The global peak body for the music recording industry has warned the Albanese government that watering down copyright protections for artificial intelligence companies would be 'ridiculous and dangerous', saying its members are watching Australia's response to big tech's demands with growing concern.
Victoria Oakley, the chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents recording industry bodies worldwide, questioned why Australia would consider changes that other nations had rejected. 'Why would a sophisticated, democratic country that has a phenomenal cultural power of its own, choose to make this very odd decision and buy into the promises of a few large AI companies, and throw away their own culture and creativity?' she told Guardian Australia.
Oakley argued the consequences would reach far beyond Australia. 'I don't think Australia wants to be the weakest link in this situation, the one that believed the promises and gave in and threw creativity under the bus on behalf of everyone else,' she said. 'You just need one safe harbour, because then you can train on music from anywhere in the world. So this isn't just about Australian music and Australian culture; it's about music and culture everywhere.'
Labor is considering copyright changes as part of a broader suite of AI policy overhauls spanning datacentres, online safety, the workforce, energy and the economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised 'the strongest possible protection' for creatives and warned it would be 'theft' if they were not paid for their work, but creative industries were alarmed after AI companies requested a weakening of copyright law so they could train their models on Australian material.
Some AI companies have refused to strike licensing agreements under existing copyright law, saying it is too difficult. Anthropic has suggested an 'opt-out' model that would allow it to scrape content unless rights holders signalled an objection, while large AI companies argue they need legal certainty on issues like copyright before investing in Australia or training their models there.
Oakley said AI companies had made similar proposals in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, and that Australia should not accept such a bargain. 'I just don't think it's true that you will only get investment or growth, or be seen as pro-innovation, if you entirely give in to the demands of AI companies,' she said. 'We've been talking to capitals around the world, saying are you seeing what's going on in Australia? We think this is a disaster for creativity.'
The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, said through a spokesperson last week that the government was 'committed to supporting' creatives and pledged that 'any future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation'. Oakley declined to speculate on potential legal or constitutional challenges raised by the Australian Recording Industry Association, but warned of reputational damage to Australia's standing in the creative world and said creative industries feared 'contagion' if Australia caved in. 'It would be a huge mistake, and I think the prize is not worth what you're throwing away,' she said.
In recent answers to a parliamentary committee on AI, responding to questions from independent senator David Pocock about why it could not replicate the kind of deals Spotify had made, OpenAI said the streaming giant 'has a different business, where it primarily transmits un-transformed copyrighted content, so would be expected to license content that it streams'.
Oakley rejected that argument, noting music labels had already signed dozens of licensing deals with smaller AI companies around the world. 'It is perfectly possible to license. I'm almost shocked that these words are coming out of the mouths of some of the larger AI companies,' she said, pointing to Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple and Tidal as proof of the industry's licensing history. 'You have a ready, willing set of rights holders who want to license with a history of licensing in the streaming world, but also current evidence of licensing to AI firms. Let's let the market do what it needs to do. Come to us and we'll make it work.'
