The Gower report took the view that the copyright term did not require extension after careful study of the situation. I fail to understand why Mr. Cameron feels so free to disregard their advice without justification. He seems keen to prevent the theft of intellectual property, but fails to see that a copyright term extension is theft from the public domain on a grand scale. As for his comments about people's attitude towards file sharing, perhaps this is a hint more effort should be put into prevention and investigation of crimes that people do care about, rather than spending the taxpayers money in the service of the record companies interests. If the British justice system became more concerned with actually delivering justice, many of the social problems to which he refers could be solved. Looking to the music industry to cure the ills of society is frighteningly naive.

Mike Brodbelt, London,

“Most people think these are all multimillionaires living in some penthouse flat. The reality is that many of these are low-earning session musicians who will be losing a vital pension.”

Session musicians are paid by the hour for their time in the studio. All of the copyrights under discussion are owned by the record labels and they are the only ones who would benefit from an extension of copyright.

Sam Thursfield, Llanymynech, Powys

When you listen to the industry groups, and rely on them for your information, you are bound to come out with drivel like this. David Cameron's arguments show no basis in actual fact, only the pseudo-facts that the record and film industries have been forcing down politicians throats for the last few years.

However, he is not alone in this, Arelene McCarthey MEP made statements in November 2004 that required the existance of time travel to be accurate. She claimed it was facts given by the Industry Trust for IP awareness. She didn't use child abuse, but did raise the other keyword as a flag - terrorists.

Is it really that much to ask for politicians to actually make decisions and policy statements based upon facts and logic, rather than which industry cartel they desire support from. As the writer Robert Rankin did put in one of his books, "you don't need to even have a GCSE in politics, speak a foriegn language, or have any ability in accounting to be Prime Minister"

Andrew Norton, Thomaston, Georgia, USA

"I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but I really don't think the music industry (as we know it today) will exist in 50 years..."

I would bet on 10.

Eduardo Shevardnadze, Redditch,

An attack on the basic freedom of free speech and artistic expression is pretty fundamental. To then trade this for a extension to a monopolistic right. And I was impressed with there stance on Open Source Software, Just lost my vote.

Stuart Ward, Bristol, UK

I have to disagree completely with the stance that Mr. Cameron has taken. I realise that he is a busy man, and it is sometimes easy to be swayed by persuasive arguments rather than hard facts. I urge him to ask one of his research assistants to show him the relevant parts of the recent Gowers Review, and the European Study - both of which came down firmly against an extension of the sound copyright period beyond 50 years. When all the facts are placed before him I would hope that Mr. Cameron will see that the BPI submission is full of half-truths and inaccuracies, and that extending the sound copyright period would do more harm than good. If he needs further convincing Mr. Cameron should look at what has happened in the USA. The major record companies release virtually none of their back catalogue whatsoever, leaving American music lovers to look towards Britain and other European countries to let them hear some of their great singers and orchestras from the last century.

David Ades, Seavington St Michael, England

The record industry is very selective in the facts they quote to MPs and some are 100% innacurate.

They are only interested in continuing to make money from a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of recordings more than 50 years old. Even if an extension granted, the handful of artists concerned would only benefit if the record companies chose to re-issue their recordings.

The claim that backing musicians and singers would benefit from an extension is a total myth – they were nearly always paid on a “per session” basis with no contract of any kind to ensure them a share of any royalties. Ask Cliff and Sir Paul what "pension" the members of the orchestras that backed many of their hits receives.

Nor do the record companies tell you that hundreds of composers who currently receive royalties from companies who re-issue out of copyright recordings would lose this income as these recordings would certainly not become available from the copyright owners.

Alan Bunting, Stirling,