The Parliamentary battle on AI is over… for now.
Peers in the House of Lords were seeking to pass amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which would ensure that tech firms had to declare their use of copyrighted material when training AI.
Despite a vocal campaign supported by Elton John, Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa, the government bill has now passed without the amendment following a lengthy Parliamentary tussle between the Lords and House Of Commons.
“The government has avoided a Parliamentary nightmare coming true, we must now regroup on AI,” says UK Music CEO Tom Kiehl. Read on for his reaction to the latest developments…
“Double Insistence” sounds like it could be the name of an album. Perhaps something released by Genesis, a collection of outtakes from John and Yoko, or, at last, new material from Bros?
In actual fact “Double Insistence” is a phrase that has been giving the UK government sleepless nights, and it has been very relevant to the interests of the music industry of late.
In Parliamentary speak, “Double Insistence” is checkmate. A constitutional stand-off between the House of Lords and House of Commons. If invoked the government would have been thwarted in getting its legislative programme through. Seen as a direct challenge to the primacy of the Commons, there would undoubtedly be consequences to the Lords’ powers as a result of “double insistence” coming into effect.
It is easier for the government to be defeated in the Lords as, unlike the Commons, it lacks a majority there. The Commons usually overturns any Lords defeats, sometimes with a compromise, and then the Lords generally give way.
The recent Data (Use and Access) Bill has been somewhat different, with a very protracted and unusual form of Parliamentary “ping-pong” between the two Houses to reach a resolution.
Thanks to vocal support from Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John and many other music industry bodies and figures, the government was defeated five times in total on amendments led primarily by Baroness Beeban Kidron, but also supported by a cross-party group of Parliamentarians, that would address the need for greater transparency on training data from AI firms to industries like music and other creative sectors.
These defeats brought the Data (Use and Access) Bill perilously close to the government staring into the abyss of “double insistence” yet ultimately it got its way when the House of Lords decided not to press the issue for sixth time on Wednesday.
There are still powerful forces that are pushing back against us and we now need to regroup to determine our next move
Tom Kiehl
While this is all very interesting to those who enjoy watching Parliament as a form of spectator sport, does any of it matter and make any difference, particularly regarding how the government plans to approach the issue of AI and copyright?
My answer is yes, as it has proven to be a successful attempt at forcing the government to think again.
As a result of the Parliamentary and sectoral pressure over the last few months, the government has had to fundamentally rethink its whole strategy around its controversial consultation on AI and copyright. At the very least it will have delayed any government intentions to implement the most damaging elements of its recent consultation.
Launched at the end of last year, the government’s consultation backed a new text and data mining exception. This would amount to legitimising the theft of copyright by AI firms, only offering creators and rights-holders an unworkable “opt out” by way of consolation. The government has been forced to concede this is no longer its preferred way forward, and while it is not off the table completely, there is now another opportunity to look again at positive options that would enhance music in the face of AI.
It is also important to acknowledge that limited government concessions were eventually made in Parliament. This included commitments for new reports, statements and working groups to inform the government’s thinking. While these do not necessarily provide reassurance, there are now at least some tangible and clear next steps on this policy area following the consultations conclusion at the end of February before the government decides to legislate further or not.
The recent Parliamentary tussle has also ensured that government is now very alert to the strength of feeling, both in Parliament and across the creative industries, but also increasingly amongst the public, on the importance placed on human creativity. It is extremely rare for rebellions to grow and margins of defeat to increase during the Parliamentary “ping-pong”, but this is what happened.
Ultimately this was fuelled by a sense that government was not treating legitimate concerns seriously enough. The government will need a far better plan to manage these concerns in future, should they plan to legislate further, otherwise the same Parliamentary pushback could very easily happen again and “double insistence” becomes a recurring nightmare for the government.
While the experience of the Data (Use and Access) Bill has exceeded most expectations about what can be achieved through the Parliamentary process, I do want to sound a note of caution too.
There are still powerful forces in and around government that are pushing back against us and we now need to regroup to determine our next move.
To invoke Bros for a second time, we must not forget that “I Owe You Nothing” is a song that AI firms are still all too happy to play.
