Clocking in at 2 minutes and 45 seconds, the length is comparable to “With a Little Help From My Friends.” However, Paul McCartney’s latest release, his first new recording in five years, lacks the sing-alongs and lively guitar riffs typical of his earlier work.

The legendary Beatles member, arguably one of Britain’s most esteemed living songwriters, is unveiling a largely silent track from a recording studio. This release serves as a statement against copyright infringement by AI companies within the music industry.

Rather than showcasing a catchy tune or evocative lyrics, the track predominantly features a soft hiss and unusual sounds. This arrangement underlines the concern that if AI firms utilize musicians’ intellectual property for training generative AI models, it may lead to the erosion of the creative ecosystem and eventual silencing of original music.

Currently 83 and touring in North America, McCartney has placed this song on the B-side of his upcoming album. Is this what we want? is a collection of other silent tracks, set to be released on vinyl later this month.

Mr. McCartney’s contribution comes as musicians and artists intensify their efforts to urge the UK government to prevent tech companies from training AI models using their creative work without consent or royalty payments. This is especially pressing as Britain faces regulatory pressure from former President Donald Trump’s administration.

The album’s tracklist asserts, “The UK government must not legalize music theft for the benefit of AI companies.”

Ed Newton-Rex, a composer and advocate for copyright justice involved with the protest album, expressed his concern that the government is prioritizing the interests of American tech companies over those of British creators.

Among the artists backing this campaign are Sam Fender, Kate Bush, Hans Zimmer, and Pet Shop Boys.

McCartney’s new piece is titled (Bonus Track), and like his classic songs, it comprises a beginning, middle, and end. It opens with 55 seconds of tape hiss, transitions into 15 seconds of indistinguishable clattering, perhaps caused by someone moving about with a door ajar, and concludes with 80 seconds of rustling and intermittent hiss, fading out slowly and emotionally.

Mr. McCartney stands as a prominent voice in British music voicing concerns regarding the government’s efforts to establish new agreements between creative professionals and AI companies like OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and Elon Musk’s xAI, which require access to extensive training data, including text, images, and music.

“We risk having it hijacked, which is a concern, particularly for emerging composers and writers,” McCartney remarked about AI. “It would indeed be disheartening if AI wiped out creativity.” Bush, another artist on the protest album, expressed, “Will our voices not resonate in the music of the future?” Composer Max Richter added, “The government’s proposals would diminish creators, privileging those who automate creativity over true artists, writers, and visual creators.”

The government is assessing the possibility of creating an exception in UK copyright law for “text and data mining,” potentially compelling copyright owners to actively opt out if they don’t wish to have their works used for AI training. Ministers are striving to balance the interests of the creative sectors, contributing £125bn annually to the UK economy, against the demands of US tech companies advocating for minimal regulation, especially when they’ve recently announced over £30bn of investment primarily targeting data centers.

Legislation regarding AI and copyright is not anticipated to be discussed in Congress until 2026. In the interim, the government is collaborating with Open AI, Google, and human to promote AI adoption within governmental functions and the economy.

Mr. Trump has stated, “We must allow AI to utilize it.” He noted, “We can gather insights without engaging in complex contract negotiations,” urging international governments “not to implement regulations that hinder” AI companies from operating effectively.

“The government is attempting to navigate both interests,” copyright advocate and director Bivan Kidron told the Guardian. “They have demonstrated an inability to govern with the financial interests of creators in mind.”

A government representative stated that Liz Kendall, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, is committed to finding a balance between AI and the creative sectors, declaring, “We recognize both of these sectors are vital to the UK’s success and are engaging with both parties.”

Concerns were voiced following Kendall’s appointment of a special adviser in September, who previously argued that “regardless of philosophical beliefs about whether AI firms should compensate content creators, there is currently no legal obligation for them to do so.”

In response to Mr. McCartney’s remarks, a government spokesperson affirmed that the government prioritizes the interests of the British public and businesses.

“We have consistently emphasized the importance of collaborating with both the creative industries and the AI sector to foster AI innovation while ensuring robust safeguards for creators,” the statement read.

“We’re gathering insights from both UK and international companies and voices in the AI and creative industries to ensure we consider the broadest possible spectrum of expert opinions as we deliberate on our next steps.”