The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) have rejected the Productivity Commission’s proposal in the “Harnessing Data and Digital Technology” Interim Report to create a new fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act for text and data mining used for AI training.
The music industry bodies warn the proposal is unnecessary and would denigrate existing AI licensing deals. The text and data mining exception would devastate copyright industries that contribute 6-7% of GDP, employing over one million Australians, while stripping Australians of the right to control and commercialise their valuable intellectual property. The proposed major government intervention in free markets would legalise wholesale theft of Australian sound recordings, rendering copyright worthless in the burgeoning market of artificial intelligence products, applications, and services.
ARIA and PPCA CEO, Annabelle Herd, said: “Recording artists have always embraced innovation and new technology. We are absolutely not opposed to AI, but this proposal should be dismissed immediately. There is simply no evidence base to justify an AI exception to copyright law when music licensing at scale for AI is effective and growing. A text and data mining exception would rip away the commercial and moral rights of artists and rightsholders and hand the benefits of AI solely to major technology companies.
“Australia’s existing copyright law is the foundation of the creative industries and the digital economy. It aligns with global standards and effectively drives innovation, local cultural investment, and commercial activity. The existing legal framework is 100% clear. It enables licensing negotiations and agreements that give rightsholders control over exploitation of their works,” she said.
“Although this is a new market, hundreds of AI licensing deals are already operating at commercial scale, from Merlin’s licence with ElevenLabs to OpenAI’s agreements with News Corp and The Guardian. The fact that these deals already exist exposes the myth that the current law is somehow uncertain or not fit for purpose. Introducing a text and data mining exception – or any form of compulsory licence – would mean these agreements are ripped up at the expense of local artists and record labels.
“Australian songs, stories, art, research and creative works are among our nation’s greatest treasures: they deserve respect, permission and payment, not exploitation. The prospect of unfettered exploitation by AI companies of First Nations music and culture should horrify Australians,” Ms Herd said.
“This proposal masquerades as a ‘productivity measure’ when it prioritises the commercial interests of global technology companies over Australian workers and industries that drive real productivity in publishing, journalism, music, film and research. Technology companies are seeking this exception because they want unrestricted access without permission, attribution or payment. Both permission and payment are essential.
“The commercial reality contradicts claims that copyright restricts AI development. Instead of rushing to open the gates for AI companies to unrestricted and free access to the valuable intellectual property of artists and creators, the Productivity Commission should work to identify genuine incentives to investment in Australia by AI companies, including access to capital and energy considerations.”
The United States leads global AI investment with $US109.1 billion in 2024 while operating without a Text and Data Mining exception, demonstrating that strong copyright and strong AI development coexist successfully.
Countries with Text and Data Mining exceptions have failed to deliver promised investment and innovation. Japan and Singapore implemented broad exceptions before ChatGPT’s release, yet neither has achieved breakthrough AI investment. Even the European Union acknowledges its 2019 Text and Data Mining regime is unfit for generative AI training.
Australia’s current position aligns with major economies choosing licensing over legislative carve-outs including Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and the UK, where similar proposals stalled in 2024 following fierce opposition from creators and rights-holders.
Australia’s copyright framework is internationally consistent and already enables flexible licensing at scale. Weakening it would place Australia out of step with global standards, create unnecessary uncertainty, and devalue the very creative works that sustain over one million jobs and generate hundreds of millions in annual licensing revenue for Australian creators.
A Text and Data Mining exception would allow global companies to exploit and commercialise Australian copyright for free, entrenching monopolies and gaining unassailable Australian market dominance. The solution is clear: protect copyright, licence content, and value Australian culture. This is an existential moment for Australian culture and human creativity.
