It’s a seductive promise: let our computers scrape the internet for ideas, images, forms of words, stories, music, jokes … and our industry will make your country rich. For a UK government desperate for economic growth, the demands of tech companies for copyright laws to be relaxed – in order that their artificial intelligence (AI) systems can access as much online content as possible without having to pay or seek permission – have been hard to resist. The US and China are the global leaders of this new tech race. But the UK has a chance to compete that ministers are desperate not to miss.
To AI businesses, copyright is an irritant. Three years ago, it appeared that their lobbyists were on the verge of getting their way when a government agency, the Intellectual Property Office, recommended an exemption for data mining. This would grant bots free rein and – so the argument went – provide an incentive for tech companies to invest in the UK.
The proposal was not taken up. Unfortunately, it was not killed off either. And the consultation regarding AI and copyright law being run by the current government, which concludes on Tuesday, is framed in terms that are far too favourable to big tech.
Currently, the law is very clear. The makers of works of art, and other products of human creativity, including journalism, have for centuries been entitled to protection from copyists. Drawing a line between influence and imitation is not always straightforward, and can lead to interesting court cases. But the principle that original material cannot be ripped off and that creative people have rights over their work is widely understood and accepted.
It is not surprising that big tech decided these rules did not apply to AI. Breaking things is, famously, part of the Silicon Valley ethos. Already, AI firms have absorbed a vast amount of material that they ought to have been obliged to pay for. There are parallels with the way that US social media companies built advertising-funded businesses that were heavily reliant on content, including news, that was paid for by others. Once again, regulators as well as other industries are struggling to keep up. But it is individual artists, writers and musicians, and smaller creative and media organisations and businesses, who are most in danger of being left behind.
It is easy to see why ministers are attracted by big tech’s boundless self-belief. Who doesn’t hope that new technology will help to solve some of the world’s many problems? But JD Vance, the US vice-president, was wrong to criticise European governments for being “too self-conscious, too risk-averse”, at the AI summit held in Paris earlier this month. It is concerning that the UK, like the US, refused to sign a declaration committed to safety and sustainability.
Thankfully, artists including Paul McCartney and Elton John have stepped up to make the case against big tech anti-regulation – and in favour of the continued protection of human artistry. In the House of Lords, an amendment to the government’s data bill, asserting that licences to copyrighted material must be actively sought rather than taken for granted, was accepted. Ministers who have had their heads turned by the promise of new data centres and a seat at the AI table should reconsider their priorities and obligations. Big tech should have no more rights over the work of others than anybody else.
