Global music industry body warns Australia against weakening AI copyright law

The head of the global recording industry body IFPI is warning Australia against weakening copyright protections to accommodate artificial intelligence companies.

Victoria Oakley, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, told Guardian Australia that loosening the rules would be “ridiculous and dangerous.”

The IFPI represents recording industry groups around the world. Oakley said AI companies have made similar arguments for more flexible copyright rules in the U.S., U.K. and other markets.

Australia’s Labor government is considering copyright policy as part of a broader debate over artificial intelligence. That discussion also covers data centers, online safety, workforce issues, energy and the economy.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised “the strongest possible protection” for creative industries. He has also said using creative work without paying for it would amount to “theft.”

Creative groups nevertheless raised concerns after AI companies argued for more flexibility to train models on Australian material.

Some AI companies say the current licensing system makes it difficult to obtain the material they need. Anthropic proposed an opt-out approach that would allow content to be scraped unless rights holders objected.

Large AI companies have also argued that they need greater legal certainty before making investments or training models in Australia.

Oakley rejected the idea that Australia must weaken copyright protections to attract AI investment.

“I just don’t think it’s true that you will only get investment or growth, or be seen as pro-innovation, if you entirely give in to the demands of AI companies,” she said.

She also raised concerns about the international effects of creating a copyright safe harbor for AI training.

“You just need one safe harbour, because then you can train on music from anywhere in the world,” Oakley said.

Her warning was specific to how such an exception could affect music internationally. The Guardian report does not establish how an Australian safe harbor would apply to journalism or other forms of content.

Licensing is another area where the music industry and AI companies disagree.

Responding to independent Sen. David Pocock, OpenAI told a parliamentary committee that Spotify operates a different business model. It said Spotify primarily distributes unaltered copyrighted material and therefore would be expected to license what it streams.

Oakley pushed back on the broader suggestion that licensing poses an impractical barrier for AI companies.

She said music labels have already reached dozens of licensing agreements with smaller AI companies.

“It is perfectly possible to license,” Oakley said.

That figure comes from Oakley. Guardian Australia did not independently verify the number of agreements she cited.

Oakley argued that the music industry already has extensive experience negotiating licenses and managing rights. She presented that experience as evidence that AI companies can pursue permission rather than relying on broader copyright exceptions.

The Australian government has not announced what changes, if any, it will make.

Attorney General Michelle Rowland said through a spokesperson that the government remains “committed to supporting” creative industries. The spokesperson also said any future copyright changes should provide “meaningful control and fair compensation.”

The Guardian report notes that potential legal and constitutional questions could also arise around changes to Australian copyright law. Oakley declined to discuss those issues in detail.

For now, the dispute remains part of a wider policy debate over how Australia should balance AI investment with protections for creative industries.

Oakley’s position is that the country does not need to weaken copyright to encourage innovation. What Labor ultimately proposes will determine how far the government accepts that argument.