Sir Elton John brands government 'losers' over AI copyright plans - The veteran musician is angry at 'criminal' AI plans for artists

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jg0348yvxo
Credit: Laura Kuenssberg, BBC Political Editor
Archive: https://archive.ph/TqNol

6565.webp

Sir Elton John described the government as "absolute losers" and said he feels "incredibly betrayed" over plans to exempt technology firms from copyright laws.

Speaking exclusively to Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, he said if ministers go ahead with plans to allow AI firms to use artists' content without paying, they would be "committing theft, thievery on a high scale".

This week the government rejected proposals from the House of Lords to force AI companies to disclose what material they were using to develop their programmes.

A government spokesperson said that "no changes" to copyright laws would be "considered unless we are completely satisfied they work for creators".
Generative AI programmes mine, or learn, from vast amounts of data like text, images, or music online to generate new content which feels like it has been made by a human.

Sir Elton said the "danger" is that, for young artists, "they haven't got the resources ... to fight big tech [firms]".

"It's criminal, in that I feel incredibly betrayed," he added.

"The House of Lords did a vote, and it was more than two to one in our favour," he said. "The government just looked at it as if to say, 'Hmm, well the old people ... like me can afford it.'"

On Monday, the House of Lords voted by a 147 majority to amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill to add transparency requirements, which aim to ensure copyright holders have to give permission for their work to be used.

But on Wednesday MPs in the House of Commons voted to reject this change, meaning the bill will continue to go back and forth between the two Houses until they reach an agreement on it.

Sir Elton warned the government was on course to "rob young people of their legacy and their income", adding that he thought the government was "just being absolute losers, and I'm very angry about it".

The singer said that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer needed to "wise up" and described Technology Secretary Peter Kyle as "a bit of a moron".

He said if the government does not change its plans, he would be ready to take ministers to court, saying that "we'll fight it all the way".

Speaking alongside the 78-year-old, playwright James Graham said ministers "do understand the value of creativity... but what's frustrating is either the complacency or the willingness to let Silicon Valley tech bros get it all their own way".

The chief executive of UK music, Tom Kiehl, told the BBC that the government is "on the brink" of offering up the country's music industry "as a sacrificial lamb in its efforts to cosy up to American-based tech giants".

He added that the prime minister "must not sell" the next generation of singers, songwriters, musicians, and music creators "down the river and allow all that talent to be crushed by letting soulless AI bots plunder their work".

Ahead of the vote in the House of Lords, Sir Elton joined more than 400 British musicians, writers, and artists in signing a letter calling on the prime minister to update copyright laws in a way that protects them from artificial intelligence.

Beatles singer Sir Paul McCartney, who also signed the letter, previously told the BBC there was a risk AI would create a "Wild West" in which artists' copyright was not properly protected.

A government spokesperson said it wants the UK's creative industries and AI companies to "flourish, which is why we're consulting on a package of measures that we hope will work for both sectors".

The spokesperson said it was "vital" the government worked through responses to a consultation on proposals to allow developers to use creators' content unless rights holders elected to "opt out".

They added that it was "equally important that we put in the groundwork now as we consider the next steps".

"That is why we have committed to publishing a report and economic impact assessment - exploring the broad range of issues and options on all sides of the debate."
 
Exempting an entire type of corporation from a particular law does sound a touch fucked up. What are these firms all minority-run?
 
Even a disturbing pedophile can be right, this copyright situation is fucked up.
I hope AI has enough time to rape the music industry to death though, since the real reason governments sign off on this AI shit is that they’re dead scared of chuds recreating hyperborea through neo-renaissance kino. But before that happens, the house must be cleaned.
 
Everyone involved in this story should die.
Sir Elton warned the government was on course to "rob young people of their legacy and their income", adding that he thought the government was "just being absolute losers, and I'm very angry about it".
AI is a scourge but I mean, only a handful of young people make money from music.
 
Sir Elton and Sir Paul were both raped in all holes by the music industry, I can fully understand why they'd call for stronger copyright and artist's rights
 
This guy probably cheers about laws that enable the same government to send cops to your house to arrest you if you say things on the internet about him he doesn't like, because that's a hate crime. He wants you in jail for years if you don't kiss his ass and all his opinions about politics. That's entirely a fair thing to think. But preventing him from being able to profit off of being an entertainer who sings songs? Now THAT'S a step too far and the government needs to think of the little people!
 
This guy probably cheers about laws that enable the same government to send cops to your house to arrest you if you say things on the internet about him he doesn't like, because that's a hate crime. He wants you in jail for years if you don't kiss his ass and all his opinions about politics. That's entirely a fair thing to think. But preventing him from being able to profit off of being an entertainer who sings songs? Now THAT'S a step too far and the government needs to think of the little people!
I don't care if it's a hypocritical queer saying it if the hypocritical queer happens to be right.
 
If AI was really that much of a danger to the music industry it wouldn't constantly Mel Blanc yell at me whenever I try to get it to make a goofy country song.

It literally can't even do what a 3M magnetic cardophone shits did from the 80s and they sold a whole fucking movie on that glorified speak and spell being part of the soundtrack.

 
This week the government rejected proposals from the House of Lords to force AI companies to disclose what material they were using to develop their programmes.
In the same way that all other classes of creators such as, for example, song writers and movie scriptwriters (or Bungie) do as they never co opt the work of others for their own commercial advantage? Oh wait, yes they do and no they don't disclose and that's how it's been for more than half a century. I'm beginning to understand why so many "creatives" are liberal progressives. They have the "it's OK when we do it" mindset hard wired into them at the most basic level.

Exempting an entire type of corporation from a particular law does sound a touch fucked up. What are these firms all minority-run?
They aren't. They are refusing to impose a requirement upon a type of corp that doesn't apply to anyone else. (The opening line of the article claims this would "allow AI firms to use artists' content without paying" before in the second line saying what they have done is "rejected proposals from the House of Lords to force AI companies to disclose what material they were using to develop their programmes". This is journoscum 101 - the second statement, the reality, is not the same as the first, the attention grabber.)

Sir Elton said the "danger" is that, for young artists, "they haven't got the resources ... to fight big tech [firms]".
Welcome to the real world Reg. Neither do individuals (or smaller companies) against them or larger commercial entities (or the state) generally. Why does your preferred class deserve special treatment? (As an aside, Reg Dwight and McCartney and a lot of those other 400 bitches demanding special protection do have the resources. Are they making those resources available? Probably not.)

Sir Elton and Sir Paul were both raped in all holes by the music industry, I can fully understand why they'd call for stronger copyright and artist's rights
You mean they voluntarily signed deals they thought would be beneficial to them at the time and following their subsequent extreme success, which might have had something to do with entering into those deals, regretted them.

Everyone involved in this story should die.
Absolutely. The copyright system (and IP generally) is a shambles as has consistently been shown by its abuse and the inability to prevent abuse. The same can be said for the judicial system of enforcement of rights of a smaller party against a larger party. That's a justification for reforming it in the generality. It's not a justification for specific rights for specific favoured groups while everyone else can just continue being fucked over. Oh and Reg Dwight is an AIDS riddled degenerate faggot.
 
There's a great irony in hearing an old faggot, who forced current year faggotry onto people, now throwing a hissy fit because new-current year is being forced on him and he doesn't like it. :story:

Suffer, faggot.
 
Most artists aren't independently wealthy like Elton John, and he's gonna be dead within 20 years due to age, so I dunno why some are skeptical that he's actually advocating for younger artists here. It takes thousands of hours to get good at creative shit and nobody's gonna be doing that if you can't get paid for doing it at all (your work stolen for training is uncompensated, then it's used by huge companies so they don't have to hire you to produce anything new either). I don't really wanna live in a world without any skilled artists. But it seems like that's the way we're going, since every relevant industry is already pivoting to rely on these tools for economic reasons.
 
If AI was really that much of a danger to the music industry it wouldn't constantly Mel Blanc yell at me whenever I try to get it to make a goofy country song.

It literally can't even do what a 3M magnetic cardophone shits did from the 80s and they sold a whole fucking movie on that glorified speak and spell being part of the soundtrack.

It's not a danger to The Industry. It's a danger to every independent creator whose content gets harvested for free, recycled and laundered through a neural network, and monetized by The Industry.
 
Exempting an entire type of corporation from a particular law does sound a touch fucked up. What are these firms all minority-run?

It is, but for the right reasons and should be extended to everybody. Long story short, AI training is not CR violation, it probably takes more variables and "inspirations" into account than a human actually drawing something them self. Plus a lot of this stuff is posted openly to the net. If you aren't selling something, then you have no need or right to CR protections. CR is not an acknowledgment of ownership or control, merely a temporary protection for selling things. Of all the parts of CR that need burned first, it is the unfathomable extension of it beyond attempts to sell, or onto publicly posted content.
 
Back
Top Bottom