We must stand against AI theft

Most people would agree that theft is theft, whether it takes place with the aid of a tool or without. A scammer who uses software to access a vulnerable elderly person's bank account has left them just as disadvantaged as if they had lifted the money from their pocket.
In its infinite wisdom, however, Silicon Valley disagrees. Copyright material is not really copyrighted when it disadvantages the technology companies that wish to train their models on the efforts of writers, artists and musicians without paying for the privilege.
This laissez-faire attitude only goes so far: OpenAI was most displeased to learn that the Chinese firm DeepSeek might have 'inappropriately' used its models, and swore to take 'aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology'. But so far as creative industries go, the belief appears to be that everything and anything is fair game.
Regrettably, this attitude is shared by Sir Keir Starmer's Government, which is resisting an amendment to the Data Bill proposed by Baroness Kidron. The amendment would introduce regulations requiring AI firms to disclose which data was used during their development, enabling copyright holders to identify where their work has been used, and potentially seek licensing deals.
Sir Keir instructed his MPs to vote against the amendment for a fourth successive time on Tuesday, sending the Data Bill back to the House of Lords. On Wednesday, the Government duly suffered a fifth defeat on the matter in the Lords.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

33 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Israel kills innocent Palestinians. Activists spray-paint a plane. Guess which the UK government calls terrorism

On 20 June, in what has now become an appallingly familiar story, Israeli forces once again opened fire on Palestinians at an aid distribution site, this time killing 23 people. The same day, it was revealed that activists affiliated with the UK group Palestine Action had broken into an RAF base and defaced two military aircraft in an act of protest. One of these actions involved the intentional use of lethal violence against civilians, resulting in the deaths of 23 loved and irreplaceable human beings. The other involved no violence against any living things and resulted in no deaths or injuries. The UK government has now announced its intention to deal with one of these incidents as a terrorist offence. Guess which. International organisations could hardly be more unanimous in their assessment that Israel is committing extremely grave war crimes in Gaza. In November last year, a UN special committee found that Israel's campaign in Gaza was consistent with the characteristics of genocide. In December, an Amnesty International investigation concluded that Israel 'has committed and is continuing to commit genocide'. Now, a series of unprovoked and illegal Israeli attacks on Iran have succeeded in drawing the US directly into war with Iran, in violation of US and international law. While massacres continue in Gaza, Israeli aggression threatens to ignite a major regional and perhaps even global conflict. And yet the UK continues to provide Israel with military intelligence, and British companies continue to sell lethal weapons to the Israeli state. In a poll conducted last year, 56% of British voters supported a complete embargo on arms sales to Israel. Across the UK, hundreds of thousands of people have attended demonstrations mourning those lost to the conflict and demanding an end to the slaughter. But the government stubbornly persists in its support for Israel's military campaign. Mass peaceful protest, even with majority support among the wider population, has yielded no results. In the face of state support for genocide, what are conscientious people supposed to do? The activists who broke into the RAF facility at Brize Norton knew, of course, that their actions were illegal. From the suffragettes to the gay rights movement to the anti-apartheid struggle, genuine political resistance has always involved intentional law-breaking. As Martin Luther King Jr wrote from a Birmingham jail: 'One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.' And the provision of weapons to facilitate genocide is more than unjust: it is an abyss of moral horror. Those brave enough to break the law in protest – many of whom are already serving time in prison for their actions – deserve our highest respect. But proscribing an entire organisation under the Terrorism Act is not the same thing as prosecuting particular individuals for specific transgressions. If the government follows through with its intention to designate Palestine Action as a terror organisation, mere membership of the group would constitute a crime. In fact, even supporting the group purely in words – as I am doing now – could also constitute a serious legal offence, punishable with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Financial dealings with members and supporters may also be illegal, even if the individuals concerned have done nothing against the law other than belong to or express support for a protest movement. Under UK law, the home secretary has broad discretion to proscribe any organisation 'concerned in terrorism'. Until now, this process has only ever been used against militant groups either directly involved in or actively advocating violent armed struggle. But crucially, the act defines terrorism vaguely enough to include mere property damage and disruption of electronic systems – even in the total absence of a threat to human life or public safety. If the government proceeds down this path, any ordinary person in the UK could in theory be sent to prison simply for expressing verbal support for non-violent activism. Quite aside from the broader principle, this would represent an alarming curtailment of free speech. Palestine Action is not an armed group. It has never been responsible for any fatalities and does not pose any risk to the public. Its methods do involve property sabotage, which is, obviously, illegal. But if killing 23 civilians at an aid distribution site is not terrorism, how can we possibly be expected to accept that spray-painting a plane is? Law-abiding protest has so far failed to stop the genocide. More than 50,000 innocent children have been killed or injured. In what circumstances could civil disobedience ever be justified if not now? I can only say that I admire and support Palestine Action wholeheartedly – and I will continue to, whether that becomes a terrorist offence or not. Sally Rooney is an Irish writer

Telegraph

34 minutes ago

• Telegraph

School under fire over drag act for 11-year-olds

A secondary school has been criticised over plans to stage a drag artist performance to children as young as 11. Fareham Academy, in Hampshire, said the display would form part of its annual Pride event on June 27. But Suella Braverman, the former Tory home secretary, has urged the school, which is in her constituency, to rethink the 'morally reprehensible' plans. She told The Telegraph that such a performance would be 'utterly inappropriate' for children, adding: 'Schools should be places of learning, not adult entertainment.' The MP said several parents had complained to her about the plans, which follow a similar Pride event at the school last year when a drag artist also performed. A statement on the academy's website said: 'This event is a wonderful opportunity for our community to come together to raise awareness and show support for the LGBT+ community. 'We will also be raising funds for local LGBT+ charities during the day.' However, Mrs Braverman said: 'This is utterly inappropriate for children at school. I've been contacted by several parents and I've urged the school to withdraw their invitation to this drag artist. 'Adults are free to enjoy drag, but children should not be exposed to it at school. It is highly sexualised, presents a demeaning and distorted image of women and does not fairly represent the LGB community either.' She added: 'Pretending to children that a man can be a woman if they put on some make up and wear a dress is wrong and sexualises the education of children. 'There are many other ways in which the school could mark Pride, eg by inviting a lesbian woman or a gay man to talk about their experiences, instead of this offensive, sexualised and wholly inappropriate action. 'I consider this a morally indefensible safeguarding issue and urge Fareham Academy to change course.' Government guidance states that schools should include age-appropriate LGBT+ content in their curriculum, including during Pride events, and foster an inclusive environment. It also advises that LGBT+ teaching should be integrated into the curriculum, rather than being taught as standalone lessons, and that schools should ensure all pupils feel accepted and safe. On Saturday, The Telegraph revealed that Swindon and Wiltshire Pride, a charity, had been handing out leaflets to primary schools to teach schoolchildren about 300 different varieties of LGBT pride flags – and the sexualities and gender identities behind each of them.

Daily Mail​

35 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Families in seaside town dubbed Chelsea-on-Sea celebrate after developer loses bid to scrap rule new builds should be sold to locals only

Families in a seaside town dubbed Chelsea-on-Sea have celebrated after a developer lost its bid to scrap a new rule that new builds should only be sold to locals. The Planning Inspectorate ruled this week that Valentine London can only sell its four new luxury apartments in Salcombe, Devon, to people planning to live there full-time. The developer had appealed South Hams District Council's 2019 rule that any new homes in the coastal resort town must be primary residences. The firm said this strict condition made its £1.2million flats 'unsellable' - but its pleas were rejected by the national planning body on Monday. Salcombe earned its nickname, punning on the affluent London area of Chelsea, as almost half its dwellings are owned by outsiders. They often use their properties as second homes or holiday lets. It means property prices in the town have soared to an eye-watering average of £826,000, pricing locals out of the market and forcing many out of the area. So, natives of the picturesque sailing town are overjoyed at this latest decision - which they said sets an important precedent for all coastal areas affected by second home ownership. Salcombe's mayor, town coucillor Jasper Evans, said: 'Salcombe's housing stock is under pressure from the number of second homes which is absolutely not a criticism of second home owners. 'They have invested massively in the town and we are tremendously appreciative of everything they contribute. To be clear - we welcome everyone who loves Salcombe. 'In Salcombe, the permanent resident population has been in decline. We don't want that to continue. 'We want young people to stay in the town, work here, be part of the local economy and community. 'The town's year-round vitality depends on its permanent residents of all ages. So, the policy is that if you buy a new house, it has to be your main home. 'That doesn't apply to houses already built. 'This policy is certainly well-supported in Salcombe. It is in our Neighbourhood Plan and it's been introduced in many coastal towns, especially in the south west, who have also been closely watching this appeal. 'It was very important for us and I am sure other communities who adopted the principal residence condition will be equally pleased with this decision.' The properties are no longer listed for sale and the estate agents said they could not comment on why. MailOnline has contacted Valentine London for comment but the company appears to have gone into receivership as of May last year. Its directors are listed on Companies House as Andrew and Samantha Manning-Smith, with both appointed in May 2016. Mr Manning-Smith's LinkedIn page reads: 'Currently developing 15,000 sq ft on the water in Salcombe.' Meanwhile, Mrs Manning-Smith's describes her as a 'property owner in Salcombe' with the development 'now concluded and in the sales phase' - and her profile picture bearing the tag 'open to work'. Their accounts also show them both also currently working as co-founders of Targa Club as of August 2019, a private members' club for car lovers. Mrs Manning-Smith has regularly featured as a 'panellist on political and current affairs' on Radio 4, Radio 5 and Channel 4 with Anita Anand and Cathy Newman. She was asked to speak at the Conservative Party Conference by then-Prime Minister David Cameron in 2009. And she was put forward to stand as a candidate for the party in London's Richmond Park in 2007, missing out to Zac Goldsmith, who was MP from 2010 to 2016 and from 2017 to 2019. He served as Minister for Overseas Territories from September 2022 to June 2023 and is now a life peer. Mrs Manning-Smith has also won various business accolades, as a finalist in Business Woman of the Year 2006, invited to Buckingham Palace to meet the late Queen in 2007 as one of the 100 Most Influential Women In Business. Planning inspector Oliver Marigold said the drawbacks of letting Valentine London sell the flats without the primary residence condition would 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits'. South Hams District Council brought in this rule in its 2019 Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan as the town reached breaking point over the second homes issue. Salcombe had become the second most expensive seaside location after Sandbanks. This was no mean feat, given the Dorset seaside town has long been the playground of celebrities like football manager Harry Redknapp and chef Rick Stein. Permission for the four flats in Salcombe and a commercial unit at ground level below them - known collectively as the Brewery Quay scheme - was granted in 2020. The council says the developers were aware of the primary residence restriction throughout. Developers managed to flog the commercial space to a marine business. But the white elephant flats have still not sold, despite efforts to variously market them off-plan, after completion and at 25 per cent under market value. Valentine London has claimed this is because buyers see it as a risky investment, fearing the principal residence rule would make it hard to sell the flats on. But Mr Marigold did not agree: 'The main reason that the flats are not occupied is because of the marketing strategy, which I have found has not sufficiently explored all potential opportunities.' He said as far as he was aware, new dwellings granted permission in the South Hams area since the rule was implemented in 2019 have sold without any problems. The inspector added a lower price may yet pull potential buyers in. He also remarked: 'I do not accept the contention that the planning system entitles developers to expect a reasonable return from development or that the need for a return justifies non-compliance with planning policy.' Mr Marigold also said not upholding the rule would undermine its function - to 'redress the balance of an unquestionably high proportion of second or holiday homes in Salcombe'. 'Tourism is important to Salcombe, but the level of second homes and holiday lets is harming its vitality', Mr Marigold wrote. 'Policy H3 clearly sets out that new unrestricted market homes will not be supported, to meet the housing needs of local people and to strengthen the community and economy.' District councillor Mark Long has previously said, after the appeal was submitted: 'We need people living here full time. 'What we're looking for is to try and balance things out so that we actually have a vibrant, viable community.' If Valentine London won, all areas with principal residence conditions would be at risk 'right across the South West and around the country', he warned. 'And so I think it's important that we try and hold the line here.' Salcombe Town Council has previously echoed this sentiment: 'Nothing in any document submitted persuades us to waver from upholding the principal residence Policy SALC H3 which is and has been very clear: "New unrestricted market homes will not be supported at any time"... 'Many other parishes are protected by similar policies and any deviation would set a dangerous precedent in and beyond Salcombe. This policy must be vigorously upheld.' Salcombe is one of 12 parishes in the South Hams district, on Devon's south coast, which have adopted principal residency conditions 'to achieve sustainable communities'. Such policies have been adopted in other parts of the country too, like the coastal town of St Ives, Cornwall. A spokesperson for Salcombe Town Council has now commented, after this week's decision: 'This is more than just a planning decision. It's about keeping Salcombe a lived-in town throughout the year... 'We want our streets to stay alive all year round, the school well-used, neighbours sharing a coffee and local shops and services supported by residents who call Salcombe home. 'Other coastal communities which have a substantial visitor economy and many houses not permanently occupied have been closely watching this appeal. 'This decision helps reinforce the shared importance of protecting space for permanent communities in areas under intense second-home demand.' It added: 'We welcome everyone who loves Salcombe, whether you're here all year, some of the year or just visiting. 'What matters is that we work together to ensure Salcombe stays vibrant, resilient, and inclusive. 'Supporting principal residence new homes is not about exclusion - it's about keeping the heart of Salcombe beating year round and for generations to come.' Valentine London co-director Mr Manning-Smith, has previously been quoted as refuting the council's claims developers knew about the restriction when the homes were built. He said: 'This was the first primary occupancy restriction in Devon. 'When we applied for preplanning and planning the primary occupancy restriction did not exist. 'It also did not exist in the statement of common ground agreed with the council a month before the appeal. 'The point we were aware the restriction was requested to be applied by South Hams Council was on the day of the appeal. 'We have applied to remove the condition as the apartments are unsaleable at a proper price with the condition, which we told the inspector on the original appeal, and highly unlikely to be mortgageable. 'Despite numerous reductions in price and offers of incentives, the apartments have failed to find a buyer in the last three and a half years due to the condition on this site.'