Spinning Disruption: A History of Creative Industry Alarm Bells
The UK’s creative industries (and their counterparts across the globe) are, yet again, sounding the alarm. The new “threat”? Generative Artificial Intelligence. The campaign? “Make it Fair.” Launched in early 2025, it decries AI models “scraping” creative content without permission or payment, posing a “huge threat” to an industry allegedly worth billions to the UK economy. Government proposals for a copyright exception for text and data mining (TDM) are labeled “content theft” with potentially “devastating” impact.
This language of existential crisis is a remarkably familiar refrain. For decades, each new technological dawn that promised to democratize access has been met not with open arms, but with predictions of imminent doom. This piece revisits some of these past panics—from the humble cassette tape to the all-conquering AI—to question whether the current “Make it Fair” campaign is a genuinely novel response to an unprecedented threat, or merely the latest, slickly produced iteration of a very old, and often very profitable, song of fear. The historical record suggests the creative sector’s thesaurus often has only one entry for “new technology”: APOCALYPSE NOW.
The Copyright Doomsayers: A Greatest Hits Album of Apocalyptic Prophecies
The archives of copyright history are littered with the ghosts of technologies past, each once heralded as the harbinger of creative Armageddon.
“Home Taping Is Killing Music” (And Other Chart-Topping Exaggerations from the 80s)
The 1980s “Home Taping Is Killing Music” campaign, by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), is a classic. With slogans like “Home taping is killing music… and it’s illegal” (often with a skull-and-crossbones cassette logo), the BPI demanded a levy on blank tapes to cover supposed losses from home copying. Warner Communications executive Stan Cornyn famously described home taping as “the worst of the seven plagues facing the music industry”.
But the sky didn’t fall. The UK government rejected the levy, unconvinced that home taping was the sole villain, especially amidst a broader economic downturn and rising pre-recorded cassette prices. Many music fans felt attacked, and taping reportedly even increased in rebellion. Instead of killing music, cassettes fostered mixtape culture, allowed independent distribution, and fueled new genres like Hip-Hop. The industry survived, and cassettes even very recently saw a niche revival. Parodies like “Home taping is skill in music” and the Dead Kennedys’ “home taping is killing record industry profits! We left this side blank so you can help” highlighted the campaign’s disconnect.
This episode reveals a recurring pattern: blame the consumer, tax the technology.
“The VCR is to the American Film Producer… as the Boston Strangler is to the Woman Home Alone” (Hollywood’s Home Video Hysteria)
Hollywood’s VCR panic was even more dramatic. MPAA President Jack Valenti famously told a U.S. congressional panel in 1982 that “The VCR is to the American film producer… as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” Fearing obliterated revenues and proclaiming “If what you own cannot be protected, you own nothing,” the MPAA sued Sony, the manufacturer of Betamax VCRs, aiming to have VCRs declared instruments of copyright infringement and to secure a royalty on blank tapes.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled “time-shifting” (recording programs for later viewing) as fair use. Far from destroying Hollywood, the home video market became a goldmine. The ability to rent and purchase films created an entirely new market that “boosted film and television corporations’ revenues tremendously”. By 1983, U.S. retail sales and rentals of pre-recorded tapes already surpassed $1 billion. Hollywood adapted, releasing back catalogues, and the movie industry continued to see overall revenue growth.
“CD Burning & P2P: The Digital Doomsday Clock Ticks!” (The Era of Suing Your Own Fans)
The late 1990s and early 2000s ushered in the digital apocalypse for many in music: CD burners and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks like Napster. The RIAA framed file-sharing as “online piracy” and “stealing,” with Cary Sherman stating it “undermines the future of music itself”. Landmark legal battles shut down services, and the RIAA controversially sued thousands of individual users, often for exorbitant sums. U.S. recorded music revenues did indeed plummet by roughly 50% from $14.5 billion in 1999 to $7.7 billion in 2009.
But the industry didn’t die; it evolved. Legal digital downloads (Apple’s iTunes, 2003) and then, more transformatively, music streaming services (Spotify, 2008) reshaped the landscape. After bottoming out in 2014, global recorded music revenues began a steady climb, driven by streaming, reaching $26.2 billion by 2022 (67% from streaming). U.S. revenues hit $17.7 billion in 2024, with streaming representing 84%, and vinyl made an astonishing comeback, now outselling CDs. The P2P “crisis” ultimately catalyzed necessary innovation.
Today’s Special: AI is Coming for Your Art! (The “Make it Fair” Remix)
Fast forward to 2025, and AI is the new nemesis. The “Make it Fair” campaign, launched in February 2025, unites major UK creative bodies including Sony Music UK, the BPI, UK Music, the News Media Association, and the PPA under the “Creative Rights in AI Coalition“. They argue AI companies “scrape” vast quantities of creative content without permission or payment. This is branded “content theft,” posing a “huge threat” and risking “devastating impact” on the UK’s multi-billion creative sector. Government proposals for a copyright exception for text and data mining (TDM) are seen as legitimizing this alleged theft and weakening “gold standard” copyright laws.
The demands are familiar, and the rhetoric echoes past panics, suggesting a well-honed crisis narrative. The Creative Rights in AI Coalition warns that without remuneration, investment in human-authored content will fall, paradoxically stalling AI innovation itself.
However, the tech sector counters that restrictive licensing could stifle UK AI innovation, costing the economy billions, while a TDM exception could fuel growth. They also point out that many creatives (83% in one survey) already use AI tools, challenging the “machines vs. minds” narrative.
But Did They Die? A Look at the Actual Post-Panic Balance Sheets
Despite recurring prophecies of doom, creative industries have consistently adapted and often thrived:
- Cassettes: Far from “killing music,” they democratized access, fostered mixtape culture, and helped birth new genres like Hip-Hop. Pre-recorded cassettes became a significant market, with labels innovating packaging. A niche revival even saw 195,000 units sold in the UK in 2022.
- VCRs: Hollywood’s “Boston Strangler” became a cash cow. Home video created vast new rental and sales markets, with U.S. sales/rentals exceeding $1 billion by 1983, significantly boosting studio profits. Box office revenues also continued to grow.
- CD Burning/P2P File Sharing: This caused a real revenue shock: U.S. sales roughly halved between 1999 and 2009. Yet, it forced innovation. Legal downloads (iTunes) and then streaming (Spotify) led to a resurgence. Global recorded music revenue hit $26.2 billion in 2022 (67% from streaming), and U.S. revenues reached $17.7 billion in 2024 (84% from streaming), with vinyl even outselling CDs.
This “Phoenix Phenomenon” shows industries re-emerging, often transformed and stronger. New technologies frequently expand markets by making content more accessible, leading to new revenue streams and broader engagement. Photography didn’t kill painting; it spurred new artistic movements like abstraction. Digital tools revolutionized animation. Even music sampling, initially feared, can increase sales of original works. The creative industries have repeatedly been dragged, kicking and screaming, into more prosperous futures by the very technologies they swore would be their undoing.
Conclusion: Beyond the Hype – Can We Make AI Fair Without Making it Fiction?
The historical script is consistent: new technology emerges, creative industries predict catastrophe, demand protection, and then, after a period of angst and adaptation, often find ways to profit. Stewart Brand’s observation, “Information wants to be free” contrasted with “Information wants to be expensive,” captures the tension.
Undoubtedly, AI presents unique and complex challenges: the sheer scale of data ingestion, the potential for convincing mimicry, and fundamental questions of authorship are significant. But does this justify the same level of apocalyptic rhetoric seen in past tech panics, especially given those predictions rarely materialized? There’s a genuine risk that by crying wolf so often, legitimate concerns about AI get dismissed. After decades of “The End is Nigh!” placards, will anyone truly listen if the wolf actually shows up?
A more productive path requires a balanced discussion. This means acknowledging the creative industries’ immense cultural and economic contribution and the need to protect creators’ rights. Simultaneously, it requires recognizing AI’s transformative potential, the economic risks of overly restrictive policies that could affect many more sectors than the creative industries, and that many creatives already embrace AI.
So, will the creative industries, true to form, eventually monetize AI, turning today’s “existential threat” into tomorrow’s revenue stream? History suggests betting against them is unwise. After all, if the past is any guide, the sky rarely falls. It just gets a new, digitally enhanced, and algorithmically optimized ceiling.
Written by Caroline De Cock, LL.M. , Head of Research.
Infographic
May 28, 2025
