Conservatives Launch Letter Campaign Against AI Copyright Concerns, Targeting US Agencies
A coalition of conservative and nationalist voices has sent a formal letter addressed directly to top U.S. officials expressing profound alarm over the perceived threat that artificial intelligence poses to American intellectual property rights and copyright laws. The missive specifically targets United States Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy Michael Kratsios, among others.
The signatories, including prominent figures like Steve Bannon, assert that claims AI should operate without proper licensing for copyrighted material are fundamentally flawed. They emphasize that the core copyright industries contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, generating over $2 trillion in GDP, employing 11.6 million people, and commanding wages substantially higher than the national average.
“We stand ready to oppose any attempt by your administration or its agents,” the letter begins, directly challenging directives related to AI that appear to overlook these concerns. The group specifically references a president’s July remarks advocating “stealing” copyrighted content as input for generative AI systems – though they clarify this was in the context of acquiring public domain materials.
Furthermore, the conservative advocates warn against a scenario where U.S. agencies supposedly aim to relax copyright standards for AI development. They claim this would not only harm American creators but also provide unfair advantages and tools to international competitors, including China, who they believe have actively exploited weaker protections historically. The letter explicitly accuses certain foreign entities of benefiting from diluted IP rules.
The group cautions that the erosion of strong intellectual property laws could disadvantage U.S. companies in competing globally and allow “foreign adversaries” to employ American AI technology without respecting proprietary rights – a reversal of efforts aimed at economic advantage, they suggest.
They argue instead for an approach where businesses pay for necessary inputs like copyrighted works, given AI’s access to virtually unlimited financing, while ensuring development focuses on beneficial applications. Examples cited include satellite imagery or weather reports versus content designed primarily to sell user attention data.
Finally, the letter touches upon concerns regarding foreign states’ potential use of American AI technology without adhering to its governing principles and frameworks – though it stops short of naming specific entities like China explicitly in this section.
