This is an incredibly brave step taken by the government of Australia. They definitively ruled out creating a new text and data mining (TDM) exemption, provoking outrage from both the creative and tech industries. The problem first came to national attention in July. Industry titans, including Atlassian co-founder Scott Farquhar, called for a re-think of the proposed exemption, claiming that it would significantly increase economic growth. Both Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Industry and Science Minister Tim Ayres have repeatedly stated that there is “nothing of the sort” envisaged. Yet, they have not fully closed the door on it either.
Farquhar noted the superior benefits of a TDM exemption. By taking action on this issue alone, Australia could lure tens of billions of dollars in foreign investment. He highlighted the paradox facing copyright holders who are not seeing increased revenue while the economic advantages of artificial intelligence (AI) development remain untapped.
Government’s Position
Up until now, the government’s position on the TDM exemption has been pretty straightforward. Michelle Rowland, Minister for Communications, stated, “There is a body of work to do around what the copyright environment looks like in the AI world, but we are making it very clear that we will not be entertaining a text and data mining exception.” Creative sector stakeholders of all kinds were glad to see this strong affirmation. They had long been asking for clarity on the subject.
James Dickinson, chief executive of Screenrights, remarked that the government’s decision sends a “clear signal for the tech sector that this is the end of the road.” After many months of conversations, we have come to an agreement on the TDM exemption. This ruling seeks to mediate the interests of rights holders and the agenda of technology firms seeking to use data in AI development.
Even with the clarity offered, there is still quite a bit of dispute over what such a decision would mean. The government’s own Productivity Commission found that unlike other similar countries, Australia has TDM exemptions. Through the workshop, they hope to get input on what would be the impacts of implementing a TDM exemption here. Critics say that refusing the exemption would stifle creativity in Australia’s growing tech industry.
Reactions from Industry Leaders
After the government’s ruling, industry leaders reacted with cautious optimism, anger and disappointment. Annabelle Herd, the chief executive of ARIA, welcomed the government’s leadership on the issue. She went on to say that addressing creators’ protections must be part of any solution. She emphasized that there is “no evidence to show that it would be difficult for these companies to approach rights holders and license that work,” suggesting that companies should be held accountable for using copyrighted material.
Opposition leader Sussan Ley blasted the government’s handling as “wishy-washy”. She focused on the egregious way that content creators need better protections. She stated, “It is not appropriate for big tech to steal the work of Australian artists, musicians, creators, news media, journalism, and use it for their own ends without paying for it.” Ley’s quotes signal a larger frustration among artists and creators about getting paid fairly in a rapidly-digitizing world.
Farquhar further added, “We are in a perverse situation where copyright holders aren’t seeing any more money, but we don’t see the economic upside of training and hosting models in Australia.” His comments highlight the ongoing struggle between cultivating useful creative disruption and protecting the rightful economic interests of creators.
Future Considerations
As the conversation around TDM exemptions moves forward, it’s hard to tell exactly how this policy conversation will shift. The Productivity Commission’s report indicated that any TDM exception would not serve as a “blank cheque” for all copyrighted materials to be used indiscriminately in AI model training. Understanding this nuanced perspective helps set the stage for tough conversations. These changes, if any at all, should be aimed at the issue, with careful focus placed on protecting rights holders while empowering technological innovations.
