澳大利亚和英国一直以来都共享着对创造力的热爱。我们彼此消费对方的电视节目、新闻、音乐和书籍。我们的厨师会出现在对方的电视频道上，坦白说，当澳广公司（ABC）的《新闻播音员》（The Newsreader）在英国停播时，我感到非常失落。
ustralia and the UK have always had a shared love of creativity. We consume each other's TV, news, music and books. Our chefs appear on each other's TV channels and quite frankly I was bereft when the ABC's The Newsreader ended its run in the UK.
然而，这种共同的热爱似乎并未得到澳大利亚政府的回应。其急于吸引美国大型科技公司的 AI 投资，以及其认为必须配套推行的极端版权改革，威胁到一个耗时数十年建立起来的创意生态系统。
That shared love though, appears not to be reciprocated by the Australian government. Its rush to attract AI investment from big US tech, and the extreme copyright reforms that it believes need to go along with it, threatens a creative ecosystem that has taken decades to build.
阿尔巴尼斯政府提出的改革将赋予美国大型科技公司不受限制地获取澳大利亚和国际内容的权利。这将允许 AI 公司在“选择退出”模式下，获取澳大利亚人及其全球同行创作者在网上创作的一切内容。我们在英国经历过类似情况。我们的政府曾有过类似的想法，认为能够在不损害英国创意产业的前提下吸引 AI 投资并实现版权改革。这并非零和博弈。削弱版权就会削弱创意产业。这里存在巨大的权衡。一次性的短期投资将损害创意产业为子孙后代创造的潜力。
The Albanese government's proposed reforms would give US big tech unrestricted access to Australian and international content This would allow AI companies to get access to everything Australians and their global fellow creators create online under an "opt out" model We have been there in the UK. Our government had a similar idea. It believed it could attract AI investment and deliver copyright reform at no cost to the UK creative sector. This is not a zero-sum game. Weaken copyright and you weaken the creative industries. There is a massive trade-off. A one off, short-term investment will damage the potential of the creative sectors for future generations.
我们知道澳大利亚创意经济界的同行们非常担忧，他们理应如此。拒绝交易的能力是任何正常运作的市场的基本特征。如果卖方无法切实地说“不”，其谈判公平价格的能力就会大幅削弱。同一原则也适用于创意作品。该提案要求创作者必须让其作品可被获取，除非他们成功“选择退出”（而在实践中，选择退出机制根本行不通），这有削弱创作者权利及其作品市场价值的风险。欧盟的经验表明，选择退出制度在大规模应用中正在失效。
We know our colleagues in the Australian creative economy are incredibly worried, and so they should be. The ability to decline a transaction is a fundamental feature of any functioning market. If a seller cannot realistically say no, their ability to negotiate a fair price is significantly diminished. The same principle applies to creative works. By requiring creators to make their works available unless they successfully opt out (which they can't, as opt-outs don't work in practice), the proposal risks weakening both creators' rights and the market value of their work. Experience in the European Union suggests that opt-out systems are failing at scale.
利害关系更为重大。如果澳大利亚推进其改革，将成为全球创意内容“知识产权洗白”的天堂。如果英国创意企业的电视节目可被随意抓取，它们为何还要在澳大利亚授权？全球新闻出版商为何要向澳大利亚联合发行新闻？这将意味着对澳投资减少、澳大利亚民众的选择变少，并使澳大利亚与其许多国际条约承诺背道而驰。这还可能助长盗版，让澳大利亚人面临恶意软件的威胁。
There is more at stake, though. If Australia goes ahead with its reforms it would become the global IP-laundering paradise of creative content. Why would a UK creative business license its TV shows in Australia if they can be scraped at will? Why would a global news publisher syndicate its news into Australia? That would mean less investment in Australia and less choice for Australians, and put Australia at odds with many of its international treaty commitments. It could also fuel piracy, exposing Australians to malware.
这并不意味着我们反对 AI。事实上，我们恰恰相反。英国创意产业是 AI 最先进的采用者之一。但我们希望这是负责任的采用。我们也希望拥有主权 AI 能力，以确保能够保护国家安全，但这不可能通过沦为美国大型科技公司的附庸来实现。国家安全始于经济安全，牺牲创意产业无法做到这一点。
This doesn't mean we are anti-AI. In fact, we are the opposite. The UK's creative sector is one of the most advanced adopters of AI. We want that to be responsible adoption, though. We also want sovereign AI capabilities to ensure we can protect national security, but that doesn't happen by being a vassal of US big tech. National security begins with economic security, and throwing the creative sector under the bus doesn't do that.
解决之道在于 AI 企业为其模型离不开的内容。它们购买电力、购买人才、购买水资源。为什么内容应该是它们唯一免费获取的东西？大型 AI 企业正在环球推销其“灵丹妙药”，代价是版权改革。国际创意企业正注视着澳大利亚，难以置信政府竟然上了当，正如英国政府差点上当一样。
The solution is for AI firms to license the content that their models don't work without. They buy electricity. They buy talent. They buy water. Why should content be the only thing they get for free? Large AI firms are shopping around the world trying to sell their snake oil and the price is copyright reform. International creative businesses are looking at Australia and cannot believe the government has been duped, as the UK government so nearly was.
我们敦促澳大利亚政府放慢脚步，更详细地审视其提议背后的经济账，选择一条澳大利亚自己的道路，而非由美国科技巨头主导的道路。也许那样，我们甚至能看到那部难觅踪影的《新闻播音员》第四季。丹·格思里是英国知识产权联盟总干事
We urge the Australian government to slow down, to look in more detail at the economics of what they are proposing and choose an Australian way, rather than one dictated by US tech. Maybe then we might even get that elusive fourth series of The Newsreader. Dan Guthrie is the director general of the Alliance for Intellectual Property in the UK