The AI copyright standoff continues

The intense battle on artificial intelligence (AI) and copyrights – which blocks the government against some of the largest names in the creative industry – goes back to the House of Lords on Monday with a small sign of a solution on the horizon.

A big row began between ministers and peers who support artists, and no sign of abandonment.

It may be about AI, but at its core are very humanitarian issues: jobs and creativity.

It is not customary to review either side now or show any sign of a compromise; In fact, if anything supports for those who oppose the government grow instead of getting rid of it.

This source told me in their peer camp: This is an “unlimited area”.

The argument is the best way to balance the requirements of two huge industries: the technological and creative sectors.

More specifically, it comes to the most just way to allow artificial intelligence developers to reach creative content in order to better provide Amnesty International tools – without undermining ways to live people who make this content in the first place.

What I ignite is the non -inspiring data bill (use and access).

This proposed legislation was expected to end its long journey through Parliament this week and sailing in law books.

Instead, she is currently holding for forgetfulness, swinging between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

The draft law states that artificial intelligence developers must reach all content unless their individual owners choose to cancel the subscription.

Nearly 300 members of the House of Lords do not agree.

They believe that artificial intelligence companies should have to detect the copyrights they use to train their tools, with the aim of licensing them.

Sir Nick Cling, the former head of global affairs at Meta, is among those who support the bill widely, on the pretext that the request for permission from all copyrights will be killed “will kill the artificial intelligence industry in this country.”

Among the people who suffer from the BEBAN KIDRON, which is a Crossbench counterpart and a former film director, is famous for making films like Bridget Jones: The Edge of District.

She says the ministers will “throw UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and artificial intelligence companies arising under the bus” if they are not transferred to protect their production, which describes it as a “government theft” from an industry in the United Kingdom of 124 billion pounds.

she Request to amend the bill Which includes the Minister of Technology, Peter Kyle, to submit a report to the House of Commons on the impact of the new law on creative industries, three months after it entered into force, if it does not change.

Mr. Kyle appears to have changed his views of the UK Copyright Law.

He said that the law of copyright was once “very certain”, but it is now “inappropriate for the purpose.”

Perhaps to some extent these things are correct.

The Ministry of Science, Innovation and Technology says it is making a wider consultation on these issues and will not consider changes on the bill unless she is completely satisfied with the creators.

If the “Ping Pong” continues between the two councils, there is a small opportunity that the entire bill can be well done; I was told that it is unlikely but not impossible.

If so, some of the other important elements will be compatible with it, simply because they are part of the same bill.

It also includes proposed rules on parental rights to access their children’s data if they die, and changes to allow NHS to share the patient’s data more easily, and even a 3D map of UK pipes and cables, which aims to improve road business efficiency (I told you that it was a major bill).

There is no easy answer.

Here is how everything started.

Initially, before artificial intelligence exploded in our lives, artificial intelligence developers shipped huge amounts of content from the Internet, on the pretext that he was already in the public domain, and therefore freely available.

We are talking about Big, especially for us, technology companies here are scandalous, and not paying anything they have done.

Next, use this data to train the same artificial intelligence tools that millions use now to write copies and create photos and videos in seconds.

These tools can simulate musicians, writers and popular artists.

For example, the last viral trend of people participating with artificial intelligence pictures was created in the style of the Japanese animation company GHIBLI.

Meanwhile, the founder of this studio once described the use of artificial intelligence in animation as “an insult to the same life.” Needless to say, he was not a fan.

There was a tremendous violent reaction from many content and owners, including home names such as Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Leipa.

They have argued that taking their work in this way, without approval, credit or payment, was a theft. And that artists now lose work because artificial intelligence tools can offer similar content freely and quickly.

Mr. Elon John did not retreat In an interview with him recently with Laura Quinzburg from BBC.

He said that the government was on its way to “stealing the youth from their legacy and entered them,” and described the current administration as “divorced losers.”

Although others point out that the materials made by Sir Elton are available all over the world.

And if you make it very difficult for artificial intelligence companies to reach in the United Kingdom, they will simply do so elsewhere instead, while taking the job opportunities that are intense with them.

Two functions, there is no clear compromise.