The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I heard something about this. To be able to pay live music, village halls and pubs will have to have some £800 a year license. I think.
What a great way to encourage and aid music.
Anybody else heard of it?
What a great way to encourage and aid music.
Anybody else heard of it?
Page:
I was in the room while my MP spoke about this issue (among others) earlier today. You have to take everything he says with a pinch of salt, obviously - he's a politician, but it sounded better from his description.
Here's what he said - it's not £800 at all but £300. At the moment pubs have to have about eight licenses (tobacco, alcohol etc) but these will now be shoved into one license. The live performances aspect will be bundled into this, and unless a venue specifically says they don't want it they will automatically get it.
Here's what he said - it's not £800 at all but £300. At the moment pubs have to have about eight licenses (tobacco, alcohol etc) but these will now be shoved into one license. The live performances aspect will be bundled into this, and unless a venue specifically says they don't want it they will automatically get it.
Public Entertainment Licences are largley used to ensure safety. It is therefore totally ludicrous that have two performers in a venue results in guarantee of safety where as three requires a check. It is also to do with the public disturbance playing music can potantially cause i.e. the noise may disturb near-by houses. At present two performenrs seemingly can't produce enough noise to be a public disturbance... but three can...
The "two in a bar" rule is ludicrous. However, having two musicians in a bar will still be free as bars must have a liquor liscene which will have the Public Entertainment Licence tacked onto it for no extra charge. Therefore, provided you can organise yourself to get the alcohol licence and Public Entertainment Liscence at the same time, any number of performers will be require a totally free license. However, while this license costs nothing, it involves checks to ensure public safety - clearly this does make sense. Strangely, the many totally biased and illogical petitions flying around fail to consier that the vast majority of places that have live music will also have an alcohol license and therefore will be better off after the introduction of this bill.
With regards the church and school lisences etc, that's all a question of enforcement. Churches in London already must have a license to hold live music events - if this is so awful for them why aren't we hearing all the tales of terror? And Jesus, it must really kill live music as you never get any bands breaking in London.
There are literally thousands of things out there that by the strict letter of the law would be illegal, but see no prosecution. For example, time shifting recordings off the TV is fine, any other reason for recording programming is illegal. Have you ever known anyone be raided for having an old recording of the Xmas special of Only Fools and Horses? It's all in the enforcement.
The "two in a bar" rule is ludicrous. However, having two musicians in a bar will still be free as bars must have a liquor liscene which will have the Public Entertainment Licence tacked onto it for no extra charge. Therefore, provided you can organise yourself to get the alcohol licence and Public Entertainment Liscence at the same time, any number of performers will be require a totally free license. However, while this license costs nothing, it involves checks to ensure public safety - clearly this does make sense. Strangely, the many totally biased and illogical petitions flying around fail to consier that the vast majority of places that have live music will also have an alcohol license and therefore will be better off after the introduction of this bill.
With regards the church and school lisences etc, that's all a question of enforcement. Churches in London already must have a license to hold live music events - if this is so awful for them why aren't we hearing all the tales of terror? And Jesus, it must really kill live music as you never get any bands breaking in London.
There are literally thousands of things out there that by the strict letter of the law would be illegal, but see no prosecution. For example, time shifting recordings off the TV is fine, any other reason for recording programming is illegal. Have you ever known anyone be raided for having an old recording of the Xmas special of Only Fools and Horses? It's all in the enforcement.
But as far as I'm aware, previously it was only specific venues and places where alcohol is served which double as venues that needed licensing. Now it includes churches, schools, village halls, your own back garden (ie. house parties, assuming there was 'public access' to the party, which is completely open to interpretation...) you could potentially be fined for tapping a tambourine on a bus...
Okay, that's not exactly going to happen, but it's how wide the legislation goes. I mean, to introduce the need for a license in schools and places of worship is utterly ridiculous! School charity events with kids singins and playing instruments would need a license! Whatever the price I still find it ridiculous.
Previously there was the two in a bar rule where a pub/restaurant or whatever could have two musicians playing without a license, under the new bill that would be gone too.
Basically the bill to me seems ridiculous. It covers far too wide a spectrum of places where music may be played, and disregards whether or not the music is played by professional or amateur musicians. Also, if the bill is a good thing I wonder why I recieved an E-mail about it from a record label, and someone else posted that they recieved an E-mail with a link to the petition from someone they knew in a band...? Surely these people would have researched the subject as it would have a large impact on them.
Okay, that's not exactly going to happen, but it's how wide the legislation goes. I mean, to introduce the need for a license in schools and places of worship is utterly ridiculous! School charity events with kids singins and playing instruments would need a license! Whatever the price I still find it ridiculous.
Previously there was the two in a bar rule where a pub/restaurant or whatever could have two musicians playing without a license, under the new bill that would be gone too.
Basically the bill to me seems ridiculous. It covers far too wide a spectrum of places where music may be played, and disregards whether or not the music is played by professional or amateur musicians. Also, if the bill is a good thing I wonder why I recieved an E-mail about it from a record label, and someone else posted that they recieved an E-mail with a link to the petition from someone they knew in a band...? Surely these people would have researched the subject as it would have a large impact on them.
I think that any boygoup perfoming in public should have to pay anyone in the immediate vicinity, £800 for aural trauma.
I've gone and done a little reading on the subject - the £800 fee has been plucked out of the air it seems. At present venues may have to pay up to £20,000. Under the new scheme that will fall to a fee between £100 to £500 with a further reduced annual renewal fee.
That said, if you get your alcohol liscence and Public Entertainment Liscene at the same time, the PEL will be totally free. A huge barrier to local music... making it cheaper than it currently is.
Even if it were an £800 a year fee, if we take three nights (Fri, Sat, Sun) entertainment a week for a year, that equates to a little over a fiver a night. My god, no one would ever have live music again!
That said, if you get your alcohol liscence and Public Entertainment Liscene at the same time, the PEL will be totally free. A huge barrier to local music... making it cheaper than it currently is.
Even if it were an £800 a year fee, if we take three nights (Fri, Sat, Sun) entertainment a week for a year, that equates to a little over a fiver a night. My god, no one would ever have live music again!
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Live music is slightly different - but again, if sounds perfectly
> reasonable. If you look at the benefit a bar will get out of having a
> musician booked, £800 a year is nothing.
Erm, but what about local music scenes? Sure, a bar gets a relatively popular band playing they are likely to make some cahs out of it, but local bars that act as small venues to local bands aren't going to make a killing by letting local bands play there that no-one has heard of... An £800 liscensing fee is going to discourage places from taking the financial risk of allowing live music to be played. 'Proper' venues will be able to afford it, but it is the small local pubs/clubs that will be affected. And lets face it, all bands have to start their careers playing local dives...
> Live music is slightly different - but again, if sounds perfectly
> reasonable. If you look at the benefit a bar will get out of having a
> musician booked, £800 a year is nothing.
Erm, but what about local music scenes? Sure, a bar gets a relatively popular band playing they are likely to make some cahs out of it, but local bars that act as small venues to local bands aren't going to make a killing by letting local bands play there that no-one has heard of... An £800 liscensing fee is going to discourage places from taking the financial risk of allowing live music to be played. 'Proper' venues will be able to afford it, but it is the small local pubs/clubs that will be affected. And lets face it, all bands have to start their careers playing local dives...
Took one Google search to find a balanced assesment of the situation.
http://www.earlymusic.org.uk/news/germankeyboardmusic.html
http://www.earlymusic.org.uk/news/germankeyboardmusic.html
I posted this on here a couple of days ago, oh well...
anyway...
It's a genuine threat. Venues available for private function will either have to pay up or not allow bands at anything they host/hire the venue to, rehearsal rooms with public access will be charged, and a thousand other reasons why this is just government guff to make money.
anyway...
It's a genuine threat. Venues available for private function will either have to pay up or not allow bands at anything they host/hire the venue to, rehearsal rooms with public access will be charged, and a thousand other reasons why this is just government guff to make money.
Actually, my mate who's in a band sent me the e-mail. I merely posted (spammed) it onto here. Obviously, it's not as harsh as that - I can't see anyone slapping you with a hefty fine for singing "Happy Birthday" but it will restrict some performances.
Woah! An on-line petition that has totally misinterpreted the supposed evil it's fighting! Never thought I'd see that.
"It must be true... I read it on the internet"
"It must be true... I read it on the internet"
Page: