Government defeated for third time in Lords over copyright protection against AI
undefined
Elton John is "angry" about proposed changes to copyright laws
(Image: BBC )
Peers have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Government for the third time over copyright protections for the creative industries against artificial intelligence (AI).
It came as the upper chamber joined artists and musicians, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, in speaking out against AI companies using copyrighted work without permission.
The House of Lords supported by 287 votes to 118, majority 169, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, adding a commitment to introduce transparency requirements, aiming to ensure copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by who.
Peers backed independent crossbencher Baroness Beeban Kidron's transparency amendments at report stage of the Bill, which were later voted down by MPs.
The unelected house supported her again during the first round of so-called ping-pong and now again in the second round of ping-pong, with the majority increasing each time.
Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, now known as Lord Watson of Wyre Forest.
Article continues below
The Government has said it will address copyright issues as a whole after the more than 11,500 responses to its consultation on the impact of AI have been reviewed, rather than in what it has branded "piecemeal" legislation.
Lady Kidron, who directed the second film in the Bridget Jones series, rounded on the Government, accusing them of being "turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley".
She said: "The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, who have stolen – and continue to steal every day we take no action – the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output.
"Silicon Valley have persuaded the Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole.
"If the Government continues on its current intransigent path, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy and it's entirely avoidable."
The online safety campaigner explained that her new amendment accepts that the Government's consultation and report will be the mechanism by which transparency measures will be introduced, and gives the Government free rein on enforcement procedures.
However, it does require the Government to ensure clear, relevant and accessible information be provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation to be brought forward within six months of the Government's report being published, 18 months from the Bill's passing.
Lady Kidron told peers: "If the Government is not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass.
"Because failing to accept a timeline in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive."
She insisted that UK copyright law as it stands is unenforceable, because "what you can't see you can't enforce", and that without her amendment it will be years before the issue is legislated on, by which time the creative industry will be "in tatters".
Former BBC children's TV presenter and Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Floella Benjamin backed the amendment, saying it would "secure our children's future and not sell them down the river", assuring them that "their creativity will not be stolen".
In a nod to Sir Elton's comments on the issue, former Labour deputy leader and UK Music chairman Lord Watson said: "It's a little bit funny this feeling inside that I rise to support Baroness Kidron's amendment today, an amendment that my front bench so clearly opposes.
"But my lords, I'm still standing. I'm still standing because I do not yet believe that ministers have heard the clarion cry from our country's creators that they need more from this Bill."
Also backing the amendment was former EastEnders actor and Labour peer Lord Michael Cashman, who recalled character actress Claire Davenport cherishing the royalty cheques she would receive by rubbing them on her "ample bosom" and saying: "Now, I can eat".
Responding, technology minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted that transparency "cannot be considered in isolation" and that the issue of copyright is "too important a topic to rush".
She said: "Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, and the role of technical solutions and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all of these topics.
"We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world."
She added: "This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others."
Article continues below
The minister told peers: "We are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI.
"This isn't about Silicon Valley, it's about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors. We have to find a solution that protects both sectors."
Earlier, peers ended their stand-off on two other amendments, one designed to require public authorities to record sex data based on biological sex, and another to change the definition of scientific research, which critics argued gave AI companies a "powerful exemption" to reuse data without consent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
26 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
JK Rowling ‘entitled to speak her view' on trans issues, says Sturgeon
Rowling was a vocal critic of the gender recognition reforms championed by Ms Sturgeon, famously donning a T-shirt which branded the then first minister a 'destroyer of women's rights'. Ms Sturgeon said the T-shirt – which Rowling posted a picture of herself wearing on social media – 'brought more abuse on my head than almost anything else'. But she said she had 'never stopped JK Rowling having a view on anything'. Ms Sturgeon told BBC Radio Ulster she 'wasn't destroying women's rights', and added: 'Is it really the best way to elevate a debate, put a picture of yourself in a T-shirt with something like that? That is the point I am making.' Nicola Sturgeon recently published her memoir, Frankly (Jane Barlow/PA) In a review of Ms Sturgeon's newly published memoir, Rowling accused the former SNP leader of being 'flat-out Trumpian in her shameless denial of reality and hard facts'. Ms Sturgeon however has made clear her views on the issue have not changed, despite the fury that erupted when Holyrood debated proposals for her government to make it easier for trans people to legally change their gender. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood but it was blocked by Westminster, with the changes never coming into force. Speaking on Wednesday, Ms Sturgeon said: 'I don't believe – never have and I never will – that you have to choose between being a feminist and being a supporter of the rights of one of the most stigmatised groups in society. JK Rowling was a vocal critic of Nicola Sturgeon's gender recognition reforms (PA) 'That's still my position.' While she added the debate on the issue had become 'deeply entrenched', with opposition to the reforms from people such as Rowling, some within the SNP and women's rights groups, Ms Sturgeon was adamant the 'fundamental principle and the issue is one I haven't changed my mind on'. Speaking about Rowling, she told the Nolan Show she is a 'huge admirer of her work'. Ms Sturgeon said: 'I have bought Harry Potter books for all of the kids in my life and I will continue to do so as long as they want to read them. 'I think she is an amazing talent and has done great things.' She added that Rowling is 'absolutely entitled to speak her mind', but added: 'I don't admire the way some people have gone from speaking their minds on this issue to, almost it seems, to be punching down on trans people who have never harmed anybody at any point in their life. 'I am not singling out one person in this, but a cruelty has entered this debate which I find really difficult, because we are talking here about a discriminated against, stigmatised minority. 'In every group in society there will be bad people, but they are not representative of the wider group and with trans we seem to take the bad apples and say 'that makes all trans people bad'. 'I don't agree with that and I don't like that. 'JK Rowling is absolutely entitled to her view, maybe putting herself up for a bit more scrutiny about her view would be helpful, but I don't criticise her for expressing her view. 'But I think I would like to see a bit less punching down on trans people to be perfectly frank.'
Rhyl Journal
29 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
JK Rowling ‘entitled to speak her view' on trans issues, says Sturgeon
Rowling was a vocal critic of the gender recognition reforms championed by Ms Sturgeon, famously donning a T-shirt which branded the then first minister a 'destroyer of women's rights'. Ms Sturgeon said the T-shirt – which Rowling posted a picture of herself wearing on social media – 'brought more abuse on my head than almost anything else'. But she said she had 'never stopped JK Rowling having a view on anything'. Ms Sturgeon told BBC Radio Ulster she 'wasn't destroying women's rights', and added: 'Is it really the best way to elevate a debate, put a picture of yourself in a T-shirt with something like that? That is the point I am making.' In a review of Ms Sturgeon's newly published memoir, Rowling accused the former SNP leader of being 'flat-out Trumpian in her shameless denial of reality and hard facts'. Ms Sturgeon however has made clear her views on the issue have not changed, despite the fury that erupted when Holyrood debated proposals for her government to make it easier for trans people to legally change their gender. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood but it was blocked by Westminster, with the changes never coming into force. Speaking on Wednesday, Ms Sturgeon said: 'I don't believe – never have and I never will – that you have to choose between being a feminist and being a supporter of the rights of one of the most stigmatised groups in society. 'That's still my position.' While she added the debate on the issue had become 'deeply entrenched', with opposition to the reforms from people such as Rowling, some within the SNP and women's rights groups, Ms Sturgeon was adamant the 'fundamental principle and the issue is one I haven't changed my mind on'. Speaking about Rowling, she told the Nolan Show she is a 'huge admirer of her work'. Ms Sturgeon said: 'I have bought Harry Potter books for all of the kids in my life and I will continue to do so as long as they want to read them. 'I think she is an amazing talent and has done great things.' She added that Rowling is 'absolutely entitled to speak her mind', but added: 'I don't admire the way some people have gone from speaking their minds on this issue to, almost it seems, to be punching down on trans people who have never harmed anybody at any point in their life. 'I am not singling out one person in this, but a cruelty has entered this debate which I find really difficult, because we are talking here about a discriminated against, stigmatised minority. 'In every group in society there will be bad people, but they are not representative of the wider group and with trans we seem to take the bad apples and say 'that makes all trans people bad'. 'I don't agree with that and I don't like that. 'JK Rowling is absolutely entitled to her view, maybe putting herself up for a bit more scrutiny about her view would be helpful, but I don't criticise her for expressing her view. 'But I think I would like to see a bit less punching down on trans people to be perfectly frank.'
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.
