Outrage at Glasgow City Council Art Licence

Please excuse the quality of english and grammatical correctness in the following post. There is a reason... I am angry and outraged

I have just found out that Glasgow City Council are introducing a law which states that any premises providing entertainment (and apparently Art is a form of entertainment) will need to pay £600 to have a licence for doing so. At the moment a Public Entertainment licence is required only if there is an admission fee to the premises hosting the entertainment, but as of April 2012, any premises offering entertainment, regardless of if there is an entrance fee will need the licence.

A number of thoughts are spinning round my head:

If premises have to apply for a licence, then does this mean that the Glasgow City Council has the power to reject an application and therefore impose some kind of censorship

Surely the council realise that Glasgow has built up its reputation as an exciting city to be an artist in because of the number of pop-up exhibitions, DIY attitude, artist run galleries etc, and that by introducing such a licencing law, these things will no longer be able to happen - those in the arts have no money!

The new law has been cunningly announced only a few months prior to Glasgow International, the major visual art festival that sees many unused buildings and public sites used as contexts for exhibitions.

Is art entertainment?
According to Dictionary.com entertainment is "something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind".

I have been to many an art exhibition where I have not come out smiling nor did I find it a pleasurable experience - was I entertained at these galleries?

I strongly believe that the artistic community needs to, (and will) stand up to the Council.