Artificial intelligence (AI) really is the next industrial revolution. In fact, it’s already started, and the technology’s capability is developing faster than anything we’ve seen before. Its benefits mean there is so much more to be excited, than fearful, about. But such is the extent of the technology’s power and potential, it is essential we don’t allow it to be controlled only by a small number of Big Tech companies.
The approach the EU has taken is not the answer
The entrenched incumbents of Silicon Valley have developed some fantastic products and services over the years that we wouldn’t want to be without. But that didn’t give them the right to control who gets to succeed or fail online, or to censor political debate. It should not give them the right to ignore copyright laws – which would destroy the creative industries and cut-off the supply of new ‘content’ (whether that’s music, film, art, books or news) on which the success of of many AI models rely.
One of the great things about the arrival of AI technology is that it presents an opportunity to change the power imbalance which exists between established Big Tech and everyone else. You might find it surprising to hear, but President Trump and Vice-President Vance seem determined to make sure it does.
Don’t get me wrong: Donald Trump needs US Big Tech to remain successful. The prominence of the ‘Big Tech Bros’ on public platforms with him are a show of Western strength. They and he are united in wanting to make sure the West wins the AI global race against the East. They agree that a constant stream of innovation is vital to succeed.
But the President and JD Vance also want and need the benefits of this new industrial revolution to be spread across the US. They don’t want the same Big Tech firms to be the exclusive beneficiaries and dictate the terms of access for everyone else. They are determined to create a level-playing field where new entrants and new innovators – ‘little tech’ – can compete in building and deploying AI. (Vice-President Vance outlined his vision when he spoke at the AI Action Summit in France last month.)
What’s all this got to do with copyright? Well, first, it’s why Keir Starmer should not blithely sell-out UK content-creators in way that – for now at least – would primarily benefit US Big Tech.
Second, some of the best and most innovative brains coming up with great new AI innovations are here in the UK. British spin-out and start-up innovators – our own little-tech – can help accelerate the opportunities of AI, building specialist models and new applications if they are supported to scale.
Third, the UK has some of the richest and most valuable ‘datasets’ (information and content held by public and commercial institutions) vital for training AI models and developing new services and applications. We could incentivise a new, dynamic licensing market for creative and research material and make the UK an attractive AI training destination for all AI models – and offer favourable access terms to ‘little tech’.
Enabling market entry for new tech firms is critical, and it’s an important consideration in deciding how to apply copyright law in an AI world.
But the approach the EU has taken is not the answer. The House of Lords Committee that I chaired, cautioned the government strongly against adopting a similar flawed opt-out regime. We argued that much better means for ensuring technical viability, transparency, consent and enforcement are needed for such an approach to work. In other words, rights-holders would need a better way to protect their works against unwanted web-crawlers.
There are signs that the most successful Silicon Valley Venture Capital investors now accept that copyright must be respected. Though there’s still a debate about how best to do this, and the extent of ‘opensource’ AI could be a determining factor.
Opensource allows anyone to check, refine, and develop their own models using code that others have written. This encourages innovation and competition and, counter-intuitively, makes networks more secure. This open network effect is also how the internet was conceived, before Big Tech firms started to dominate about 20 years ago.
Many argue that opensource AI is critical for recreating the internet’s original level-playing field and opening the market to new entrants. Of course, there are proprietorial AI services and applications that tech firms want to protect and charge a fee for people to use. That’s what content-creators whose intellectual property has been used to build those services would expect. But not if the tech firms haven’t paid them for that content!
When it comes to copyright, the tech and creative industries should be able to find a mutually beneficial way forward that aligns incentives, and it’s essential that they do.
More broadly, the government should seize the opportunity of AI – and the UK’s position as the third most powerful player in the world – to align with the US in helping to create the tech level-playing field so many of us have been campaigning for so long. The real prize from the West winning the battle for dominance in AI is spreading the benefits of this new industrial revolution way beyond Silicon Valley and Big Tech – and the benefits must reach all corners of the UK too.
Comments