MAKE IT FAIR: UK publishers unite against government's AI copyright madness

Once again, those in power fail to understand where the value sits in the content creation chain and have allowed themselves to become bewitched by AI promises.

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 16:11, 27 February 2025

Last updated: 16:11, 27 February 2025

Being able to unite separate entities in a common cause is never easy, even more so when those entities enjoy a long and at times bitter history of enmity, both ideological and commercial.

Step forward then the government of the United Kingdom. In an event without precedent, every single major commercial news publisher in the country has this week united to denounce government plans to weaken the country's copyright laws for the purposes of making it easier for AI companies to train their systems on creative content, including songs, books and movies, as well as news media.

The "Make It Fair" campaign featured on every single front page, online and print. Such a powerful unified response, matched by direct lobbying of the government by the News Media Association, the industry umbrella grouping that has achieved such a moment of remarkable common purpose, has actually made politicians sit up and notice.

The news organisations were joined by leading UK musicians, including such luminaries as Annie Lennox and Kate Bush, to release a completely silent album, the track listing of which spells out the message: "The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies."

A government spokesman responded that the UK's "current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential - and that cannot continue".

I'd like to "realise the full potential" of the spokesman's lunch by eating all of it, as it amounts to the same thing.

How then, did we come to such a situation, a situation in which AI, a sector awash with cash, is about to be given commercial precedence over those who produce the original content AI must feed on, and who aren't generally awash with cash? What thinking takes us in this commercially illiterate direction?  

To understand, it is necessary to take a step and look at the current state of the relationship between power with tech. While we'll use the UK as an example for this, the lessons are surely applicable to many other nations, where similar forces are contending for influence.

For politicians in a bind, AI is a panacea. For them, and more widely, the very use of the term evokes a wondrous technologically-enabled future. It enables them to sell a dream, and when political reality is anything but a dream, it's not surprising they grasp at such notions.

We have a Prime Minister who recently dangled the prospect of AI being used to locate the nation's potholes. Given that the average Brit now has pet names for the most spectacular of such holes in their neighbourhood, such is the time they've had to become familiar with them, locating the hazards that need to be fixed isn't really an issue. It's really quite insulting to think that inserting the magic "AI" term would fool us into thinking otherwise. 

To illustrate this, it's worth noting that the UK Prime Minister's Adviser on AI Opportunities, Matt Clifford, also had a role in the previous administration. While it's not unknown for an advisor to serve governments of a different political hue, it's not usual, given that different governments have different views on how to do things, and use people broadly in line with those views. Normally, the Downing Street cat is the main survivor from one administration to another.

Yet AI is above this political fray, it seems. Uniquely, it sits above normal considerations and is treated to an almost theological position within the current body politic. The fact that an AI investor occupies such a position may explain how we ended up where we are about copyright protections.

I'm not offering an opinion on Mr Clifford's abilities, as they do seem quite considerable, however, as Beeban Kidron, Lady Kidron, has pointed out, there are potential conflicts of interest in his position, saying "It is obvious, that if you only listen to those who stand to benefit from a policy then you will hear that it is a great idea … This is a shameful policy based on lobbyist numbers and takes no account of the national interest."

We, as publishers, can be confident that our voice is a more distant one to the centres of power than such a gentlemen as Mr Clifford. We are not saying the things the government wants to hear, all wrapped up in the promise of technology. At least the tech bro on the other side of the Atlantic conducts his troublesome business in public.

Speaking of which, it's no secret that the UK government is seeking to attract US AI investment. Hence the UK recently sitting out on signing the recent AI safety agreement put together by the EU, and adopting the position of the US on it. The copyright move is part of that effort to attract investment too, no doubt. By making the nation's content production open to AI data harvesting, the government has grasped on a solution that uses the primary creative capital we have as a lure for AI players to consider the UK as base.

Yet the problem with that, other than the fact it's stupid, is that it's a one-time only deal. Once done, it's hard to undo, and the longer term consequences of making every producer of content in the UK work to improve the bottom line of businesses they have no association with, and no gain from, remain an unknown, but it's hard to imagine how they will be good.