UK Politicians Recognizing That Draconian Licensing Policies Can Harm Up-And-Coming Musicians

from the free-the-musicians dept

Tue, May 19th 2009 4:48am — Mike Masnick

One point that often comes up (from all sides) in discussions about draconian copyright laws is the fact that, rather than worrying about copyright, new musicians can just ignore the legalities with no one being harmed. If only that were true. Earlier this year, we wrote about how those licensing policies in the US and overly aggressive enforcement by ASCAP and BMI meant that fewer and fewer venues were willing to host open mic nights, significantly harming how many young musicians get their start. Over in the UK, where venue licensing rules have reached such ridiculous levels that a woman playing the radio for her horses has to buy a performance license from PRS, it appears that politicians are finally recognizing there's a problem. A new government report is saying that such aggressive licensing policies are holding back young musicians by making it too difficult for venues to allow live performance of music:

"The licensing requirements are still too bureaucratic and costly, particularly for non-commercial groups such as sports clubs, not-for-profit establishments and organisers of occasional events. Our report calls on the government to relax restrictions in this area, which in some cases are unnecessarily draconian, and in others simply absurd."

So, it's important to remember that while you'd like to think those who recognize such draconian laws are bad can just "opt-out," it's not always so easy. The wider impact of these laws can seriously stifle opportunities for new musicians.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, harm, licensing, uk, up-and-coming bands

6 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 6:00am

umm, the story is about licensing as in occupation style permits, not music right. Nice try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 6:07am

Re:
Um, what are you talking about? That's not what the story says. That's not what the report that the story is about says.

Troll elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 6:08am

Re: Re:
And since you obviously didn't read the story and won't believe AC #2:

"The MPs called for Metropolitan police form 696, which requires performers to give the name and date of birth of all performers as well as specifying the "musical style" of the act, to be scrapped.

In one of the more extreme examples of the form's impact, a charity concert in London for a teenage cancer victim was cancelled because organisers had not filled in a police form, said Whittingdale."

This is, again, about "performances" not "occupations".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 10:46am

it is licensing to have an event not licensing to use someones copyrighted music. occupation / use of location permit, not copyright or other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 11:46am

France, global licence + copyrights
I know you guys aren't big fans of global licensing and especially mandatory global licensing, and copyrights. How about BOTH??????

Apparently the SACEM (french equivalent of the RIAA) is now gunning for a tax on ISPs in order to be compensated for the fact that people use the Internet to download music and somehow benefit from music existing! Now, France already taxes all storage devices because it allows private copies to be made.

This is the absolute best business model ever! You make money off what is now a basic necessity without having to provide it AND you get to sell strings of 1s and 0s! This is brilliant!

Perhaps we should tax auto manufacturers because people use their cars to go to the movies and therefore, an externalities is generated by movies...

In French: http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/48524-taxe-fai-sacem-creation-internet.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ACUMEN Business Law, 26 May 2009 @ 4:22am

Performance issues & Licensing Act 2003
It's true to say that live performance is hindered by the UK's licensing regimen. Before the 2003 Act was implemented, the "two men in a bar" rule, allowing any bar to have up to 2 performers together without needing any further consent, created opportunities for young creatives. The loss of this has been a cultural blow to the UK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]