The UK government's retreat from its preferred AI copyright exception is a meaningful win for publishers and authors — but it is emphatically not a settlement. The 125-page report released on March 18 is notable less for what it decides than for what it declines to decide. Secretary of State Liz Kendall's statement that 'the Government no longer has a preferred option' is a diplomatic reversal, not a resolution. The creative industries spent the better part of eighteen months mounting one of the most visible lobbying campaigns in recent publishing memory — culminating in the 'Don't Steal This Book' protest at London Book Fair, a volume of empty pages bearing the names of 10,000 participating authors — and that pressure has demonstrably moved the needle. But Ed Newton-Rex's reading of the report is the one that deserves the most attention: the government has not said that training AI on copyrighted works without a licence is illegal. It has said it needs more time. In a policy environment where AI development moves at a pace that outstrips any legislative timetable, 'more time' is a phrase that should make every rights holder nervous. The Publishers Association's warning about 'alternative exception models' for science and research is particularly pointed: a narrower exception, dressed in the language of public benefit, could prove harder to oppose than the blunt instrument that was withdrawn. The battle has not been won. It has been deferred.