The word disruption, inelegantly translated into French as “disruption,” is a favorite word of anyone starting a technology company. For the purposes of this text, please allow us to use the English term.

One of the first examples of disruption in the knowledge industry is that of monk scribes who were once responsible for copying manuscripts. After the 15th century, these dear monastery occupants had to pursue other equally noble pursuits, such as making beer and cheese. So you can thank Gutenberg’s ingenuity every time you taste Oka cheese.

If you’re the type who isn’t moved by an example from 600 years ago, there are hundreds more recent ones. Ford replaced the horse despite all our affection for equestrian sports. Netflix crushed Blockbuster after the latter refused to acquire it for tens of millions. Uber has made a good place for itself in the sun despite the outcry from taxis. And many more…

However, the most current example of disruption is undoubtedly generative artificial intelligence (AI), which is only beginning to impress us. However, this is a special case since it is not a single industry that is at stake, but all the content generated by humankind since the dawn of time. Faced with this new paradigm, we must quickly decide what kind of protection we want to confer on flesh-and-blood creators.

Indeed, to train generative AI, it must be exposed to an astronomical amount of content, which is often protected by various copyright laws. So should authors be paid to have machines absorb their material and then use it to produce other material that might resemble it? We must seriously examine the issue to determine how to deal with this use.

In recent months, the US Copyright Office has opened a comment period on artificial intelligence. Major venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, also known as a16z, made a strong plea that generative AI companies should not have to pay authors, basically because it would cost too much. Although some have mocked this position coming from a firm that has generated billions investing in companies like Airbnb, Facebook, Instagram and Slack, a16z raises several very interesting points in its 11-page document. Listening only to our courage, we try to summarize them below.

Among other things, it is explained that billions have been invested in AI under the assumption of a liberal interpretation of copyright laws. By exposing AI to protected content, we do not create a vast warehouse of data that will be used repeatedly. Rather, algorithms are designed to mine training data to extract facts and statistical patterns that will be used to generate content. According to Andreessen Horowitz, therefore, this process would constitute fair use, an American concept which is close to fair use in Canada, which would not entail the need to remunerate the author.

It is also argued that if the United States imposes significant fees for using copyrighted content, it will only be the giants who can afford to pay.

We can also understand that the possible disputes will be quite a bit more complex than a fence squabble, with all due respect to fence owners.

Finally, a16z highlights the fact that even if the Americans decide to impose limits on the information that AI can ingest in order to learn, other nations will not do so. These barriers would therefore slow down American companies and, thereby, harm the leading position of the United States in a technology that is critical to maintaining its hegemony. Just think about it.

That said, regardless of what we think, these questions will ultimately be decided either by the legislature or by the courts. However, we believe that, as a society, we cannot wait for the judges to decide since a long period of uncertainty would not help anyone with a crucial technology that moves so quickly. The legislator should therefore clarify everything.

And what about Canada? It is obvious that the copyright debate will influence large parts of our economy too. However, we must be realistic: the recent frictions between the web giants and the federal government demonstrate that, even if Canada wishes to take part in the debate, it is on Uncle Sam’s side that the decisive game will be played out.