A House of Lords committee report on Friday warned that AI poses a \u201cclear and present danger\u201d to the UK\u2019s creative industries. And one danger swiftly made itself very clear and present: the potential for a \u2018commercial research exception\u2019 for AI companies.<\/p>\n
The Times\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0that the British government is \u201cconsidering\u201d the idea, which would \u201callow AI companies to use copyrighted works without permission to develop their software\u201d \u2013\u00a0and then only have to sign licensing deals if they then wanted to commercialise it.<\/p>\n Microsoft, Google and Meta are among the tech companies reportedly pushing for the exception, and as you\u2019d expect, the music industry is pushing right back against it, mirroring a past battle to stave off a \u2018text and data mining\u2019 (TDM) exception for AI companies.<\/p>\n BPI chief strategy officer Sophie Jones warned that if the rumours of a reworked \u2018commercial research exception\u2019 are true \u201cthis is deeply troubling as it would give AI developers even more power to steal music for commercial purposes than the earlier mooted \u2013 and now discredited \u2013 TDM and opt-out\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIt would either signal that the Government\u2019s repeated pledges to protect the UK\u2019s world leading creative industries were empty promises, or that they fail to understand the consequences of a step such as this,\u201d added Jones, pointing to recent licensing deals between labels and AI companies as evidence of a better way.<\/p>\n \u201cWe recommend that Government focus on enabling this opportunity by implementing sensible record keeping measures, rather than on an ill-conceived, damaging and unnecessary weakening of copyright that would hamper growth just as the licensing market is developing.\u201d<\/p>\n And so another AI lobbying battle commences, although the Times report did offer some encouragement to the music industry, suggesting that the culture and technology secretaries in the government may not be in favour of the commercial research exception idea.<\/p>\n That House of Lords report had some criticism of its own for the idea, suggesting that the tech companies calling for it may be trying to lower their legal risks \u201cby weakening the current level of copyright protection\u201d. Law firm Pinsent Masons has\u00a0some useful analysis of that<\/a>.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s zoom out a bit \u2013\u00a0and quickly, as we suspect most Music Ally readers\u2019 interest in the intricacies of UK copyright law and lobbying has its limits. What does this latest argument tell us about the bigger picture?<\/p>\n Well, it warns us off thinking that the various licensing deals signed in recent months aren\u2019t a \u2018job done, everything\u2019s fine now\u2019 moment. It\u2019s not, for several reasons, including the fact that rightsholders now have to persuade musicians to opt in.<\/p>\n But another reason is that in most countries, the legislative picture is still very fluid, with some of the biggest tech companies in the world pushing hard for laws that may not wipe out the need for licensing with their AI models\u00a0\u2013\u00a0but which could swing the negotiations for those deals firmly in their favour.<\/p>\n The other ongoing challenge is that this isn\u2019t really just about music, or the creative sector. It\u2019s about everything. Healthcare, defence, finance, security\u2026 And in some of those areas, the arguments for commercial research exceptions hold strong appeal to governments.<\/p>\n