Many MP's have now received many letters, with variable results. Some have been conscientious and actually attempted to think about the issues, with generally supportive replies. Very few have written back that they think it a splendid Bill that is just what photography needs. Most have lazily ducked their constituent's request and referred to senior colleagues who've provided a form response that fails to answer points raised.

Politicians not listening is the trouble we have had through years of consultation and it just isn't good enough. Both Labour and Tory parties still do not understand the problems presented by the Digital Economy Bill and have their fingers in their ears. They still intend voting as they're told by their Whips. Clearly they have to be encouraged to think for themselves, no matter how reluctant they are.

Here is one politely brutal follow-up letter directed by Simon, a less-than-satisfied photographer, to his unfortunate MP. You may wish to adapt it to suit the party affiliation of your elected vegetable. Also, unlike Simon you may not wish to send a £100 donation to their opposition candidate :-)

"As you may be aware, Digital Economy Bill Clause 42 was not amended in the House of Lords on Monday. The Bill now passes to the House of Commons after a third reading in the House of Lords

The shadow minister for Culture, Media and Sport has outlined the Conservative position on Clause 42 and I therefore conclude that the Conservative party intends to support both the concept and principle of commercial exploitation of orphan works, and will not oppose Clause 42.

This is despite a strong presentation of reasoning against this decision, outlined in the EPUK briefing paper circulated to various Conservative Lords prior to the debate. As an example of the unworkable nature of the government's ideas, Lord Young suggested during the debate that creators could search the "orphan register" for any of their pictures... however, searching for a specific image is technically impossible and unless the creator examines each orphan image one-by-one... Lord Young's reasoning is not based on real world evidence and is unworkable in practice. The Conservative position of "maintaining metadata" was explained away by Lord Young, citing existing legislation as a safeguard. This again is an example of disconnection with reality - one has to prove the intent to deceive by stripping identifying data from a digital image. This practice of stripping metadata is widespread within the media industry but as it is almost impossible to prove intent, this action remains unpunished. Creation of orphan works remains accepted practice.

The Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Clement-Jones presented a very strong case in the chamber against Clause 42, a case that defeated line by line Lord Young's reasoning to keep the clause. It is regrettable that there was an insufficient number of Lords present on opposition benches to ensure victory in a vote, so the amendment was withdrawn. Nevertheless, this stance by the Liberal Democrats was admirable and far beyond what your party has done. With this in mind I shall consider a donation of £100 to the Liberal Democrat challenging your seat a reasonable token of my thanks.

Normally I would simply place my X somewhere else on the ballot paper, but Clause 42 is such a fundamental change to copyright, a change that breaks the very core of creative protection, that I feel compelled to take direct action and in addition to the donation to your opposition, I intend to conduct a negative campaign against your reelection. The reasoning behind this action is simple; why should you continue to enjoy an income when you are choosing to support Clause 42, a clause that will damage my ability to control, license and monetise my creative endeavors?

But it is not too late. There is debate in the House of Commons and the Conservative Party could amend its position. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could:-

1. Forward me the list of Members, regardless of party, who are dealing with this Bill as it passes through the parliamentary process.

2. Forward my representations to those within your party who form the policy and ask them to satisfy the points raised in the attached briefing paper. Not just a template letter reply, but something that actually demonstrates that they have understood the argument, considered the implications and have developed a point-by-point reply to either accept or counter the reasoning. So far, I feel the detail has either been a) misunderstood or b) glossed over and poorly considered.

3. When it comes to the vote, be present in the chamber and vote against this Bill.

4. If you cannot vote against this Bill, grant me a 30 minute session in your next surgery, allowing you to explain your decision and reasoning as to why you think Clause 42 is worthy of continued support."