Michael Miller, the executive chairman of News Corp Australasia, has called on the Albanese government to reject proposed changes to copyright law that would affect artificial intelligence (AI). In a recent address, Miller expressed concerns that without proper safeguards, Australians risk losing their cultural identity and voice due to AI technologies that scrape online content for training purposes. He emphasized that these technologies seek access to creative works without permission or compensation.

Miller highlighted the need for a "social license" for major tech companies, suggesting they should adhere to Australian standards in exchange for market access. He criticized the lack of accountability faced by these companies compared to traditional businesses in Australia. Drawing parallels with past challenges faced by the media industry during the internet's rise, he warned against repeating mistakes that could lead to further closures of news outlets.

The call comes amid discussions about a potential "text and data mining exception" in copyright law which Miller argues would allow AI firms to exploit copyrighted material freely. He maintained that existing laws are sufficient and do not require alteration for tech companies' convenience. The consequences of changing these laws could lead to fewer media voices and stories in Australia, undermining national identity.

Miller also urged the government to implement promised support programs for small publishers and reiterated calls for accountability from large tech platforms regarding their impact on society.

Original article

The article primarily discusses Michael Miller's concerns regarding proposed changes to copyright law and their implications for artificial intelligence (AI) in Australia. However, it does not provide actionable information that a normal person can utilize right now. There are no clear steps or resources mentioned that individuals can take to address the issues raised.

In terms of educational depth, while the article presents Miller's arguments and context about copyright laws and AI, it does not delve deeply into how these laws work or their historical evolution. It lacks detailed explanations about the implications of AI on creative works or how existing laws function, which would help readers understand the broader context.

Regarding personal relevance, the topic may indirectly affect readers by influencing future media landscapes and cultural identity in Australia. However, it does not provide immediate relevance to individuals' daily lives or decisions.

The article serves a public service function by raising awareness about potential risks associated with AI and copyright law changes but fails to offer practical advice or tools that people can use in response to these issues.

When assessing practicality, there is no clear advice presented that individuals could realistically follow. The discussion remains at a high level without offering specific actions that could be taken by everyday people.

In terms of long-term impact, while the concerns raised are significant for society as a whole—potentially affecting media diversity and cultural identity—the article does not provide guidance on how individuals might prepare for or respond to these changes over time.

Emotionally, the piece may evoke concern about technological advancements overshadowing cultural identity; however, it lacks constructive pathways for readers to feel empowered or hopeful about addressing these challenges.

Lastly, there are elements of clickbait in its dramatic framing of potential losses related to copyright law changes without providing substantial evidence or solutions. The focus seems more on generating attention rather than offering concrete help.

Overall, while the article highlights important issues regarding copyright law and AI's impact on culture in Australia, it falls short in providing actionable steps for readers. To find better information on this topic, individuals could look up reputable legal resources regarding copyright laws or engage with advocacy groups focused on media rights and technology impacts.

The concerns raised about the proposed changes to copyright law, particularly regarding artificial intelligence's access to creative works, highlight significant implications for local communities and kinship bonds. When major tech companies are allowed to exploit copyrighted material without proper safeguards, it can lead to a dilution of cultural identity and a loss of unique local narratives that bind families and clans together.

In communities where storytelling, art, and shared histories are vital for nurturing relationships among generations—especially between children and elders—the erosion of these cultural expressions threatens the very fabric that supports family duty. If AI technologies indiscriminately scrape content without compensating creators, it undermines the livelihoods of those who contribute to cultural richness. This can fracture family cohesion as parents struggle to provide for their children in creative professions that become less viable.

Moreover, when accountability is lacking from these large tech entities, it shifts responsibility away from local stewardship towards distant corporations that prioritize profit over community welfare. This creates an environment where families may feel compelled to rely on external forces rather than fostering trust within their own networks. Such dependencies can weaken kinship ties as individuals become more isolated from each other in pursuit of economic survival.

The potential introduction of a "text and data mining exception" could further exacerbate this issue by allowing AI firms unfettered access to materials created by local artists and storytellers without recognizing their contributions or ensuring fair compensation. The result is not just an economic threat but a profound cultural one; as fewer voices are heard in media landscapes dominated by impersonal technology, the stories that define communities risk being lost altogether.

This situation poses a direct challenge to the responsibilities inherent in parenting and caregiving roles within families. When creative outlets diminish due to exploitation by technology companies, parents may find themselves unable to instill pride in their heritage or provide meaningful narratives for their children—essential elements for developing identity and belonging. Elders lose platforms through which they share wisdom with younger generations, further eroding intergenerational bonds crucial for community resilience.

If these trends continue unchecked—if we allow corporate interests to dictate terms at the expense of familial duties—communities will face dire consequences: diminished trust among neighbors, weakened family structures unable to support procreation effectively, and ultimately a loss of stewardship over shared land and resources essential for survival.

To counteract this trajectory requires renewed commitment at the local level: advocating for fair practices that respect creators' rights while fostering environments where families can thrive together through mutual support systems rather than reliance on distant authorities or impersonal technologies. Upholding personal responsibility within kinship ties is paramount; only then can we ensure that future generations inherit not just stories but also strong communal bonds capable of sustaining life itself.

Michael Miller uses strong language when he says, "Australians risk losing their cultural identity and voice due to AI technologies." This wording creates a sense of urgency and fear. It suggests that the changes in copyright law will lead to a significant loss, which may not be supported by evidence. This emotional appeal can lead readers to feel more strongly against the proposed changes without presenting a balanced view of the potential benefits.

Miller claims that AI technologies "seek access to creative works without permission or compensation." This statement frames AI companies as greedy and unethical. By using words like "seek" and "without permission," it implies malicious intent rather than discussing the complexities of copyright law and innovation. This choice of words helps paint tech companies in a negative light while ignoring any potential positive aspects.

When Miller talks about needing a "social license" for major tech companies, he implies these companies are operating outside acceptable norms. The phrase suggests that these firms are not accountable to society, which can create distrust among readers. However, this perspective does not consider how these companies might contribute positively or comply with existing regulations.

Miller warns against repeating past mistakes during the internet's rise, stating it could lead to further closures of news outlets. This comparison creates an emotional connection by invoking fear based on historical events. However, it does not provide specific examples or evidence linking current proposals directly to such outcomes, making this argument less persuasive.

He argues that changing laws could lead to "fewer media voices and stories in Australia." This statement presents an absolute outcome without acknowledging any counterarguments or potential benefits from adapting copyright laws for new technologies. By framing the issue this way, it simplifies a complex debate into a binary choice between preserving media diversity and embracing technological advancement.

Miller states that existing laws are sufficient and do not require alteration for tech companies' convenience. The phrase “for tech companies’ convenience” suggests that any change is merely self-serving for these businesses rather than considering broader implications for society as well. This wording dismisses legitimate discussions about how copyright laws might evolve alongside technology while portraying those advocating for change as selfish.

When he mentions implementing promised support programs for small publishers, there is an implication that large tech platforms have failed them thus far. The use of “promised” indicates unmet obligations without providing context on why those promises may have been difficult to fulfill or what has been done so far. It creates an impression of negligence on part of larger entities while ignoring complexities involved in policy implementation.

Miller criticizes large tech platforms regarding their impact on society but does not specify what accountability measures should look like or how they would be enforced effectively. His call for accountability lacks detail on practical solutions or examples where accountability has succeeded elsewhere. Without this information, his argument feels incomplete and leans towards general criticism rather than constructive dialogue about improvement.

The text conveys a range of meaningful emotions that shape the overall message and influence the reader's reaction. One prominent emotion is concern, expressed through Michael Miller's warnings about the potential loss of cultural identity and voice for Australians due to AI technologies. Phrases like "risk losing their cultural identity" and "exploit copyrighted material freely" highlight a deep worry about the future of creative works and media in Australia. This concern is strong, as it underscores the urgency of protecting national culture against perceived threats from technology. It serves to create sympathy among readers who may share similar fears about losing their cultural heritage.

Another significant emotion present in the text is frustration. Miller criticizes major tech companies for lacking accountability, stating they face fewer responsibilities than traditional businesses. The use of phrases like "lack of accountability" conveys a sense of injustice, which can resonate with readers who feel frustrated by corporate practices that prioritize profit over ethical considerations. This frustration helps build trust with the audience by aligning Miller’s views with those who advocate for fairness and responsibility in business practices.

Additionally, there is an element of urgency reflected in Miller’s call for action regarding copyright law changes and support programs for small publishers. His insistence that existing laws are sufficient suggests a strong desire to protect Australian media from further decline, evoking feelings of alarm about potential negative consequences if changes are made. This urgency encourages readers to consider taking action or supporting measures that safeguard local media voices.

The emotional weight carried by these sentiments guides readers toward specific reactions—sympathy towards those affected by AI advancements, worry about cultural erosion, trust in calls for accountability, and inspiration to advocate for protective measures within copyright law.

To persuade effectively, the writer employs emotionally charged language rather than neutral terms; words like "scrape," "exploit," and "closures" evoke stronger feelings than more clinical alternatives would have done. Additionally, comparisons between past challenges faced by the media industry during the internet's rise and current threats posed by AI serve to amplify concerns about repeating historical mistakes. By framing these issues dramatically—suggesting dire consequences such as fewer media voices—the writer enhances emotional impact while steering attention toward critical discussions around technology's role in society.

Overall, these emotional elements work together not only to inform but also to motivate readers toward advocacy or support for policies that align with protecting Australian culture against technological encroachment. The strategic use of emotion throughout this discourse ultimately aims to shift public opinion on copyright law reforms while fostering a collective sense of responsibility towards preserving national identity amidst rapid technological change.