Rod Sims: Governments must not give AI companies a free

Paying rights holders appropriately for their content gives them the incentive to keep creating content; not paying them has the reverse effect, which should worry us all

At the end of June, Australian Sen. David Pocock alleged that the Albanese government was considering two competing proposals to change copyright policy for AI training. Pocock said one proposal would create a copyright “carve-out” for artificial intelligence companies tied to billions of dollars in data centre investment and hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a creative fund. The other proposal instead would expand licensing agreements that would clear the way for AI companies to legally use Australian material to train their proprietary technology.

While the detail is not available, these proposals on the surface are deeply problematic. But first, what other sector refuses to negotiate with suppliers and instead goes to government to bypass such a step? When the chief executive of Anthropic came to Australia recently he spent a lot of time with the government, but it seems no time with those whose content he needs.

This is a familiar pattern with tech companies. They provide content to users as if it is their own but do not feel obliged to pay for it; Anthropic, for example, recently reached a US$1.5-billion (C$2.1-billion) court settlement of a class action taken by authors. In the simplest example, if you ask a search engine or AI what is going on in economics or politics anywhere in the world they will usually distill the content of media organizations to provide the answer.

The platform or AI company has no ability to answer the query; they have no resources devoted to doing this. They supply the platform and algorithms, which are valuable but useless without the content they call on. Traditionally, they have wanted this content for free.

That they often are successful is reflected in the stratospheric valuations of these organizations, while the value of those providing the necessary content is falling to the point that their existence is threatened. Society must care about this anomaly. Quality media underpins our democracy as it provides a vital

Source and reference

journal of record, a forum for informed debate and establishes necessary shared facts. Our writers, artists and composers are fundamental to our culture and identity. We cannot know the accuracy of Pocock’s allegations but we do know that discussions have occurred and that the two proposals appear to align with what the AI companies are seeking. We cannot, therefore, be complacent. The flaws in the first proposal seem clear. In essence they remove rights holders’ control over their content and pass this to AI companies. No ability to withhold their content; no ability to understand how their content is used; no ability to control how it is shown; and an uncertain payment. Without these features there is no copyright protection; copyright means payment and control. Further, there have been many suggestions concerning “creative funds” to finance future works. Such funds misalign whose...

Read original source

Why this matters locally

This technology story matters locally because it may affect readers, businesses, commuters, families, or public services in British Columbia.

Local impact

BC Post links this item to British Columbia coverage so readers can follow related city updates, weather, traffic, events, and category news in one place.

Timeline