Copyright law has long served owners and technology companies more effectively than creators. AI licensing now makes the case for stronger protection for artists.

When you print out the Australian Copyright Act 1968 it will run to 700 pages. There is no flowchart or map that shows you how to navigate the length or legalese. Many of the sections include definitions that defy common sense understanding.

The words “creator” and “creative” do not appear anywhere in the legislation.

That we have become accustomed to thinking of copyright as the law that protects artists is a significant achievement of the global media conglomerates, who we forget were once just technology companies. In the early days of the sound recording industry, these were companies whose business model was based on copyright theft. The early gramophone companies did not pay for the music they recorded. They did not have to do so because copyright legislation of that time could not recognise the technological trace of a musical composition inscribed on a pianola roll or wax cylinder as an infringing reproduction of the composer’s work. This situation was recognised as unfair to both the composer and the music publisher whose profits were derived from selling print music and the right to perform it. The newfangled technology interfered with the market for both. Law reform was........

© Pearls and Irritations