A New Chapter in the Copyright Conversation

Foreword

At CAST, we aim to contribute to productive, generative conversations. Conversations that don’t pick sides but rather help frame discussions in a way that can help understand the past to better create the future.

Our interest in the entertainment industry is in the discovery of a better model for the future. One that is led by a stronger connection to technology so that the future can be built together.

Setting the scene

Over the last 12 months, music copyright in AI training has been a hot topic, but heated up in August when the Productivity Commission floated introducing a “text and data mining” exception to the Copyright Act, essentially allowing AI systems to train on copyrighted works without prior permission.

Tech Council CEO Scott Farquhar was pulled into the discussion after he made comments that the benefits of large language models outweighed the issues raised by AI training its data on other people’s work for free. His position was that if AI, when used by individuals, goes on to create a new and novel piece of work, he would be okay with it being free from copyright.

The proposal and comments saw backlash from creators and industry bodies. ARIA and PPCA urged the Commission to preserve copyright protections and instead optimise licensing systems, warning against granting tech firms “unrestricted and free access” to artists’ intellectual property. Meanwhile, the arts sector called the reforms “creative theft,” arguing they prioritise technology over livelihoods.

APRA AMCOS CEO Dean Ormston challenged the narrative that copyright is blocking AI innovation. He insisted technology companies don’t need exemptions, they need licences. “This isn’t about technology versus creativity. It’s about recognition and compensation.”

It did get me thinking about the role copyright has played since it was introduced, what was the original purpose, and how has it evolved? The question for me was, in the current conversation, is the focus on copyright distracting us from discovering a new way for us to value music and its cultural contribution? Or will copyright become one pillar in a new foundation for how music thrives in the future?

A Decade (and More) of Struggle

Over the last 20+ years, even before the AI discussion, artists have “struggled” to build sustainable careers. Is the reason for the decline that copyright is being devalued?

It doesn’t seem like it. Copyright now makes up an estimated 80% of music industry revenues, compared to just 30% in 1999 at the peak of CD sales.  It's more or less doubled in value.

The data point that backs the value in copyright is the amount of private equity that has entered the industry, signalling music as a stable investment class. With private equity being some of the most risk-averse money in the world, their activity suggests they’re making a sure bet that copyright is only going to increase in value. Goldman Sachs is forecasting the value to again double in the next 10 years.

So with copyright now more valuable than ever (and set to become even more so), why is it tougher than ever for artists to build a career? Is copyright the answer to the challenges the industry faces into the future? Or is there a new way to see the industry evolve? 

At this point, it could be worth revisiting why we have copyright and the original intent.

Where It Came From

As an artist, the story I had always understood to be the history of copyright was that it was given to artists originally to cover their works for life but had to increase as humans began to live for longer. So I found it interesting that when copyright was first introduced through the Statute of Anne in 1710, it was a temporary incentive. A short-term monopoly granted to authors so they could earn a living from their work before it returned to the public.

The title of the Act made that pretty clear:

“An Act for the Encouragement of Learning… during the Times therein mentioned.”

At its core, copyright was a social contract, not private property. Society agreed to give creators exclusive rights for a limited period in exchange for their contribution to culture. After this initial period, the work would enter the public domain, where others could learn from it, remix it, and create something new.

That temporary control was revolutionary. It protected the livelihood of composers, writers, and artists, but it also guaranteed that knowledge and art would eventually belong to everyone. Here's the timeline of the increases in copyright terms:

1790 — 14 years (renewable once to 28)
1831 — 28 years (renewable once to 42)
1909 — 28 years (renewable once to 56)
1976 — Life + 50 years
1998 — Life + 70 years (95 years for corporate works)

Now just a flag here, this is in no way saying copyright should have or shouldn't have evolved.  At this point in the article it's a revisit of where it came from to understand whether it’s still serving its original purpose: to reward creation, not preservation.

Is Copyright Still Rewarding Creation or Preserving It?

Right now, it’s harder than ever to be an emerging artist (as reflected across countless news articles and panels). If we look at where the money is flowing, it’s heavily weighted towards artists who have already created. That’s where the touring revenue sits, that’s where private investment is going, and that’s what dominates industry focus.

What’s the Future of IP and Copyright Beyond Music?

Across the broader entertainment landscape, there are signals of change in how value is being created and sustained.

Last month, Electronic Arts (EA Games) was acquired by Silver Lake, the Saudi Public Investment Fund, and Affinity Partners. It was the largest leveraged buyout in history. The acquisition wasn’t simply about purchasing existing assets; it was an investment in a studio whose value lies in its ability to create intellectual property.

Similarly, in 2024, Disney invested $1.5 billion in Epic Games, the creator of Fortnite and the Unreal Engine. Unreal isn’t a single piece of IP. It’s a platform that powers thousands of experiences across gaming, film, and live entertainment. Disney’s investment represents a move toward supporting creative infrastructure, systems that enable the continual generation of new worlds, characters, and stories.

These examples show how other parts of the entertainment industry are directing investment toward the creation of IP and copyright, rather than just the acquisition of existing works. Studios and platforms are being valued for their capacity to produce and sustain new creative ecosystems while also being able to revisit and reinvent older IP for a new generation.

It’s clear we are seeing two different approaches…

The questions is: which will best support the future of the industry, and how do we build a future that’s thriving, not just surviving?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Summarised

The conversation around copyright has resurfaced as technology reshapes how music and creativity are produced, shared, and valued. While copyright now represents a larger share of the industry’s revenue than ever before, many artists continue to struggle to build sustainable careers. This contrast raises important questions about whether copyright is still fulfilling its original purpose to reward creation and enrich culture, or whether the industry needs new models to support the next generation of creators. By revisiting the history of copyright and examining where investment is flowing today, the article invites a broader conversation about how the music and entertainment sectors can evolve together to build a more balanced and future-focused creative economy.