Thousands of British artists back silent album against AI: ‘Is This What We Want?’

More than 1,000 British artists have decided to use silence to make noise in the face of the threat of artificial intelligence (AI). Any user of the music platform Spotify, among others, can now access a curious album, with 12 songs produced and supported by musicians such as Kate Bush, Tori Amos, Annie Lennox, or Jamiroquai. Its title: Is This What We Want? Twelve songs in which only silence can be heard. And if one pays attention, the domestic noises that flood a world without music, such as the hum of a heating system or the distant footsteps of someone prowling around a hallway.

The UK arts community has rebelled against the Data Access and Use Act being prepared by Keir Starmer’s government, which makes it easier for big tech giants to bypass intellectual property rights to use a wealth of works to train new generative AI models.

Each of the album’s 12 songs, in the order in which they are presented, is titled with a single word. Read one after the other, they express the artists’ stark denunciation of a future threatened by new technologies: The/ British/ Government / Must/ Not/ Legalise/ Music/ Theft/ To/ Benefit/ AI / Companies.

Musicians, filmmakers and writers with reputation, muscle and influence such as Paul McCartney, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Ed Sheeran, Sting, Dua Lipa and playwright Tom Stoppard have joined the battle against the new law. Those who decided not to participate in the silent protest album have added their signature to a letter sent to The Times newspaper, in which they denounce a proposal “that represents an unconditional and absolute surrender of the rights and income of the creative sectors of the United Kingdom to the big technology companies.”

Starmer’s government, desperate to breathe economic growth into a country that has been struggling to get off the ground in recent months, wants the United Kingdom to be the ally and gateway to Europe for the major U.S. companies that currently generate the main artificial intelligence models, and that need huge amounts of data and information to train their generative AI systems.

The new bill weakens the enormous protection of intellectual property that the UK environment has always provided, making it the most comfortable and safe ecosystem for thousands of artists. The government’s proposal establishes an exception to the rule regarding the training of generative AI systems, and exempts technology companies that intend to use existing artistic material from warning its authors: it is the authors who must discover for themselves whether their work is being used and demand that it is not.

The battle against the law has been led by filmmaker and politician Beeban Kidron, director of, among many other films, the second installment of the Bridget Jones saga. She is an independent member of the House of Lords, without affiliation to any party, and thanks to her amendments the parliamentary process of the new text has been halted, for the moment. In the first vote that took place in the Lords, a majority of 145 to 126 supported the demand that technology companies be forced to reveal the identity of the artists whose work they intend to use, as well as the purpose of their tests.

“There is a role in our economy for AI, there is a role in our economy for companies headquartered elsewhere, there is a role in our economy for new AI models and there is an opportunity of growth in the combination of AI and creative industries. But this forced marriage, on slave terms, is not it,” Baroness Kidron said.

The artists share this more cautious than belligerent tone. In the text sent to The Times, they point out that the creative industry contributes over €150 billion to the British economy annually and employs 2.4 million people each year. “They generate tourism, raise our position in the world and bring joy and community spirit to our citizens, while building a culture in which everyone sees themselves reflected,” they say in the letter.

All the signatories acknowledge their desire to be part of the “AI revolution,” as they have done in the past with other technologies, but they call on the government to protect intellectual property. “There is no economic or moral argument for stealing our copyrights,” they conclude.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition