Repeal the Licensing Act 2003

[samgower]

Key to our vision of a 'free' music industry is the argument that artists make most of their money from live performance. This is true with the vast majority of popular acts, and in theory should apply to smaller acts too.

However, this argument is severely weakened by the Licensing Act 2003. Essentially, this act makes it illegal to perform music (or play recorded music, or 'produce' music, i.e. karaoke) without the venue having a costly license that must be manoeuvred through what can only be described as a bureaucratic shitstorm. Its affect is not limited to music, and includes the displaying of films, indoor sporting events, boxing and wrestling (indoors and out), the performance of plays and dancing (except, strangely enough, morris dancing, which should indeed be punishable by death).

The act effectively prevents the performance of music in small venues, be it pubs, clubs, restaurants, cafes or independent venues, leaving small artists no option but to try and break into the recording industry. Not only does this raise serious problems regarding civil liberties and freedom of expression, but it makes our plans for reduced copyright seem less practical. Therefore, I propose that the parts of the Licensing Act 2003 regarding "licensable activities" be repealed.

[M2Ys4U]

Pubs, clubs and some restaurants already have to be licensed under the LA2k3, as do any premises serving food or drink after 11pm, I think it is.

Those that wish to play host to these activities would include them on their application anyway.

The worst part about this act is the awful training course you have to go on to get a personal license, if I could I'd ask for my day back.

[azrael]

Well we clearly need a Pirate Party Morris Troupe - would we then be exempted from singing copyrighted songs while dancing? Or does the exemption only cover Morris dancing?

What about performing a Morris dance that was a recent and copyrighted choreography and without permission of the copyright holder?

[M2Ys4U]

The LA doesn't care whether something is copyrighted or not, just whether or not it can be performed.

[samgower]

Well we clearly need a Pirate Party Morris Troupe - would we then be exempted from singing copyrighted songs while dancing? Or does the exemption only cover Morris dancing?

As long as the music is incidental and the main form of entertainment remains "dancing" then it's fine.

[PeterBrett]

I think that licensing is important -- quite often the impact (noise, disturbance from arrival/departure of those attending, suitable parking for venue, etc) on local residents is an important part of assessing whether a premises should be granted a license.

Having said that, the process is currently too red-tape-intensive! Some happy middle ground needs to be found.

[rancidpunk]

Well we clearly need a Pirate Party Morris Troupe - would we then be exempted from singing copyrighted songs while dancing? Or does the exemption only cover Morris dancing?

What about performing a Morris dance that was a recent and copyrighted choreography and without permission of the copyright holder?

I can't believe I'm admitting this, I was part of a group of men who were ordered to volunteer to be part of a Royal Navy Morris Dancers troupe to celebrate Andrew and Fergie's Royal wedding. I still think it was a stitch up!

[Pete]

... ordered to volunteer ...

Heh I like their style.

[samgower]

I think that licensing is important -- quite often the impact (noise, disturbance from arrival/departure of those attending, suitable parking for venue, etc) on local residents is an important part of assessing whether a premises should be granted a license.

Having said that, the process is currently too red-tape-intensive! Some happy middle ground needs to be found.

There are already laws to deal with noise, health & safety etc. LA2003 just adds unnecessary bureaucracy.

ordered to volunteer

[SpudTater]

For Scottish Pirates: The Licensing Act 2003 applies to England/Wales. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 doesn't seem to include any "licensable activities" definition, concerning itself instead solely with the provision of alcohol.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scot ... 50016_en_1

Anybody know anything further about this? Would you need any sort of license to host a small musical event in Scotland (without serving alcohol)?

[Pete]

Anybody know anything further about this? Would you need any sort of license to host a small musical event in Scotland (without serving alcohol)?

Don't know but youd stuggle to get anyone to attend

[glambert]

Anybody know anything further about this? Would you need any sort of license to host a small musical event in Scotland (without serving alcohol)?

Don't know but youd stuggle to get anyone to attend

lol

[borgs8472]

Hey sam, you mean this right? To save me reading the whole thing (cause I'm lazy) can you point out the most annoying clauses you reckon? Repealing whole act rarely happens unless you draft a complete replacement, something we don't have the know how to do effectively, so amendments are more tangible I think.

[samgower]

Hey sam, you mean this right? To save me reading the whole thing (cause I'm lazy) can you point out the most annoying clauses you reckon? Repealing whole act rarely happens unless you draft a complete replacement, something we don't have the know how to do effectively, so amendments are more tangible I think.

I'd like to see the whole thing binned. I really don't see the need to license anything that's in the act, even alcohol tbh (licensing the sale of alcohol clearly doesn't do anything to reduce its abuse). Although I suppose just dropping 1(1)(c) would work from a PP point of view. Essentially, entertainment should never be subject to licensing. It doesn't need to be, since their is already provision to deal with noise, safety, crime, "anti-social behaviour", etc. It's just one of the many unnecessary laws brought about by a needlessly authoritarian government.

Usually I don't like the idea of simply ditching regulation. In this case however, the regulation is pointless and should be scrapped in order to promote live music and entertainment in general. There's no need for replacement legislation.

[Duke]

I don't know how relevant this is, but you might want to have a look at the Live Music Bill 2010. This was introduced during the last session (by Lord C-J of all people) and managed to get a second reading, iirc, before the session ended. It has now been reintroduced (looking much the same, although I haven't checked it).

[samgower]

The Live Music Bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go nearly far enough. It only exempts entertainment involving less than 200 people where the entertainment takes place between 8am and midnight (so if you want to, for example, hold a new years party you'll need a license), and that exemption can be overruled by local authorities anyway. The restrictions may be relaxed, but they're still restrictions, and they're still unnecessary.

[glambert]

There still needs to be a balance between the rights of those putting on such an event and the rights of those nearby that may not want the noise (for example).

[samgower]

There still needs to be a balance between the rights of those putting on such an event and the rights of those nearby that may not want the noise (for example).

Councils have had the ability for a very long time to limit noise and so forth. There really was no need for LA2003 to come in and add another level of control, so there is no reason now to keep any of that control.