AI has gotten two start-ups in hot water.

Their use of AI for music creation has resulted in them being sued by three of the world’s largest record labels: Sony, Universal Music Group, and Warner Records.

They say that the AI firms are making money from copied songs, and want $150,000 in compensation for each song that has allegedly been copied.

The New Zealand Chair of the Intellectual Property Society, Kate Duckworth, told Mike Hosking that this is likely to be the first of many cases.

She said that the defence is likely going to be that it was fair use —a strong defence in the United States— or that the songs were transformative works, as was claimed in a case about Andy Warhol.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand Rugby is on shaky ground.

It made a loss of almost $9 million in 2023, the second loss making year in a row after 2022’s loss of $47 million.

NZR CEO Mark Robinson said that further work is needed to achieve a sustainable financial model, but he was positive about the organisation’s future.

He told Mike Hosking that the way things developed over the last 20-25 years means they’ve got a really high fixed cost base, and they’re working really hard with shareholders to try and alter that.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We have our first agree to disagree clause of this new coalition.

First point to make - what a mature look it is.

New Zealand First has invoked the clause, which is probably not the surprise.

The surprise is that in previous coalitions this would be described as a crack. "Coalition cracks forming" was the headline from Newshub. Yet in 2024 if it is as it seems, it’s a clause, that's life and we move on.

That is to the credit of Christopher Luxon, who stitched this thing together with the view of it holding long term. So far, so good.

As regards who is right, it is to do with the ACT-led decision that the Covid inquiry will now be in two parts. Part one is the bit that’s on now, headed by Tony Blakely. They will finish their work and report in November.

Then we get part two with a new chair, new commissioners and wider terms of reference.

Now, if Brooke van Velden argues it's worth keeping the current inquiry because they are underway and stopping it would be wasteful, then I have an element of sympathy.

Although it was a jack up from Labour, it will elicit some things that are of value.

As much sympathy as I have for the wastage argument, I have more sympathy for New Zealand First, who on this question, are more right than ACT is.

Blakely should never have been appointed and the terms of reference are a joke. It was classic Labour - stack the deck and pretend it’s a proper game.

The stuff we desperately want investigated isn't part of the inquiry; vaccine procurement and efficacy and all the wider economic and social issues that we are still wading through.

Personally, I'd like to see people called and compelled to turn up, but that is wishful thinking.

The other bit is the second part won't report back until 2026, which is election year. Covid started in 2019 and the report is due seven years later? That’s not pace or progress.

Act will have their reasons, but on this Winston Peters has read the mood better and I think ultimately is on the right side of it.

But the fact he can invoke a clause and not spit the dummy is massive progress in the collegiality of a multi-party arrangement running the country.

And the success of that is not to be underestimated.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.