APRA AMCOS urges incentives, not copyright reform, for AI growth
APRA AMCOS has criticised the Productivity Commission's proposed Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception, urging a shift towards investment incentives to support AI development in Australia while upholding creator safeguards.
Representing more than 124,000 Australasian songwriters, composers, and music publishers, APRA AMCOS contends that the Commission's interim report demonstrates significant shortcomings in its approach to copyright and artificial intelligence.
Concerns over expertise and analysis
In its submission, APRA AMCOS highlighted what it sees as major deficiencies in the Commission's process and understanding of creative industries. The organisation maintains that the Commission has not conducted a proper cost-benefit analysis and that its consultation has been skewed heavily towards technology businesses and lobby groups, with minimal engagement with creators themselves.
"Rather than undermining copyright protections, the Commission should explore investment incentives that could attract genuine AI development to Australia while maintaining appropriate creator protections," says Dean Ormston, CEO, APRA AMCOS.
Ormston argues that "Tax benefits and offsets for companies committing to transparent, licensed AI development would create positive economic opportunities without sacrificing the rights of Australian creators, but the Commission has missed the mark entirely."
The submission notes that only one creator group was consulted by the Commission, whereas over ten meetings were held with companies, including Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, and industry councils. APRA AMCOS also points to the AUD $63.7 billion valuation of Australia's creative economy, questioning the unsubstantiated projections of AUD $116 billion in productivity gains cited in the report.
Contradictions and global context
APRA AMCOS warns that the proposed TDM exception is inconsistent with the Commission's recent positions, particularly its 2022 report on protections for Indigenous cultural expressions, and observes that similar plans were withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 2023 on the grounds of insufficient consideration of harm to creators.
The submission draws attention to current legal and regulatory developments internationally, noting that 51 copyright lawsuits have been filed in the United States alone against AI companies, and that a new European Parliament study illustrates how copyright infringement in Australia can occur even if AI was trained overseas, as training "facilitates synthetic reproduction."
Effects on intellectual property
APRA AMCOS claims the Commission's analysis overlooks the motivations of technology companies seeking access to high-quality creative works. Citing recent research from the International Confederation of Music Publishers, the organisation alleges that AI firms are responsible for "the largest IP theft in human history," involving the unauthorised scraping of works by prominent artists such as The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Beyoncé, Ed Sheeran and Bob Dylan.
The submission outlines that major technology companies collectively spent over USD $60 million in the United States and EUR €67 million in the European Union on lobbying in 2024, advocating positions similar to those in the Commission's interim report. APRA AMCOS describes claims that Australia's copyright framework inhibits investment as "demonstrably false and represent an obvious attempt to pressure government into abandoning creator protections for their own profit."
Hidden costs and local impact
Concerns are also raised about the environmental and societal costs associated with the increased data centre presence required for AI operations. According to data from the International Energy Agency, APRA AMCOS notes that "data centres require 41% increases in electricity generation and consume up to 5 million gallons of water daily," with projected annual consumption reaching 1.2 trillion litres by 2030.
The organisation argues that consumers will bear these costs and criticises the minimal employment impact relative to the creative industries, which currently employ 282,000 workers. APRA AMCOS demands that technology firms provide greater transparency regarding the location of new data centres and their impact on local communities and environments.
Licensing frameworks and policy alternatives
APRA AMCOS asserts that licensing markets for creative content are evolving internationally without legislative intervention, and contends that existing frameworks, such as those established for educational photocopying and platforms like Napster, could be used as a model. The organisation argues that AI companies have thus far not engaged with these licensing pathways and instead seek broad exemptions that would legitimise widespread use of creators' work without accountability.
The organisation sets out specific recommendations for the government, including incentives for companies that agree to robust licensing, transparent source disclosure and revenue sharing with rights holders. APRA AMCOS believes that this approach would encourage investment and employment in technology sectors, while positioning Australia as an example of responsible AI governance.
"The current report represents a false choice between innovation and creator protection," concludes Ormston. "Government investment incentives could demonstrate that these objectives are complementary, positioning Australia to capture AI development benefits while maintaining the foundations that support cultural creativity."
APRA AMCOS is therefore calling for the Commission to drop the proposed TDM exception in favour of developing frameworks that enable both AI advancement and continued protection for creators.
