if the venue has first obtained entertainment permission for this.

Also the Landlord was convinced that the midnight finish was only for instruments not for unaccompanied singing.

Assumptions - they do say - are the mother of all cock-ups. My understanding would be that after midnight the LA could impose any curfew - as long as they first found a valid objection.

However, if one interprets the rules there is enough leeway in the act to allow a decent folk night, I suspect some Landlords simply don't want them.

Sadly it has tended to be how the officers of your local authority interpret the rules. It is my firm belief that even under this new legislation any bold and imaginative local council could provide sensible leeway to enable most of the activities that the words of the legislation threaten. The trick I feel is up to us to make sure that our local authority is bold and imaginative as many licensees and musicians can be - if that is possible.

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 05:32 AM

News about session problems in Italy.

http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display.php/8880

Subject: RE: The right to sing?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:16 AM

So the English think they have a problem