More than 1,000 British musicians have come together but this is not a sequel to Bob Geldof’s Live Aid benefit concert from 1985. On the agenda is a silent album in protest against the British government’s stand on artificial intelligence in creative fields.

Is This What We Want comprises 12 tracks — all credited to 1,000 UK artistes — spread over 47 minutes. Musicians like Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Jamiroquai, Cat Yusuf Stevens, The Clash and Hans Zimmer have put together the recordings — of empty studios and performance spaces. The recordings represent what organisers say is the potential impact on artists’ livelihoods should the changes go ahead.

The list of 12 tracks combined creates the sentence: “The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies.”

The release comes at a time when the British government is holding consultations on how copyrighted content, including music, can lawfully be used by developers to train generative AI models. Initially, the government suggested that AI developers could use copyrighted songs for AI training in situations where artistes have not “opted out” of their work being included.

Creative industries globally are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI models that can produce their own output after being trained on popular works without necessarily paying the creators of the original content. Britain, which Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to become an AI superpower, has proposed relaxing laws that currently give creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works the right to control the ways their material may be used.

The changes have been heavily criticised by many artists, who say it would reverse the principle of copyright law, which grants exclusive control to creators for their work.

In a statement, the musicians said the government’s proposed changes reverse the principle of copyright law. They said an opt-out model was difficult to enforce and placed burdens and costs on artistes.

“In the music of the future, will our voices go unheard?” singer Kate Bush asked in a statement. Critics believe it is not possible for an individual writer or artiste to notify thousands of AI service providers that they do not want their content used or to monitor what is happening to their work across the Internet.

Separately, artistes like Paul McCartney and Elton John (who are not part of the protest album) have argued against the government’s proposals.

In an interview with BBC, McCartney said the proposed changes to the copyright law could allow “rip-off” technology that might make it impossible for musicians and artistes to make a living. He said “when we (members of the Beatles) were kids in Liverpool, we found a job that we loved, but it also paid the bills” while warning that new developments result in a “loss of creativity”.

Elton John said the “music community has always been quick to adopt new technologies” but “adoption of this copyright exception would destroy the UK’s leadership that has been hard won, and what’s worse, it would give it all away. For nothing”.

Tech companies want to mine the Internet to train algorithms while creative industries want them to be transparent and to offer licence fees to use their work.

Starmer’s lead adviser on AI, Matt Clifford, is facing questions over whether his investments in tech companies are a conflict of interest, even though he has divested from Faculty Science, an AI company.

The music-free album symbolises the impact of AI on artistes’ livelihoods if the government goes ahead with its plans, according to British composer Ed Newton-Rex, who is behind the idea. He said: “The government’s proposal would hand the life’s work of the country’s musicians to AI companies, for free, letting those companies exploit musicians’ work to outcompete them.”