Yeah, this is what I was worried about. "License maintenance", lol, that's a load of BS. The term doesn't even make sense really. If it was really "license maintenance", he should be charging you for every song you play that isn't original, not just ones that you use a back track for. He's just trying to squeeze extra money out of you. Maybe he feels justified since you don't have a band to share the money with, but that term is 100% bogus. If they had called it a "single performer fee" then I would say, "that's lame, but okay...". But calling it a "license maintenance fee" is downright sleazy. They're clearly just trying to squeeze a few extra bucks out of people who don't know any better or who aren't in a position to negotiate. I'm pretty sure it's legal for them to charge you whatever the want as long as you agree to it beforehand. If they spring it on you afterwards then it might be time to get the union involved... I'm kind of surprised that people are getting away with this. It ought to hurt their reputation, since anybody who knows anything is going to see right through it as a completely BS "fee" (this is probably why the big/respectable places aren't doing it to you). But I guess if you refuse to play because of it, there are plenty of other people they could hire... "The business side of music sucks" But the more you know, the better you can avoid being taken advantage of.