We do not need to change copyright law, we need transparency
AI data scraping is an urgent assault on publishing – and the British economy.
The government frequently says that its Data (Use and Access) Bill was not the right vehicle for dealing with artificial intelligence (AI) companies access to copyright data. That is a ridiculous assertion, not least because the Public Bills office, which determines what is and is not in scope, allowed me to put forward transparency amendments for AI, but also because the question of how AI companies scrape data without which they cannot build their models/businesses is the single most urgent data issue confronting us. Perhaps the blinding silliness of this argument hides a more serious use of misinformation by the government in making its argument, so here are three of the arguments that have been circulated against the amendment over the past few weeks.
First, I reject the notion that those of us who have raised our voices against government plans are against technology. Creative people are early adopters of technology. Their minds are curious and their practices innovative. In my former career as a film director, I watched the UK film industry transform from working on celluloid to being a world-leading centre of digital production. For the past five years at Oxford’s Institute for Ethics in AI, where I am an advisor, I have been delighted to watch the leaps and bounds of AI development. Those at the frontier of AI development are creative thinkers and creative people are natural innovators. The government’s attempt to divide us is wrong.
Creators do not deny the creative and economic value of AI, but we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work and then rent it back from those who stole it. Ours is not an argument about progress but about value. The AI companies fiercely defend their own internet protocol (IP) but deny the value of our work. Not everything new is progress, not everything that already exists is without value, but we, the creative industries, embody both change and tradition and we reject the assertion that we are standing in the way of change. We are merely asserting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK’s future growth.
Secondly, there is no confusion about copyright law in relation to AI, nor does the phenomenal number of submissions to the consultation prove anything other than the widespread outrage of the creative industries that the government sought to redefine theft rather than uphold their property rights. The amendment does not change copyright. We do not need to change copyright law. We need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law, because what you cannot see you cannot enforce.
We reject the assertion that we are standing in the way of change. We are merely asserting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK’s future growth
Continues...
Read More
Thirdly, I rebut the idea that this is the wrong bill and the wrong time. AI did not exist in the public realm until the early 2020s. The speed and scale at which copyright works are being stolen is eye-watering. Property that people have invested in, have created, have traded and that they rely on for their livelihood is being stolen at all parts of the value chain. It is an assault on the British economy, happening at scale to a sector worth £120 billion to the UK, an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import. It is happening now and we have not even begun to catch up with the devastating consequences. If this bill does not protect copyright, then by the time the government works out its policy there will be little to save.
The language of AI – scraping, training, data modules, large language model (LLMs) – does not evoke the full picture of what is being done. AI corporations, many of which are seeking to entrench their existing information monopolies, are not stealing nameless data. They are stealing some of the UK’s most valuable cultural and economic assets – Harry Potter, the entire back catalogue of every music publisher in the UK, the voice of Hugh Grant, the design of an iconic handbag and the IP of our universities, great museums and library collections. Even the news is stolen in real time, all without payment, with economic benefits being taken offshore.
It costs UK corporations and individuals their hard-earned wealth and the Treasury much needed revenue. It also denudes the opportunities of the next generation because, whether you are a corporation or an individual, if work is stolen at every turn you cannot survive.
So, there are two terrible tragedies unfolding: first, the government is undermining one of our greatest industrial sectors; secondly, it may be on a path to squandering for all time the UK’s opportunity to take its rightful place in the new world of AI as a global leader in the AI supply chain.
Generative AI depends on three things: skill, energy for compute and high-quality data. We punch above our weight on skills, but are no match for the US and China. Without lowering our energy costs fivefold, the natural choice will be for AI firms to train elsewhere.
However, the UK has a disproportionate amount of quality data, a huge proportion of which is the intellectual property owned by our powerhouse creative industries.
We should be creating market conditions that ensure our creators can continue to contribute to the culture, soft power and long-term sustainable growth of our four nations. The economic argument is overwhelming: it is a crucial part of our nation’s assets and the foundation of its future in the AI economy, which cannot be replaced by a handful of data centres. The moral argument is also unassailable: creators’ work is the result of their labour. It is their property and it is for them to determine what they do with it.
It is hard to understand how the government can justify turning its back while offshore companies steal UK property; how the government can stand tall in the light of pre-election promises to put creativity back in the DNA of the country when its best offer is a review on an infinite timeline.
I am grateful to peers of all political persuasions who have made clear to the 2.4 million people who make up the creative industries and their dependants, to the would-be creators of the future and to the citizens of the UK who enjoy and benefit from their creativity, that their property, their labour, is worthy of our protection. Apart from anything else, it is not ours to give away.
This article is adapted from Baroness Kidron’s speech to the House of Lords on May 12th. You can view the full speech at: hansard.parliament.uk
