The following from Hamish Birchall  http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

The Musicians Union is to join the Licensing Act demonstration outside 
Parliament on 22nd October.  The demo was first announced by Equity on 30 
September. But the MU is not promoting the Number 10 licensing petition 
which now has nearly 12,500 signatures: 
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livemusicevents/

Readers of the two unions' demonstration press releases, issued 10 days 
apart, might reasonably have concluded that this was not a joint project. 
Neither union cited the other as a participant.  However, on 9th October the 
MU finally declared on their website that it is a joint demonstration, and 
that they continue to lobby for an exemption for small gigs:

'We are continuing to lobby the Government for a small venues exemption to 
the Licensing Act for gigs with 200 people or less.  To this end, we are 
running a joint demonstration with Equity in Parliament Square on Thursday 
22 October 2009 at 11.30am.  The lobby is set to coincide with a debate 
later that afternoon in Parliament on licensing and live entertainment.  A 
bulk email invitation has been sent out to all London, Gig, Jazz and Folk 
Section members.'
http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/site/cms/v4_newsArticleView.asp?article=900

The MU goes on to justify their promotion of the existing exemption for 
'incidental music'.  However, their London office performance cited as an 
example is not comparable to a public gig in a bar, and in any case would 
have been exempt as a private not-for-profit event without recourse to the 
incidental music exemption.  After four years of the new regime many local 
authorities continue to interpret the incidental music exemption 
restrictively, not allowing a duo in a restaurant, for example, if the gig 
is publicly advertised.

Significantly, the MU and Equity appear to differ over the possible 
reintroduction of the old 'two in a bar rule' - an entertainment licensing 
exemption for one or two live performers.  Equity's publicity explicitly 
includes this as a desired outcome of lobbying. The MU publicity does not. 
An exemption for one or two unamplified live performers was one of the key 
recommendations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, along with an 
exemption for venues up to 200 capacity, and the scrapping of Form 696. All 
were rejected by the government.

However, the two unions are most clearly divided over the Number 10 
licensing petition.  Equity continues to encourage members to sign: 
http://www.equity.org.uk/article.aspx?id=233  but the MU confirmed last week 
that it is not promoting the petition on the grounds that 'it is factually 
incorrect in that the Licensing Act does not criminalise live music'.

This is very strange, because even licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe seems 
to accept that the Act criminalises live music.  In a recent letter to 
Labour MP Roger Berry he implicitly accepted the description:

'Although live music campaigners often talk of the criminalisation of 
theoretically innocuous activities, such as putting a piano in a pub, it 
should be remembered that some premises are very close or even adjacent to 
private residences and even such supposedly harmless activities can cause 
noise nuisance.   The Licensing Act 2003 does not prevent live music taking 
place, but it does ensure that some consideration is given to how local 
residences and businesses might be affected by it.'

It is also unlikely that the Number 10 petition website team would have 
allowed the petition if it were misleading.  Their petition terms and 
conditions state:

'... where a petition is accepted which contains misleading information we 
reserve the right to post an interim response to highlight this point to 
anyone visiting to sign the petition.'
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/terms

Strictly speaking, the Act criminalises the unlicensed provision of live 
music, where a licence is required, not the music-making.  But this is 
really hair-splitting.  In any case, the legislation is sweeping in the 
range of events that it captures, defining a premises as 'any place', and 
with only limited exemptions explicitly set out in the Act.  Musicians are 
among those who may face prosecution for illegal gigs. Although venue 
managers and gig promoters are those most likely to be prosecuted, musicians 
would be in the firing line too if they were concerned in the organisation 
or management of the event.

So, for practical purposes the Act does criminalise live music.  Lawyers 
active in the campaign endorse this position.  Richard Bridge, solicitor and 
folk musician, said:

'Providing live music for an audience is a crime, and so is providing a 
piano for anyone to play to amuse themselves, whether there is an audience 
or not, unless it is licensed. There are other relaxations but they do not 
affect the central thrust. It seems to me that "criminalising live music" is 
a very fair description.

'That leaves the question of what the Musicians' Union thinks it is up to.'

ENDS