I want to talk about the price Australians are being asked to pay for the latest tech revolution.
We are, arguably, being asked to surrender ... our stories, our voice, our culture, our identity and, ultimately, our Australianess.
I call it The Big Steal.
We all lived through the first Big Steal when our ideas, work and creative content were hoovered up by the internet. And now there are those who expect us to stand aside and let it happen all over again. We must not.
Some will disagree with me and say the era that is now unfolding is just structural change or an incremental digital dis-inter-mediation - a new normal. It is not.
Make no mistake, we are at the dawn of the next new digital landscape, and yet we are being challenged to accept another wave of publicly endorsed theft, and an assault on our privacy, our identities and our livelihoods.
If it was a video game, it would be called Grand Theft Australia.
But it's not too late to set this straight. The coming weeks and months will be critical to get this right.
We lived through the first wave of the information revolution with a sense at first of wonderment and then horror and frustration.
And now, as we stand at the dawn of this new technological age, we can't afford to repeat past mistakes.
AI will create a new digital universe, and this moment provides the opportunity to learn the lessons of the past and design a new relationship between technology and society that works in ethical and equitable ways.
The companies shaping this transformation are a mix of established and start-ups, and this provides an opportunity to recast relationships and fight for more responsibility.
This time, they must be more accountable, they must be more responsible, and they must work with us to ensure mutual benefit - for the media industry and society more broadly.
The big tech companies that shape our world grew to their extraordinary success by paying no money for inputting the content of others and accepting no responsibility for their outputs. As the AI era unfolds, we have the opportunity to right this imbalance.
In the US, News Corp continues to sign agreements with companies like OpenAI in fair commercial agreements. At the same time, we are taking companies like Perplexity, which is free-riding on our content, to court.
News Corp's chief executive, Robert Thomson, describes this process as "to woo and to sue". He said in August that "creators of all kinds are conscious of both the responsibility and the opportunity" at this historic inflexion point in the age of AI.
This new era must not enshrine the wild, wild web all over again. It's vital that sovereign nations assert their right to decide how this technology plays out in their own societies. This is an issue that concerns all Australians.
To explore why this new chapter in the information revolution has become an existential issue, and why we in the media and government have to act now, it is worth casting an eye back to the past. Not to dwell on it, but to remind ourselves of it, and to learn from it.
Digital businesses born in Melbourne - businesses like REA, Carsales and Seek - were at the forefront worldwide of clicks replacing bricks, and they were established well before similar companies were being founded in the US.
For news media, the impact of those digital disruptors and the rise of the tech giants that now dominate the internet was profound.
The news media's classified rivers of gold dried up when we willingly gave up our content to be ingested for free, partly due to the promise of global reach, but primarily because there didn't seem to be any other choice.
The tech revolution's gold rush - its first Big Steal - was built on the free use of other people's quality and trusted work - and that should never have been allowed to happen.
And those who believe we should give up our intellectual property to AI's "large language models" in the same way we gave it up to "search" and "social" cannot be allowed to take us for fools all over again.
We have seen the impact the Big Steal has had on our industry. According to the Public Interest Journalism Initiative, 161 news outlets closed their doors in the five years to March last year.
That's three times more closures than in the decade to 2018. I would describe every one of those closures as devastating. Not only at an industry level but at a community level. Because that's thousands of local stories no longer being told. Dozens of local councils are no longer being held to account. Reduced celebrations of local achievements and culture.
We cannot make this mistake again. To its credit, Australia has found resolve to respond to these threats through political bipartisanship, sound regulators and a vigilant news media.
But new threats keep coming. In May this year, Tim Burrowes wrote that "the Australian media is experiencing unprecedented market failure." I would agree.
Our industry is buckling under the weight of the four seismic waves of disruption, and you know who will suffer the most? The Australian people.
AI firms are now using bots to scrape all the material that we are publishing online. A new Big Steal.
Award-winning author Trent Dalton thought so when he discovered his books were being stolen to train AI language models. Trent said: "These stories I write are absolutely drenched in truth and my own personal history, and the history of the people I love. It's just a classic definition of stealing".
However, training their bots to hold conversations requires vast amounts of digital data to create generative artificial intelligence.
To achieve this, some tech giants are seeking access to everyone's ideas without permission and without payment.
Their justification goes like this: if Australia doesn't surrender its copyright to the large language models, tech companies won't build data sheds in Australia. They say Australia would serve as an ideal regional hub for Asia-Pacific cloud services due to its proximity to Asian markets.
Their first ask is for complete surrender, and their fallback position is a new set of rules written just for them. Our response must be: no.
We have a perfectly good set of rules in Australia, and it's time they started playing by them. An exceptional law with an unexceptional name, The Copyright Act, has helped the Australian voice flourish since it was enacted in 1968.
The Copyright Act - in the most elegant and timeless way - provides basic rights to the copyright holder. It provides the holder with the right to control, agree to terms, be paid, and enforce breaches to their copyright. And the Copyright Act is perfectly able to deal with AI companies wanting to negotiate with rights holders.
But members of the Tech Council of Australia have got into government offices, claiming they need to change the law in order to attract billions of dollars to establish the data sheds. But this "claim" is just that - without foundation, without evidence.
We saw this in Canberra recently when the Tech Council of Australia's chair, Scott Farquhar, told the National Press Club that "fixing" copyright laws was a matter of "urgency" because our laws are "out of sync" internationally.
Changing them, he said, would be the "one thing that could unlock billions of dollars of foreign investment into Australia". The use of the conditional "could" is telling.
How is it that the tech lobby has put so little effort into quantifying the benefits to back their claim when the cost they are seeking to impose on us is so high and so quantifiable? How many of these data sheds are they planning to build, and how concrete are the commitments, really?
At last week's Senate hearing into Australia's cultural policy, musicians such as Briggs, Jack River and Paul Dempsey, along with authors such as Thomas Kenneally, Anna Funder and Caroline Overington, expressed their alarm at any changes to our copyright laws.
As Keneally forcefully put it: "It is copyright. It's not copy charity. It's not copy privilege. It's not copy indulgence. It's copyright. And our right has been parlayed away by ignorant people who don't realise what copyright is".
The Tech Council and some AI companies are pushing for a text and data mining exception known in shorthand as a TDM exception.
What this really means is that copyright owners would no longer control access to their works. The owner of the copyright would not have to be asked whether or not someone else could use their work. The owner would not be able to decide on what terms their work could be used, or not used. And, most disturbing, the copyright owner would not get to decide how much they should be paid for the use of their work.
But the tech advocates have a response to this, they say: "OK, so if you don't want us to steal your content, then you can opt out". Really? What they really are saying is: "We want Australia's law to be changed so that we can rob everyone's house, unless someone puts up a sign asking us nicely if we might skip theirs, please". No. They shouldn't be robbing any houses.
There are some internet actors who know very well that no publishers can opt out of their crawling, much as they might wish they could. We shouldn't be asked to opt out of their proposed text and data mining regime that legitimises theft. They should instead accept that our existing law includes them, and it is time they adhere to our laws.
Australia's copyright law is fit for purpose. Our copyright law does not require changing. Tech and AI companies should not be given a free pass to access content - to avoid paying for it.
I am calling on the Australian Government to once and for all rule out changing Australian copyright law to benefit these companies. The government must dismiss proposals for text and data mining regimes. They will destroy the protections provided by Australian copyright law.
Like any other company, these companies must pay market rates for inputs to their businesses. They must not be given government subsidies.
The government should also not be seduced into exploring alternative mechanisms that would have similar damaging outcomes, which would decimate Australia's creative industries and silence Australian voices.
We are still in the early days of generative AI, but already, as with past digital disruptions, the news media is again among the first to find itself walking down both sides of the street at once.
Without doubt, AI offers extraordinary possibilities to journalism, but at the same time, it could destroy our industry if it is allowed to hoover up our work and deliver to vast audiences with no attribution and no payment.
As a nation, we love new technology - we're consistently the global front-runners. Digital Journal last year listed Australian consumers as the most AI-addicted in the world. As a business, news companies must, of course, talk to audiences in the places where they consume information.
And the news media's role in preserving our democracy is well established, even if it's not always well understood. Journalism does not come cheap. It requires funding, and funding that is sustainable over the long term.
I am calling on the Federal Government to act now. The social media age ban due to start in a little over two months deserves to be applauded, but we need to ensure these laws are adhered to. In addition to the pressing issue of copyright, urgent action is needed on three key fronts.
First, and most important, small news publishers have yet to receive any of the promised support from the News Media Assistance Program, also known as NewsMAP. The government needs to deliver on its commitment after announcing this in December last year. There is no reason to hold this back.
Second, the government must enact the News Media Bargaining Incentive, which has not advanced and remains unimplemented just under a year after being announced.
Third, a social license should be implemented. That would be a package of laws and requirements the tech companies would need to meet if they want access to Australian consumers.
The current crisis engulfing Optus provides a telling example. Optus is, rightly, being held to public account and condemnation over the triple-zero failure that led to people losing their lives.
But where is the same level of accountability being demanded of social media companies whose algorithms torment our children, prey on the elderly, and are responsible for the rise in self-harm and loss of life?
My own teenage children are subjected to the graphic images of Charlie Kirk's assassination on high rotation on social media sites. We wouldn't do that. Our laws don't allow us to do that.
How can there be one set of rules for a company like Optus while the tech companies refuse our rules?
In my fight for a successful future for professional journalism, I am not asking for handouts. I am calling on the federal government to ensure a level playing field for all because journalism is vital to our communities.
I'm also here to call on all in news media to come together to ensure the News Media Bargaining Incentive is implemented now; to support the Copyright Act in its current form; and to back each other on free speech.
What we don't need is more restrictions. What we do need is to be enabled to do our jobs because the role of journalism has never been more important.
News companies are veterans of the digital age. Yet despite the vast changes, the news media's north star remains constant: to represent the communities our audiences live and work in; to document events; to tell the stories that matter that further the public interest and improve our communities and the lives of our audiences.
Now we need to surface the issues important to the survival of our industry. That success will lead to better outcomes for all Australians. All news media outlets can recount how their journalists uncovered stories that have helped change our nation for the better. Story by story, professional news media create a better, more robust, resilient society, celebrating the contest of ideas.
Social media does nothing more than tear and fray the social fabric. They are the true monster at our gates. Our content is crucial to their success. It should not be taken or given away for free.
As Joni Mitchell famously sang, "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone". Copyright laws protect and promote the essence of what our nation is all about. It protects the Australian voice. These laws help make our country better, our democracy better.
Our society is built on the fundamental position that everyone gets a fair go. This is what copyright helps achieve. We need to stand up for it, together. The time to do so is right now.
- Michael Miller is the executive chairman of News Corp Australia. This is an edited extract of his October 8 Melbourne Press Club address.
