WEBVTT - AI: ‘The biggest act of copyright theft in history’ 0:00:01.240 --> 0:00:02.840 To be honest on here a little or lucktont we 0:00:03.680 --> 0:00:06.680 Over my career, I've always preferred doing rather than talking, 0:00:07.480 --> 0:00:11.200 building things, solving problems, creating new new ventures, not giving 0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:12.039 speeches about them. 0:00:12.560 --> 0:00:15.120 A few weeks ago, at Lassian co founder and one 0:00:15.160 --> 0:00:19.000 of Australia's wealthiest men, Scott Parquha addressed the Press Club. 0:00:19.600 --> 0:00:21.880 But I'm here today because I believe Australia is standing 0:00:21.880 --> 0:00:25.160 at the edge of the next great industrial revolution, one 0:00:25.160 --> 0:00:29.080 powered to not by steam or electricity, but by artificial intelligence. 0:00:30.240 --> 0:00:33.000 And like every revolution before it, the choices we make 0:00:33.080 --> 0:00:35.560 now will shape not just our economy, but the kind 0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:36.839 of country that we become. 0:00:38.000 --> 0:00:41.840 Singing the praises of the economic opportunity of artificial intelligence, 0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:45.559 Parqua called on the government to loosen the rules allowing 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:49.240 AI models to train themselves using creative works without paying 0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:53.120 for it. Now, as the Treasurer and the Productivity Commission 0:00:53.120 --> 0:00:56.640 talk about the potential billions AI could produce, there are 0:00:56.720 --> 0:00:59.040 questions about what it will mean for the future of 0:00:59.160 --> 0:01:08.200 creative work and journalism. I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening 0:01:08.360 --> 0:01:13.360 to seven am today. Principle at Good Company Law Hannah 0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:17.319 Marshall on the collision course between the AI art and 0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:31.520 the law. It's Friday, August fifteenth, Hannah. Let's begin our 0:01:31.560 --> 0:01:35.160 conversation about AI and the creative industries with what we're 0:01:35.200 --> 0:01:37.640 starting to see in terms of the broader impact on 0:01:37.760 --> 0:01:41.160 anyone who makes a living making any kind of art 0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:41.800 in Australia. 0:01:41.959 --> 0:01:45.440 The creative industries in Australia are on the cusp of 0:01:45.520 --> 0:01:49.919 crisis and we're seeing increasing outcry from all of thurs 0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:53.880 musicians and representatives of those industries about the fact that 0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:58.000 these AI companies are basically coming and using their content, 0:01:58.640 --> 0:02:03.480 deriving commercial value from that and not paying anything back 0:02:03.520 --> 0:02:06.680 to these creatives, so they're not seeing any outside even 0:02:06.720 --> 0:02:08.040 though their works are being used. 0:02:08.400 --> 0:02:11.280 Nearly eleven thousand creatives put their name to a letter 0:02:11.320 --> 0:02:15.200 that described the unauthorized use of their work by AI 0:02:15.600 --> 0:02:20.480 as and I quote major and an unjust threat. 0:02:20.880 --> 0:02:24.720 We're seeing groups like Creative Australia come out and say 0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:28.200 that they want to have principles for using their content 0:02:28.240 --> 0:02:31.160 in generative AI for it framed around fairness and the 0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:34.880 right to be remunerated. And we've also got prominent authors 0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:38.079 like Critchard Flanagan calling this the biggest act of copyright 0:02:38.120 --> 0:02:42.320 theft in history. His books, quite interestingly, were actually part 0:02:42.360 --> 0:02:45.440 of the trove of books which were the subject of 0:02:45.520 --> 0:02:48.960 a case against Meta in the US about whether they 0:02:49.000 --> 0:02:52.000 had infringed copyright in those books by using them to 0:02:52.080 --> 0:02:53.720 train their AI model. 0:02:54.160 --> 0:02:57.560 They accused Matter of illegally using their copyrighted works to 0:02:57.639 --> 0:03:01.680 train its flagship generative EI model. But instead of the 0:03:01.720 --> 0:03:05.239 declaration that Meta violated copyright law, the judge rule the 0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:08.200 plaintiff's arguments weren't strong enough to move forward. 0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:12.640 Odon And let's just spell out what is actually happening here. 0:03:12.720 --> 0:03:18.360 So we're talking about AI companies basically scouring works of literature, articles, 0:03:18.480 --> 0:03:22.040 news and using that material to train models to create 0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:23.679 better AI. Is that right? 0:03:23.919 --> 0:03:28.840 So when the AI model ingests content, there's an underlying 0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:33.640 technical question about whether it's making an actual copy of 0:03:33.720 --> 0:03:36.440 the copyright content in the learning process. 0:03:37.080 --> 0:03:39.000 Everyone tends to assume that it is. 0:03:39.400 --> 0:03:41.840 And none of the AI companies are kind of loudly 0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:44.320 coming out and saying that it doesn't. But that would 0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:47.560 be the precursor to the copyright infringement happening if it's 0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:50.520 not making a copy of it or reproducing a substantial 0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:53.080 part of the book or the song or whatever it 0:03:53.120 --> 0:03:56.240 is it's learning from, then there wouldn't be a copyright infringement. 0:03:56.320 --> 0:03:59.920 But we're not seeing that argument being seriously thrown out 0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:02.400 by the AI companies, and so for the most part, 0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:04.560 people are assuming that it must be some form of 0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:09.600 reproduction and therefore there's a potential for infringement absent some 0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:11.000 defense applying. 0:04:11.320 --> 0:04:13.520 And that, I suppose brings me to my next question. 0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:17.680 Is this breaking the law what these companies are doing 0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:20.160 or is this a gray area? 0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:24.760 A look, if it's reproducing it, then that's a copyright 0:04:24.800 --> 0:04:28.279 infringement unless a defense applies. And so that's kind of 0:04:28.279 --> 0:04:31.880 the bottom line. Under Australian law, we've got quite a 0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:35.080 narrow set of defenses, and so it's not clear that 0:04:35.120 --> 0:04:38.440 there is an obvious defense that the AI companies could 0:04:38.480 --> 0:04:41.159 rely on other than saying there was no infringement in 0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:41.880 the first place. 0:04:42.680 --> 0:04:45.279 So if that is the case, tell me a bit 0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:50.159 more than about how the AI companies are currently justifying 0:04:50.200 --> 0:04:50.800 what they're doing. 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:54.679 So last week Scott Farqua, the co founder of Lassian, 0:04:55.120 --> 0:04:59.360 came out quite loudly saying that copyright laws in Australia 0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:02.520 are holding at the growth of an AI industry here 0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:06.040 and that we need to change the laws urgently to 0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:08.320 facilitate the growth of the industries. 0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:13.080 We remain an outlier when it comes to copyright, so 0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:15.760 this is a barrier to AI companies who want to 0:05:15.800 --> 0:05:17.560 train or host their models in Australia. 0:05:17.760 --> 0:05:20.760 Specifically, what he wants is a new exception to our 0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:23.320 copyright laws for text and data mining. 0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:25.880 So my first ask today of government is for the 0:05:25.920 --> 0:05:29.880 Attorney General to urgently amend our Copyright Act to work 0:05:29.920 --> 0:05:33.680 at fair use and text and data mining exceptions. Fixing 0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:36.320 this one thing could unlock billions of dollars of foreign 0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.680 investment in Australia. 0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:44.080 And just as Scott Farqua, who is a billionaire, called 0:05:44.120 --> 0:05:47.320 for looser rules, we have the Productivity Commission release a 0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:51.839 paper arguing for the same thing. So what is their 0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:53.039 case in favor of this? 0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:57.720 The Productivity Commission, we're very loud and clear on the 0:05:58.800 --> 0:06:01.440 money to be made in short and the jobs to 0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:05.440 be gained from a growing AI industry in Australia. They 0:06:05.440 --> 0:06:08.479 said it could boost productivity by between point five and 0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:12.159 thirty percent over the next decade, which could be hundreds 0:06:12.200 --> 0:06:13.040 of billions of dollars. 0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:14.240 So it's a. 0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:17.960 Lot Artificial intelligence is a game changer for our economy. 0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:21.960 It has the potential to support all of our major 0:06:22.440 --> 0:06:27.640 economic goals, making our economy more productive, stronger, lifting living 0:06:27.680 --> 0:06:29.360 standards over time. 0:06:29.680 --> 0:06:33.239 And Charmers came out last week as well talking about 0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:38.320 how artificial intelligence will completely transform our economy and he 0:06:38.400 --> 0:06:41.800 said that the government's intention is to regulate as much 0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:43.840 as is necessary to protect. 0:06:43.440 --> 0:06:47.880 Australians, but as little as possible to encourage innovation. 0:06:48.520 --> 0:06:52.560 The only way to make our people and workers and 0:06:52.680 --> 0:06:57.080 industries beneficiaries is if we treat AI as an enabler, 0:06:57.160 --> 0:07:00.359 not an enemy of what we want to see in 0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:02.599 our economy. That means listening to people. 0:07:02.720 --> 0:07:05.400 But it's interesting that the you know, when other governments 0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:08.840 are exploring and reporting on AI, for the most part, 0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:12.040 they're focusing on how do we minimize harm from the 0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:15.000 AI industry, whereas this report it's really talking about how 0:07:15.040 --> 0:07:19.360 do we take away the regulatory hurdles so that it's 0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:22.200 easier for the AI industry to come here and use 0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:27.200 our creative's content. I mean, there's this really strong common 0:07:27.240 --> 0:07:30.280 thread about the desire to unlock the benefits of the 0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:35.480 AI industry, and you know, the creative industries are understandably 0:07:35.520 --> 0:07:38.280 really concerned that they'll be railroaded in all of this 0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:43.800 excitement about AI jobs and money, and looking at it globally, 0:07:45.040 --> 0:07:46.680 what you can see is that it's really hard to 0:07:46.680 --> 0:07:50.640 strike the good balance between the opportunity of the industry 0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:54.800 which is undeniable, but also protecting creative industries. And the 0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:58.400 risk is that because it's hard to strike that balance, 0:07:58.680 --> 0:08:00.320 that it will be done badly or. 0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:00.760 Not at all. 0:08:03.600 --> 0:08:06.880 Coming up, authors versus the tech giants battle it out 0:08:06.920 --> 0:08:18.200 in court, Hannah, let's talk about how this is playing 0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:21.520 out in other countries, specifically the US, where a lot 0:08:21.560 --> 0:08:24.800 of these AAR companies are based. What are we seeing 0:08:24.960 --> 0:08:26.440 happen in court so over. 0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:30.080 In the US, they have a broad exception to copyright 0:08:30.120 --> 0:08:33.959 infringement for fair use, and that's been tested already in 0:08:34.120 --> 0:08:38.720 cases against Meta and Anthropic in relation to books. And 0:08:38.720 --> 0:08:42.600 it's the cases that I mentioned before, which included Richard Flanagan's. 0:08:42.040 --> 0:08:44.520 Works, and the issue there was. 0:08:44.520 --> 0:08:46.680 That a trove of one hundred and eighty five thousand 0:08:46.880 --> 0:08:51.840 books had been used to train the AI models, and 0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:55.679 you know, from the author's perspective, that was rampant example 0:08:55.760 --> 0:09:00.960 of copyright infringement applying the fair use defense in the US, 0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:05.160 the court ultimately decided that it wasn't a copyright infringement, 0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:10.959 and the reason was that it wouldn't impact the downstream 0:09:11.320 --> 0:09:13.360 sale of those books. 0:09:13.480 --> 0:09:15.080 So the AI. 0:09:14.880 --> 0:09:18.280 Models were in jesting the book content, but they weren't 0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:20.840 spitting it out again. So you couldn't go on to 0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:24.920 say chat GPT and say give me a copy of 0:09:25.040 --> 0:09:26.440 Richard Flannagan's latest book. 0:09:26.880 --> 0:09:31.599 It would say no. So because the training wasn't being. 0:09:31.440 --> 0:09:35.840 Used to create a copy of the work, the court's 0:09:35.880 --> 0:09:40.319 decision was that it wasn't an unfair use of their work, 0:09:40.520 --> 0:09:43.760 and as such, the copyright infringement claims fail. 0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:49.120 Okay, So if we are to accept the argument that 0:09:49.280 --> 0:09:53.199 AI might be using this intellectual property making money off it, 0:09:53.320 --> 0:09:58.599 but that doesn't necessarily impact someone still going ahead and 0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:02.160 buying it for themselves, how does that apply when we 0:10:02.200 --> 0:10:05.800 think about nonfiction, when we think about journalism and news. 0:10:06.360 --> 0:10:10.439 Yeah, I think the analysis starts to change significantly when 0:10:10.520 --> 0:10:15.319 you look at nonfiction, but particularly news, because the value 0:10:15.360 --> 0:10:19.680 of those works is largely in the information they're conveying 0:10:19.800 --> 0:10:22.960 rather than necessarily the specific words used to do that. 0:10:23.600 --> 0:10:26.880 And so that means that, you know, using that US 0:10:27.040 --> 0:10:29.920 legal analysis in the books case, you might get a 0:10:29.960 --> 0:10:34.760 different outcome because if AI goes and ingests all of 0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:38.480 the seven am podcast library, all of the Sydney Morning Herald, 0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:43.920 it could spit out competing content and people could quite 0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:49.280 naturally use the AI tools to access and get news 0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:52.480 or nonfiction information from them in a way that does 0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:57.360 impact the market for the news publishers. And so that's 0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:00.480 the reason that I think AI is presenting almost an 0:11:00.480 --> 0:11:03.120 existential threat to the news industry. 0:11:03.840 --> 0:11:06.480 So, Hannah, if you wanted to both chase the economic 0:11:06.480 --> 0:11:11.320 opportunity of AI while protecting the creative industries, what do 0:11:11.440 --> 0:11:15.640 you think a good model that could do both would look. 0:11:15.600 --> 0:11:17.880 Like In terms of legal protections. 0:11:18.280 --> 0:11:22.200 At the moment in Australia, the current copyright laws do 0:11:22.320 --> 0:11:24.920 seem to create a degree of protection for creatives and 0:11:24.920 --> 0:11:28.079 that's what far Class A arguing against is that there 0:11:28.080 --> 0:11:31.199 does seem to be a standing assumption that there is 0:11:31.240 --> 0:11:35.199 an infringement in which case the AI companies have to 0:11:35.240 --> 0:11:38.040 buy a license. You know, that still seems like a 0:11:38.080 --> 0:11:41.920 reasonable outcome. If we were to go further though, and 0:11:42.000 --> 0:11:45.880 create a new law which mandates payment, that might add 0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:49.320 additional protection for the creative industry, but you would need 0:11:49.360 --> 0:11:53.640 to be really careful about unintended consequences, and we've seen 0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:57.679 that play out before with well intentioned legislation in the 0:11:57.679 --> 0:12:01.480 form of the News Media Bargaining Code. Because deals which 0:12:01.520 --> 0:12:05.239 facilitated payment by digital platforms through to the news companies 0:12:05.720 --> 0:12:10.000 were not transparent, they didn't cover the whole industry, they 0:12:10.040 --> 0:12:13.920 weren't renewed, and ultimately, to avoid being caught by the law, 0:12:14.200 --> 0:12:18.480 Meta exited the news industry and Australia altogether, which was a. 0:12:18.400 --> 0:12:20.560 Long way from the desired outcome of the law. 0:12:22.720 --> 0:12:26.200 People like Scott Farquha are saying Australia's copyright laws are 0:12:26.240 --> 0:12:28.480 a barrier to growth. 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:29.800 Of the AI industry. 0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:35.480 But that hasn't really been examined in detail. I can't imagine, 0:12:35.559 --> 0:12:39.760 given the funding and the revenue of these massive AI companies, 0:12:39.800 --> 0:12:43.400 that the cost of licensing the content that they're ingesting 0:12:43.920 --> 0:12:47.800 would be crippling or prohibitive. Nobody's really spelled out in 0:12:47.960 --> 0:12:52.040 detail why the AI companies can't just pay for a license, 0:12:52.280 --> 0:12:54.160 and that's the thing that really strucks me about all 0:12:54.200 --> 0:12:54.400 of this. 0:12:56.679 --> 0:12:58.520 Anna, thank you so much for your time. 0:12:58.840 --> 0:12:59.719 Thank you for having me. 0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:10.760 Also in the news today, salmon farming and Tasmania's Marcory 0:13:10.880 --> 0:13:14.439 Harbor will continue. The Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt has 0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:18.840 confirmed environmental groups, including the Bob Brown Foundation, had lodged 0:13:18.840 --> 0:13:21.760 a request for the government to reconsider its twenty twelve 0:13:21.840 --> 0:13:25.160 decision to allow for the expansion of salmon farming, citing 0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:29.319 concerns about the impact on the endangered Morgians skate. In 0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:32.160 a letter to three environment groups, Minister Watt said his 0:13:32.240 --> 0:13:35.440 decision to allow salmon farming to continue had considered all 0:13:35.480 --> 0:13:38.439 the evidence and that the government is committed to protecting 0:13:38.480 --> 0:13:42.960 the endangered animal. And Donald Trump has threatened very severe 0:13:43.040 --> 0:13:46.280 consequences if Vladimir Putin doesn't agree to a cease fire 0:13:46.320 --> 0:13:49.560 at their upcoming meeting in Alaska. Speaking after a call 0:13:49.600 --> 0:13:54.480 with European leaders, including Ukrainian President FLOTMW. Zelenski and Britain's Kiirstarmer, 0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:57.880 President Trump said that if his meeting with Putin goes well, 0:13:57.960 --> 0:14:01.560 Hill followed up quickly with another the meeting, bringing together 0:14:01.640 --> 0:14:05.720 Putin and Zelenski. Trump earlier raised concerns when he said 0:14:05.720 --> 0:14:09.800 he would discuss land swapping with Putin Zelenski has ruled 0:14:09.800 --> 0:14:15.000 out seeding territory to Russia. Seven Am is a daily 0:14:15.040 --> 0:14:18.679 show from Softstice Media. It's made by Atticus Bastow, Chris Dengate, 0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:23.280 Daniel James, Sarah McPhee, Travis Evans, Zotenfetcho, and me Ruby Jones. 0:14:23.680 --> 0:14:26.160 Our theme music is by Nede Beckley and Josh Hogan 0:14:26.240 --> 0:14:29.480 of Envelope Budeo. Thanks for listening, have a great weekend, 0:14:29.600 --> 0:14:31.000 See you Monday.