PEL: but not music

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 02:25 PM

What about mooners, streakers and flashers?

And when Tony Blair pops out and gives a spiel outside Number 10, I can't see how that would be covered by Crown immunity. And remember John Major's soapbox?

We could have some great fun with citizens arrests of people who go in for that kind of criminality.

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 01:43 PM

What about noisy public or private displays of fireworks?

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:26 AM

My reading of the bill - which is at least as confused as anyone elses - is that if a film has as its "sole or main purpose to—

(a) demonstrate any product,
(b) advertise any goods or services"

then it is exempt from a PEL whatever it contains (play, dance, music, gratuitous violence)

Schedule 1, which you refer to, has to be read taking account of the exemptions defined elsewhere.

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:17 AM

DMcG,

'Filmed advertisements don't require a PEL' or do they?

if there's recorded music in them- according to the description of entertainment above- it falls into the category of '(f) any playing of recorded music'

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:00 AM

Aha! Filmed advertisements don't require a PEL, but a real live demonstration presumably will - they are following a script after all, even if it is imperfectly, and the exemption is only for filmed advertising. (If there is an exemption because they are not following the script precisely, there is a wonderful opportunity for forgetful actors to be excused PELs!)

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:48 AM

ah- but what about recorded music in a film, video, or on tv?

there's an ambiguity there [probably not the only one]


From www.folkwebs.com

www.folkwebs.com


2 (1) The descriptions of entertainment are—

       (a) a performance of a play,
       (b) an exhibition of a film,
       (c) an indoor sporting event,
       (d) a boxing or wrestling entertainment,
       (e) a performance of live music,
       (f) any playing of recorded music,
       (g) a performance of dance,
       (h) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (e), (f) or (g),

       where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and
       is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of
       entertaining that audience.


it gets more confusing the more one goes into it.


regards,

mr h

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:38 AM

I've been misinformed!

The act says

Film exhibitions for the purposes of advertisement, information, education, etc.

5 The provision of entertainment consisting of the exhibition of a film is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if its sole or main purpose is to—

(a) demonstrate any product,
(b) advertise any goods or services, or
(c) provide information, education or instruction.

Film exhibitions: museums and art galleries

6 The provision of entertainment consisting of the exhibition of a film is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if it consists of or forms part of an exhibit put on show for any purposes of a museum or art gallery.


So artists do seem to be all right, providing they are actually in an official museum or art gallery. If they are in a village hall, on the other hand, its not clear. (surprise!)

And I'm sure everyone is pleased to learn that filmed advertisements are excluded in all circumstances.

Subject: RE: PEL: but not music
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:14 AM

but recorded music requires a PEL.

There'll be recorded music playing from TV's in pubs.

also recorded music in lifts, in supermarkets & other shops

how far outside do their speakers need to be before they are not covered by the premises's own PEL?

[apologies for pinching your lines- but that alone raises other issues]

will everyone who owns a radio, tv, stereo in their own homes need one?

it gets madder & madder

Subject: PEL: but not music
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 05:53 AM

At the Union Chapel meeting someone from the Arts Council pointed out that any art exhibition by someone working in film would need a PEL ('exhibition of a film' requires a PEL).

Leaving aside technicalities of whether video, MPEG etc are 'film' for the purposes of the act, I've been trying to think of other things like this that might be trapped at well.

* 'Background' films next to exhibits in museums
* Public monitors in Covent Garden outside the Royal Opera House etc (how far outside do they need to be before they are not covered by the ROH's own PEL?)
* Sales videos for wonder cleansers in supermarkets

What else might be trapped?


It also seems to be the case that if a film is broadcast to a widescreen TV in a pub no licence is required, but if that selfsame film is then shown in the same pub to the same customers a PEL licence is needed for health and safety reasons. (In fact it is a bit like Schodinger's cat: if the landlord had the film poised in the video at the start of the broadcast session whether the pub needs a licence depends on which channel the set was tuned to.)