Also, if the tory MP thinks this is just about money, he is mistaken. This is more than just money, this is also about creativity, innovation and most importantly, how much of a bragging right does the owner have. Which can not be unlimited.

If they want to lead a proper way in copyright, they should look at Japan. Where fandom is encouraged, and though fandom new talent has appeared like for example CLAMP, and Shibntia Ina (A well known cosplayer). But now the anti-pirates want to ruin Japan as well with a similar “coup” they are doing in the UK and France, as if they have already damaged them enough now they want to “blackmail” them. It could dangerously impact the anime industry, half of which is independently produced, and some are even sponsored (the program itself not the slot like here in the UK) by companies of all sizes (One was even sponsored by Sega).

I could go on about this but lets try to keep to topic. The point is that the USA is no model when it comes to innovation or creativity.

Having gone back and read the Culture, Media and Sport report it does seem a bit of a sudden switch:

‘Gowers’ analysis was thorough and in economic terms may be correct. It gives the impression, however, of having been conducted entirely on economic grounds. We strongly believe that copyright represents a moral right of a creator to choose to retain ownership and control of their own intellectual property. We have not heard a convincing reason why a composer and his or her heirs should benefit from a term of copyright which extends for lifetime and beyond, but a performer should not.’

So they are saying economically Gowers is correct but morally incorrect, but then goes on to argue for copyright extension on economic grounds:

‘We recommend that the Government should press the European Commission to bring forward proposals for an extension of copyright term for sound recordings to at least 70 years, to provide reasonable certainty that an artist will be able to derive benefit from a recording throughout his or her lifetime.’

Personally I think this represents an opportunity for Britain to lead the way, just because other countries have extended copyright does not mean we have to follow, and Britain could reap the benefits of a shorter copyright period (as could artists whose early work enters the public domain, but whose later work remains under copyright.

As for the problem of longer terms for artists and composers? Just shorten them to 50 years as well!

Judging by the response, it seems the Conservatives are still at crunch point. The rumour is that David Cameron supports the anti-pirates (especially after the visit to the BPI, or should that be BPI Ltd), but George Osborne is well, against the anti-pirates (I won’t say pro-pirate or pro-personal use since i don’t know.)

Put it this way, the Conservatives have a choice, they either reform a portion of the tory ideology for the 21st Century or they go on the endangered species list

Can i also recommend people say which parties these MPs are. For the record, Tom Watson MP is Labour. (And also for the record, no response from him. I have not sent a e-mail yet)

‘Last year the Treasury-commissioned Gowers review consulted widely on
this issue. The review into intellectual property rights recommended
that the European Commission should retain the length of protection on
sound recordings and performers’ rights at 50 years. Andrew Gowers’
report said that protection should not be extended as it would damage
the UK’s trade balance and would provide little benefit to performers,
consumers or the creative industries.

However, a recent report into this issue by the Culture, Media and Sport
Committee reached a very different conclusion and recommended that the
copyright term should be extended to at least 70 years. The Committee
concluded that an extension to 70 years would be most appropriate on the
basis that it would ‘provide reasonable certainty that an artist will be
able to derive benefit from a recording throughout his or her lifetime’.

Broadly speaking, Conservatives are supportive of the arguments that
have been put forward in support of an extension of the copyright term.
We accept that the current copyright term is putting our musicians at a
disadvantage compared to their counterparts in other countries and
composers in the UK. Conservatives believe that our music industry
should have the same sort of protection that countries such as the USA
and Australia have. We also accept that an extension would reduce the
unfair disparity with composers and artists (who receive copyright of
life plus 70 years).

I appreciate that some, including Andrew Gowers, have questioned whether
it is in the public interest to extend the copyright term, but I think
that it is important to remember that the vast majority of musicians are
not rich celebrities, and royalties are vital for their professional
income. Furthermore, I think that it is in the public interest for
there to be adequate copyright protection to ensure the incentives are
there to encourage creative work.’

Perhaps a handout repudiating points in the Culture, Media and Sport Report more directly might help?