Very happy to take part in this. The proposed legislation is not fit for purpose, solely benefits AI companies, and will make it even more difficult for many authors and artists to make ends meet.
I am very happy to be associated with this.
Sorry! Came together quite quickly…
looking forward to my 10,000th share of PLR on this one
I'm in excellent company between these pages standing up for UK copyright protections for authors..
I'm in here. Or not. Or whatever I metaphorically am.
Do check this out. I was one of the near 10,000 writers involved in this protest. It’s just so grim that AI is nicking our work…
May (or may not) contain me.
I'm in this. Don't steal our books! @societyofauthors.bsky.social
Upstairs somewhere! We have a stand
ps You can see the full list of authors involved at dontstealthisbook.com
We're handing out 1,000 free copies at London Book Fair over the next couple of days. If you’re there, pick up a copy!
A huge thank you to the thousands of authors involved.
Read more here: www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
#DontStealThisBook
/end
The UK government is considering upending copyright law to benefit AI companies. Don’t Steal This Book urges them not to.
Apart from the list of authors involved, the book is empty, representing the effect the government’s plans would have on authors' livelihoods.
2/3
Today, we're publishing Don't Steal This Book - a (mostly) empty book from almost 10,000 authors, protesting the theft of their work by AI companies.
🧵 1/3
The House of Lords is right: we are at a crossroads. We can either lead the way in responsible AI development, or continue the slide towards mass exploitation by US big tech companies.
Don’t let people tell you our government has no choice but to sell out creatives. There is always a choice.
/end
3. Decisions in one country affect those in others. People are looking for leadership on his issue. We should set an example others can follow, and continue to refuse to sell out our creatives and bend the knee to big tech.
5/6
2. If other countries *did* pass laws legalising all AI training on copyrighted work, they would likely contravene international agreements like Berne. We should challenge any countries that did so, instead of simply lowering ourselves to the level of our least ethical neighbour.
4/6
Claiming all AI training on copyrighted work is fair use in the US is a big tech talking point, nothing more.
3/6
1. AI training on people’s work is clearly *not* blanket legal in the US. See Judge Chhabria in Kadrey v. Meta, who said many lawsuits brought by rights holders against AI companies should succeed. See also the US Copyright Office report on AI training.
2/6
A common argument put forward by British AI boosters is that we *have to* hand the life’s work of the UK’s creatives to AI companies, because other countries are doing so.
But they are wrong, for three reasons.
🧵 1/6
Is this what representation not bought and paid for by the tech industry look like?
Good thread here
The trouble with the Second Chamber is that every once in a while they have the ability to push back against the government - in this case to stop them giving away my work for free to billionaires
lol yes
- AI training isn’t ‘learning’ and shouldn’t be treated as such
The House of Lords has been absolutely consistent on this, and they are totally right. Will the government listen?
/end
- the government’s mixed public messaging on AI & copyright is hindering licensing
- the government should make a clear public statement that AI companies operating in the UK need to license their training data (which is the law)
4/5
They say:
- the government must not weaken copyright law, and should instead strengthen licensing, transparency & enforcement
- the government should stop prioritising large multinational tech firms
3/5
They destroy the argument that big tech should be given the country’s creative output for free, and they lay out the case for maintaining and even strengthening existing copyright law to protect creatives from exploitation.
2/5
The House of Lords Digital & Communications Committee just published their report on AI, copyright & the creative industries, and their conclusions could not be clearer.
🧵 1/5
It occurs to me that if the government did force UK writers to hand over their work to the big AI companies, that would now among other things mean contributing to the development of US advanced weapon systems.
agreed
