Big Tech Tells Trump Admin that Copyright is a Barrier to AI Development

Last week, in response to the Executive Order referred to as the “AI Action Plan,” various stakeholders submitted comments to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). OpenAI, for its part, submitted one of the finest examples of tech-bro bombast we have seen in some time. Not even Google’s comments, which names copyright, privacy, and patents as barriers to AI development, comes close to OpenAI for serving up so much high-octane, tech-utopian gibberish, including this gem in the preamble:

As our CEO Sam Altman has written, we are at the doorstep of the next leap in prosperity: the Intelligence Age. But we must ensure that people have freedom of intelligence, by which we mean the freedom to access and benefit from AGI, protected from both autocratic powers that would take people’s freedoms away, and layers of laws and bureaucracy that would prevent our realizing them.

Fewer than half of all Americans trust either the current administration or Big Tech when it comes to “freedoms” or “intelligence,” but does anyone believe that AI development inexorably leads to the kind of prosperity OpenAI projects in its comments? Like most technologies, AI can be used for good or evil. In theory, it can be used to diagnose and treat disease, but in practice, it could be used to “solve” disease by more efficiently automating denial of treatment. It can be used to enhance or improve productive work, but it might be used to shed jobs across multiple sectors without considering the implications of doing so.

“Innovation” is a meaningless word until it is defined by the values and principles of the innovators and/or the government with which the industry partners. In OpenAI’s effort to distinguish American AI development from that of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), it recommends, at least in its comments on copyright, that we should emulate the anti-democratic, piratical conduct of this adversary. It even goes so far as to allege without foundation that machine learning (ML) with unlicensed copyrighted works is a matter of national security.

Under the heading “Freedom to Learn,” OpenAI’s comments about copyright—especially the emphasis on fair use doctrine—are incoherent to the point that one wonders whom the company is addressing. But before speculating about that question, here are a few quotes with responses:

American copyright law, including the longstanding fair use doctrine, protects the transformative uses of existing works, ensuring that innovators have a balanced and predictable framework for experimentation and entrepreneurship.

The judge-made fair use doctrine applies a four-factor test, of which one part of the first factor considers whether a “transformative use” has been made of a protected work. There is no direct precedent applicable to mass copying of creative works for the purpose of ML to build artificial intelligence, which is why about thirty active lawsuits present this novel question to the courts. Further, because fair use is a case-by-case, affirmative defense to a claim of infringement, it defies the “predictable frameworks,” for which OpenAI claims to be asking.

This approach has underpinned American success through earlier phases of technological progress and is even more critical to continued American leadership on AI in the wake of recent events in the PRC.

This says, “American innovation is great, but the Chinese kicked our asses with DeepSeek, and we’re grumpy about it.” Kudos to OpenAI for playing to the audience, but it is incoherent as a statement about the fair use defense “underpinning American success.” The core copyright industries account for an estimated 7.66% of U.S. GDP and this proven prosperity should not be radically disturbed for the sake of undefined “innovation,” some of which will inevitably flop.

As for history, American copyright law has typically adapted to technological change by ensuring the protection of authors’ rights from the exigencies of technology developers. In the best cases, this fosters a symbiotic relationship between new technology and creators, but that is not what OpenAI advocates here. Instead, OpenAI says, “American creators be damned. AI is too important to worry about their rights.”

OpenAI’s models are trained to not replicate works for consumption by the public. Instead, they learn from the works and extract patterns, linguistic structures, and contextual insights. This means our AI model training aligns with the core objectives of copyright and the fair use doctrine, using existing works to create something wholly new and different without eroding the commercial value of those existing works.

This attempt to litigate questions of fact and law in comments to the OSTP is as contradictory as it is misplaced. First, it asserts that OpenAI’s ML process does not violate any copyright rights and is, therefore, non-infringing. But that assertion conflicts with the inapt argument that their ML is exempted under factors one and four of the fair use test. Where there is no basis for a claim of infringement, there is no rationale for arguing a fair use defense.

Applying the fair use doctrine to AI is not only a matter of American competitiveness—it’s a matter of national security. Given concerted state support for critical industries and infrastructure projects, there’s little doubt that the PRC’s AI developers will enjoy unfettered access to data—including copyrighted data—that will improve their models. If the PRC’s developers have unfettered access to data and American companies are left without fair use access, the race for AI is effectively over.

Here, OpenAI argues that American policy should emulate the PRC by disregarding the rights of creators, thereby, disqualifying any claim by Altman & Co. to promote democratic values. Further, OpenAI not only invents the term “fair use access” but then erroneously implies that U.S. national security operations need the “freedom to learn” from unlicensed creative works in order to do their jobs.

For Whose Eyes?

The combination of misstatements and emphasis on fair use prompts the question as to what policy OpenAI hopes to achieve. If OpenAI et al. want a statutory exception for ML, any rational petition to Congress for that change to the Copyright Act would not address fair use or suggest amendment to that part of the statute. Instead, we must assume that this message is aimed at the courts, who will decide whether and to what extent ML is exempted by fair use, including in cases where OpenAI is a defendant.

Presumably, one hope is to say the words “national security” enough times that 1) some party in the administration echoes this talking point; and/or b) the courts feel reluctant to rule against AI developers on copyright infringement claims. In either case, AI is not one product. Development of security-related products or AI agents for the intelligence community does not rely upon the development of those generative AI models that are built substantially on ingesting millions of creative works without license for the purpose of producing artificial “creative” works.

More broadly, it is a tad rich to say that copyright rights are a barrier in the AI arms race while DOGE is assigned to hack its way through educational funding and shed experts in nearly every field. If America loses to China in this contest, it will most likely be attributable to our national retreat from excellence and fostering a culture where people refuse to see the difference between a Ford F-150 and a plastic piece of shit. If that’s the kind of public/private environment in which Americans are going to develop AI, don’t blame the artists and their copyright rights when it fails.

Photo by pylypchukinnastock358

Music Artists Ask Congress to Finally Correct the Radio Royalties Mistake

Today is World Radio Day, and when most of us think of radio, we think of music. That’s why today, Congress received a letter signed by about 300 performing artists asking lawmakers to pass the long-overdue American Music Fairness Act (AMFA) this session. “Each year, AM/FM radio stations play nearly a billion songs. And each year, giant radio corporations rake in billions in advertising dollars while refusing to pay a single cent to the artists behind the music that attracts their advertisers in the first place and makes their entire business model possible,” the letter states.

The artists reiterate what presidents and legislators have known for generations—that it is absurd that the nation which produces some of the most popular recorded music in the world is almost the only democracy that does not pay artist royalties for AM/FM radio play. “This leaves the U.S. in the dubious company of North Korea, Cuba, and Iran,” the letter reminds Capitol Hill. And in a time of deep political divisions, lawmakers agree that this ongoing conflict between broadcasters and musical artists is unfounded and unfair.

As the letter reminds Congress, this is an international trade matter as much as it is a domestic issue of economics and fairness. Although most nations where American music is played on the radio do pay royalties, American artists receive nothing abroad solely because foreign artists receive nothing in the U.S. Plus, the core principle of AMFA is popular with voters. As the letter states, “…by a 6-1 margin Americans support Congress addressing this injustice….” That many Americans don’t agree on much these days, but Congress can feel confident that their constituents do support equity and fairness for American music artists.

AMFA’s Pedigree is Long – Too Long

Under copyright law, musical works, which are created by songwriters, are protected separately from sound recordings, which are created by performing artists who may or may not also be the songwriters. Broadcast, terrestrial radio networks have long paid royalties to songwriters for public performance of musical works but never to performing artists for airing the sound recordings.

AMFA, first introduced in June of 2021 by former Congressman Ted Deutch and co-sponsor Darrell Issa, is the legislative descendant of many bills over many decades proposing to remedy this inequity. During that time, artists have even earned royalties from digital transmission thanks to an amendment to the Copyright Act passed in 1995—sixteen years before Spotify became popular. So, to say the terrestrial radio fix is overdue is an understatement. I have advocated AMFA and explained its provisions in several posts, but I will copy and paste the basic terms again here:

For smaller stations (under $1.5 million/year), the AMFA caps royalties between $10/year to $500/year depending on revenue and status as either a public or private station. For larger stations and networks, rates would be set, as they for the rest of the performance licensing market, by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). Under the provisions of AMFA, the CRB must consider station size and revenue when setting rates and must also consider the station’s promotional value to recording artists.

The broadcasters have no plausible, factual argument to oppose the terms of AMFA; the basic principle of the bill is popular with Americans who love the music made by the signatories of this letter; and lawmakers already know all the reasons why passing this bill is the right thing to do. Time to get it done.

Photo source by Kjekol

Congress Should Only Pass AM Radio Act with the American Music Fairness Act

Two bills are back in motion in the U.S. Congress—the AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act, and the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA). As I argued in a post for The Hill last May, if the first bill is to become law, then the second bill should also become law. While the AM radio provision arguably has some public-serving benefits, it is unavoidably a favor to broadcasters—and to pass it without finally delivering long overdue justice for music artists would be unconscionable.

AM Radio in Every Vehicle

The AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act, mandating that all new vehicles include receivers for the AM band, was initially drafted in response to the auto industry signaling a move away from AM radio in new cars. For instance, in electric vehicles (EV), the powertrains interfere with AM radio reception, but even manufacturers of traditional powertrain vehicles were recognizing a downward trend in AM listeners and, therefore, planning to discontinue AM receivers in new sound systems. Thus, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) sponsored the AM Radio in Every Vehicle bills, which gained bipartisan support, albeit along partisan lines.

Republicans emphasized the importance of conservative talk radio while Democrats highlighted the role of AM in the emergency broadcast system and its reach to underserved markets. Make of those rationales what you will (e.g., most people likely get their emergency messaging on their cellphones), but there is no question that AM in Every Vehicle would be a legislative favor to broadcasters, extending the life of terrestrial radio as the market moves toward alternatives like streaming and podcasts. Even if the market eventually abandons the AM band, the bill can serve as a precedent for FM radio, where more drivers listen to music. And that is significant because U.S. broadcasters still do not pay royalties to music artists for terrestrial radio play. That’s where AMFA comes in.

American Music Fairness Act (AMFA)

While the AM Radio bill was reintroduced this week by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced AMFA. “The United States is the only democratic country in the world in which artists are not paid for the use of their music on AM and FM radio,” said Senator Blackburn. “This legislation would close an outdated loophole that has allowed corporate broadcasters to take advantage of artists and their songs for decades.”

That’s it in a nutshell. And in a time when bipartisanship is in short supply, one would be hard-pressed to find a Member of Congress who does not agree that radio broadcasters should pay royalties to music artists for their vital contributions to the stations. The broadcasters will oppose AMFA, as they have always opposed royalty legislation, on the basis that 1) they cannot afford the royalties; and/or 2) their promotional value outweighs the royalty value. These claims are overstated, but even if they were not, the AMFA bill answers both. As describe in an older post:

As composers and artists have noted in many contexts, music is more regulated in terms of price than most other products on the market. While radio broadcasters are free to charge what the market will bear for advertising on their networks—and the largest entities earn billions in revenue—the music artists, with AMFA, are asking for a regulated price of more than zero for use of the only product that draws listeners to the stations in the first place. (Or do you listen to radio for the commercials?)

Further, not only should Congress condition passing AM Radio on passing AMFA, but it should set aside the political theater of a little-known resolution called the Local Radio Fairness Act (LRFA). Since at least 2008, this insincere (one might say cynical) never-to-be-passed resolution is akin to a loyalty pledge to the broadcasters, promising not to mandate royalties for musical artists. For instance, last year’s resolution highlighted the unfounded implication that radio play only benefits the artists rather than the honest assessment expressed in AMFA that the benefits are at least mutual if not generally tilted in favor of the broadcasters.

If Congress wants to mandate that AM radio remain in automobiles for the foreseeable future, so be it. But Members should also acknowledge that the law is a gift to the broadcasters and a precedent for a similar mandate for FM in the future. As such, it is only fair that Congress finally require American radio stations to pay artists for the music without which many radio stations would have little or no value whatsoever.

Photo by Ababil12

The Illusion of More

Dissecting the digital utopia.

Category: Law & Policy