With apologies for the short deadline, but I’ve only just seen this (thanks to Mrs Pigfender, who told me about it).
The UK Govt has an open consultation on its plans to regulate AI and copyright, and I believe they should hear views on this from as wide as possible; not just the kind of individuals likely to be notified and directly invited to contribute who are heavily invested in the tech / AI industry or the corporate side of publishing.
This consultation seeks views on how the government can ensure the UK’s legal framework for AI and copyright supports the UK creative industries and AI sector together.
The deadline is this Tuesday (25th February) — again, apologies. The consultation period has been open for a while, but as I note above, I’ve only just found it.
You can read the consultation documents, which include the various options being considered, and then respond online via a survey if so inclined by following this link:
I have strong opinions on both AI and copyright — you may have seen me talk about some of them on this forum. Please consider responding to this consultation whether you agree with my opinions or not, as the decisions made now will have a large and lasting impact on us as writers and artists from the UK and the rest of the world.
Tagging @KB@kewms@AmberV as, with apologies, I’m conscious that this could become a charged thread (as other AI posts have).
As a reminder to all that, despite the fact that I might seem like part of the furniture at times, I don’t work here and certainly don’t speak for anyone but myself. I’d be grateful if — if you do post here in this thread — to keep it respectful of others and their views. And a second reminder: posting here is not a substitute to responding to the Consultation.
The Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) have provided a guidance page. Note that although there are 50-odd questions, you are not required to complete all of them.
Someone has provided some template response that might be useful to guide your own.
(For non-Brits: John Naughton is a veteran tech journalist, who now works at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH).)
I swear, if there was an option to be plugged into the Matrix and be a battery but you get to think you’re back in the 1990s, I would take it.
I don’t understand why there is some deep desire to balance and consider equal the rights of people who make things and the people who want to steal things.
Anyway, the deadline for responses is today, people. We can continue the debate forever, but the people making decisions will stop listening at midnight tonight, so make sure (if this is an issue you care about) you carve out some time to respond today.
If only because the people who stand to profit from the restriction of copyright so they can bring about “the AIrmageddon” probably have access to tools to generate lots of responses to the Consultation quickly, cheaply and without recourse.
I started writing a response to this comparing the potential state-theft to the Enclosures – formally the Inclosure Acts – but it’s a long story and probably not a good comparison because of the stolen item being common land rather than private IP. Still, the outcome is the same.
Nevertheless, there is a direct link to the divine right of kings to this – and queens: Elizabeth I is by far the most entrepreneurial of the monarchs in a very capitalist way, and had the option of hanging people if they got in her way.
Anyway, the land has shifted quite a bit since this proposal was introduced, so here’s hoping it will sink into the mire of appalling ideas.
The idea that, simply because it is a large and growing industry, governments should legislate to allow it to flourish is really troublesome to me. Other large and highly profitable industries both globally and in the UK include “drugs”, “fraud” and “theft”. Like those industries, AI has a huge potential (in my opinion) to be highly detrimental to society, to severely harm ordinary individuals, and have wider disastrous consequences to the environment.
We live in a world that has agreed that if your great grandfather built a hotel, you and your descendants can profit off that in perpetuity; but if your great grandmother wrote “Pride & Prejudice”, well f**** you. The creative industries have taken enough of a beating over the past 25 years. Do we really want to pile this on too?
“Some talented person made something and I really don’t see why I should have to wait until they’ve been dead for 70 years to steal it.”
~ The Tech Billionaires
My problem with all this is, in my experience of similar consultations by similar organisations, that they have taken to heart what Ken Livingstone said when he was Mayor of London and trying to force through building a tram service through Acton, against total objections from the public, the local council and the transport services:
“I have to consult you, but I don’t have to listen.”
Or words to that effect.
Fortunately, he was ousted as Mayor before he succeeded in forcing it through, but for this one…
