SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Australian Government wants AI to pay for copyright fees in move that may be more about getting a piece of the billions invested in AI. ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd of the Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG) has called the recommendation for a text and data mining exception "a radical change" that has been "put forward with very little evidence".
"Artificial Intelligence presents significant opportunities for Australia and our economy, however it's important that Australian creatives benefit from these opportunities too," Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said.
"Australian creatives are not only world class, but they are also the lifeblood of Australian culture, and we must ensure the right legal protections are in place."
[...] It is a difficult space for governments to regulate as they balance embracing the promised economic boons of AI without cumbersome red tape while also pitching guardrails.
In the lead-up to Labor's economic reform roundtable in August, the Productivity Commission urged against heavy-handed regulation of AI, warning it could smother opportunities.
Among its recommendations was a text and data mining exception – a call that sparked furore.
But Ms Rowland vowed the government would not "weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI".
"The tech industry and the creative sector must now come together and find sensible and workable solutions to support innovation while ensuring creators are compensated," she said.
"The government will support these next steps through the renewed focus tasked to the Copyright and AI reference group."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jb on Wednesday October 29, @07:30AM (2 children)
That's quite possibly the first sensible thing our Attorney-General has ever said.
It's true that our copyright regime is too restrictive, but if and when those restrictions are relaxed, they must be relaxed for all Australians, not just for some tech toy fad like LLMs (and certainly not one that's controlled entirely by companies from outside of Australia!).
That bit is much more worrying. The chatter I've heard is that that will mean establishing a new copyright clearinghouse just for LLMs. Sure, such an approach will no doubt be welcomed by those authors who only want money in exchange for the use of their works.
But there's nothing in it for those of us who just want fair attribution for the use of our works. That includes any Australian who publishes software under permissive FOSS licences (and I imagine those who publish under copyleft licences must be even more upset!), those who publish textual works under CC licences, etc. etc.
(Score: 3, Touché) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday October 29, @09:59AM
Seems to be a lot of weasel-wording.
I would read that as: we just follow the rules. It is up to the AI industry to prove they are compliant.
These reads: we will change the rules. In a very positive interpretation it could read as: the discussion has to be about how to implement the proof of being compliant efficiently. In practice it means: which new rules can we agree on, so there is no/little cost in having AI companies being able to scrape stuff. Probably solutions have to be constructed this way, still opt-outs for individuals should be allowed for, which is unexpected.
In the end Attorney-Generals are political figures, not much sensible stuff is expected to leave their mouths.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday October 30, @05:49AM
Well I think it's reprehensible to see a government that doesn't simply take a donation from a special-interest group and give it what it wants. That's socialism! Look at how proper governments do it, you hand their leader some shiny baubles and he gives you what you want [nytimes.com], that's how things should work.