The British copyright law is absurd. Why should people like the surviving Beatles and their families be denied income from the talents of the Fab Four? After all, they wrote and recorded the songs. 95 years is a fair compromise as it allows the artists, their children and granchildren to benefit.

Rob Stormont, Sydney, Australia

if a radio station attracts an audience based on its playlisted material which then attracts an advertising revenue, they make money. So,if that station has attracted that audience and advertiser based that music, a slice should go to copyright holder. As long as it's played, it should be paid for.

george burton, UK,

Whilst I'm sure that the people pushing this through are the large companies, this will benefit every little musician that ever produced a song. I'm all for it. They made it, it's theirs.

Jonathan Sklan-Willis, Manchester, England

The difference with drug's is that the only people that manufacture them - and retain the rights - are the major corporations. Also, there is a much larger benefit to the public of having legal generics. Cheaper and by far. The two can't be compared.

Jonathan Sklan-Willis, Manchester, England

Writers of both music and lyrics already get royalties for 70 years after their death.
Copyright in sound recordings belongs not to the artists but to the record companies, This is a cynical ploy, now that they see their "cash cows" slipping from their grasp. Odd how they never bothered before.

Richard, East Grinstead,

The government-commissioned Gowers Review in the UK advised against this change, arguing that term extension would result in increased costs imposed on the wider economy and society.

Find out more at http://www.soundcopyright.eu/learn

Michael Davies, Inverness, United Kingdom

The change in the law is not really for the likes of Cliff Richard, it's for the likes of EMI. Most of the really valuable copyrights belong to a small number of large companies.

TLJ, Birmingham,

Actually if this goes through band like the Beatles would be more likely and willing to put out upgraded and remastered versions of their work since they would continue to benefit. I am all for this. If I create something I should be able to pass it on you mu children like and property owner.

Maslov, San Francisco,

Copyright (limited to "one and twenty years") was devised by the government of 1709. About a decade later economic thought had advanced so far that the government was able to devise the South Sea Bubble.

_Felix, Nottingham,

Why should the UK government object to this? Im sure that with extra income there will be a lot of old needy ex-musicians who will then fall out of needing extra financial help from the government.

Or is the current deal far more financially beneficial to the government?

Makes you wonder...

G Smith, Coventry, England

Oh how sweet. So Pop music effectively gets immortal protection however new pharmaceuticals barely get to market before their protection runs out. If I was in the business of making a profit, I'd switch from researching for life saving compounds to producing three and a half minute tunes.

Terry Bruce, Reading, UK

I say scrap copyright altogether! Why should a select few be paid for a few minutes work they did in the past? If they want to earn money from music then they can get paid by performing like everyone else who works.
End copyright and the pop idol wannabes will disappear.

Chris, Littlehampton, UK

most seem to talk about the big names, but what about the one hit wonders and the session musicians, these artists are in the majority and need the income in their later years. ther work gave pleasure and many memories

gordon, plancoet , france

If this copyright extension goes into effect, then Beatles fans can say goodbye to any chance that Apple Corps(The Beatles' company) will ever agree to permit EMI Records to release the upgraded, remastered Beatles CD's that fans worldwide desire.

Phil Cohen, Bay Harbor Islands,Florida, U.S.A.

I am not a musician,but I still think that artists and composers
should be entitled to benefit from their works for the longer,proposed time period.

Nigel Thompson, Phuket, THAILAND

Another European law dictated by corporations that will be approved without consulting the public - the limits on royalty payments are there to move culture in the public demain where it belongs.

I hope nobody who reads this article ever buys an EMI CD again.

pete, london,

In a hundred years our descendents will laugh at copyright. Artists should make money on creating a song for about three years and then it should end. Why Paul McCartney should be paid every time Fool on the Hill is played in an elevator is beyond me. But for Edison he would not. Abolish it.

Phil Mornay, Hong Kong,

I don't see why the consumer should suffer simply because the original musicians were financially irresponsible. Back when they wrote these songs, they knew what the law was, and could've made some arrangements, rather than squandering it all.

Sam, Shanghai,

You know, I love the Beatles and Paul McCartney, but even after his divorce, does he really need a few million more? Why do these artists get paid for work they did 50 years ago? I certainly won't.

Pat, Dallas, USA

It's really hard to defend that as well as dining out on successes from the distant past, that these artists need to keep accruing further royalties. Can't they record, or tour, etc, in a word, work? What is Mr Daltrey going to do with the $? Buy another trout farm?

Jason Kennedy, Antigua, Guatemala