The House of Lords failed the government for its Data (Usage and Access) Act.

Peers have supported an amendment that has once provided more copyright protection for the creative industry from the artificial intelligence (AI) scraper.

Members of Congress rejected the amendment and sent the bill back to the House of Lords, and technology minister Baroness Jones told peers that it would lead to "fragmented" legislation because it could enjoy AI and copyright first.

However, film director and digital rights activist Baroness Kidron has received extensive and strong support.

The rebellion in the House of Lords followed the condemnation of Sir Elton John, who called the government a “loseman” over the weekend and said that if they allowed AI companies to use artists’ content without paying payments, then ministers would “steal”.

He joined a high-profile musician team including Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox and Kate Bush, who were angry at the program and said it would be easier for them to train AI models on copyrighted materials.

Kidron’s amendment will force AI Companies to disclose the materials they use to develop plans and require them to obtain permission from copyright holders before using any work.

Kidron highlighted the power difference between the big American tech giants and the British creatives, marking the government's plans as "extraordinary."

“There is no industrial sector in the UK that requires that its property or labor be handed over to another sector (economic it directly) in the name of balance,” she said.

“The government made a mistake.

“Sweet whispers in Silicon Valley are stolen – and continue to steal every day we do nothing – the extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output of Britain.

“Silicon Valley has convinced the government that it is much easier for them to redefine theft than to have them pay for the stolen money.”

In defending her amendment, Crossbench Peer said that “the government’s minimum action” showed that “the UK copyright law is indeed the law of land”.

Otherwise, the bill was just a "political gesture" that ignored "widespread theft" of copyright in the UK and "starved" the creative industry "the transparency they need to survive."

She was supported by Labour Lord Brennan, who said the government was trying to establish a "double standard" with AI companies and abandoned the importance of its historical leadership to intellectual copyright.

“This country has demonstrated leadership throughout history related to copyright and sets the highest standards in order to try to drag people to our level rather than simply putting the flag of surrender,” he said.

“I’m worried about the idea that we have to allow AI companies to do whatever they want because otherwise they’ll just go somewhere else.”

Lord Watson, a former deputy leader of Labor and apparently a fan of Sir Elton, gave up a string of lyrics to urge ministers to pay attention to “Clarion, the creator of this country”.

The third Labour companion Lord Knight also called on his party colleagues to “protect the artist’s livelihoods from large-scale technologies” and said he believed this could be done simultaneously because it could “leverage the creative and economic opportunities of AI”.

Others clearly demonstrated the power of urgency surrounding protecting artists, including Crossbencher and composer Lord Berkeley, who called the coronavirus "burglary" in the face of the coronavirus.

"The only way to stop is to act immediately before the door is trampled by a horse," he said.

“If this door is opened, we will destroy the future of our creative industry.”

The conservative Lord Dobbs agrees with those who “struggle, struggle and suffer” because their art deserves protection from the government, Liberal Democrat Floella Benjamin said she pays tribute to Kidron with “toughness and tenacious determination” to ensure that “creativeness is not stolen.”

Baroness Jones spoke again at the end of the debate, demanding her peers not to overturn the will of members of Congress for a second time, insisting that “it’s not about Silicon Valley,” denying that the government is complacent, and pointing out that “no other territory has cracked this.”

“We all want to see a path forward that can protect our creative industry while supporting everyone in the UK to grow and benefit from AI,” she said.

“Kidren’s amendment, in addition to a more uncertainty, has continuous regulations stacked on one another in a bunch of tools, so nothing can be determined…

“Breaking out of guns on one issue will hinder us from reaching the best results for all other issues, especially because it is a global issue and we cannot respond to the UK staying away from the rest of the world.”

But Kidren said her amendment “will not challenge the commons’ primacy” and pushed forward.

The result was a decisive defeat to the government, with 287 votes in favor of Kidren's amendment, while 118 votes against the majority of 169 people - will now be sent back to the commons.