8 ms·

This should absolutely be litigated to stop the blatant laundering of copyright under the guise of fair use. Copilot's API is surfacing snippets of work withou

This should absolutely be litigated to stop the blatant laundering of copyright under the guise of fair use. Copilot's API is surfacing snippets of work without licensing information attached alongside. It can be shown in discovery that Copilot does access the origin work. The sooner this is slapped down, the sooner we can avoid addressing the even more troubling question that exists today: is someone who used Copilot to throw together a bunch of code infringing copyright of works where those portions originate? This is a complex problem with no satisfying conclusions... how could one be violating copyright if they never accessed the 'copied' work to copy? Copyrights aren't patents. Infringement requires copying. Using Copilot launders the user's awareness of the origin works, yet making the Copilot users liable for widespread "accidental" copying would be troubling.

jacquesm 4y ago
It's not complex at all: if you use Copilot to generate code for you you are engaging in copyright infringement. That you got the code from and entity that stole it somewhere else doesn't really matter. Generative models should respect copyright for their sources, and using a generative model to create new works that you intend to claim copyright on is stupid: someone may well show up one day with ironclad proof that you used their code without permission.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  A reminder that copyright infringement vs fair use is in part dependent on the amount of the copyrighted material that’s being used, the nature of that use and the transformativeness of the infringing work. Just because co-pilot suggests code snippets that can be found in a copyrighted work does not mean that the resulting produced product is in fact an infringement of that copyright. Also a reminder that outside the copilot debate, the online rights movement has largely been pushing for scraping, deep linking and transforming scrapped data to not be considered copyright infringement, regardless of any TOS on the site being scraped. To me, co pilot is a exactly that, a scraper that has scraped public websites and is now presenting me the scraped data in an alternative and often transformed form. It’s my responsibility as a developer to ensure that my released product complies with applicable copyright law, but copilot and the use thereof is not in and of itself copyright infringement. That a tool can be used to create infringing work or infringe on copyright in general is no more a valid argument against co pilot than it is against CD burners, de-drm tools, vcrs, kodi or plex, scanners or any number of day to day items that have the ability to infringe copyright if the user uses it for that purpose.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  Except every attorney that has taken a look disagrees with you. So it is complex and unless you have any standing or new data I think it's safe to dismiss your entire argument. https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-thoughts-from-an-english-law-perspective https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-th... https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-copilot/ https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-c... https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin...
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Lawyers don't judge cases, judges do. Until then all you have is opinions, mine is pretty straightforward: if the generative model can be made to work without first training it on other people's code then it isn't copyright infringement, if not then it is transforming one set of works into another. The only thing that might let GitHub off the hook is their terms of service, but that might mean mass exodus from GitHub because if they interpret you using GitHub to host your code as a blanket permission to do with that code whatever they want then that's clearly not the original intent of the service. If Microsoft buying GitHub claims that gave them a blanket license to do as they please with the contributions of millions of FOSS contributors then they are still just as bad as they were in the past. Almost every GitHub repository comes with a license file, even GitHub should have to abide by that license, otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
    - bastardoperator 4y ago
      Unless you have specialized training in copyright law, your opinion is unfortunately invalid when compared to actual experts in the field. You're making assertions that you clearly cannot substantiate coupled with the fact that we're not seeing an influx of litigants. Personally, I'm yet to see any news of even a single litigant challenging copilot. Also, the outcome of cases in the US are in many cases decided by a jury, not a judge.
      - jacquesm 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago

It's not complex at all: if you use Copilot to generate code for you you are engaging in copyright infringement. That you got the code from and entity that stole it somewhere else doesn't really matter. Generative models should respect copyright for their sources, and using a generative model to create new works that you intend to claim copyright on is stupid: someone may well show up one day with ironclad proof that you used their code without permission.

tpmoney 4y ago
A reminder that copyright infringement vs fair use is in part dependent on the amount of the copyrighted material that’s being used, the nature of that use and the transformativeness of the infringing work. Just because co-pilot suggests code snippets that can be found in a copyrighted work does not mean that the resulting produced product is in fact an infringement of that copyright. Also a reminder that outside the copilot debate, the online rights movement has largely been pushing for scraping, deep linking and transforming scrapped data to not be considered copyright infringement, regardless of any TOS on the site being scraped. To me, co pilot is a exactly that, a scraper that has scraped public websites and is now presenting me the scraped data in an alternative and often transformed form. It’s my responsibility as a developer to ensure that my released product complies with applicable copyright law, but copilot and the use thereof is not in and of itself copyright infringement. That a tool can be used to create infringing work or infringe on copyright in general is no more a valid argument against co pilot than it is against CD burners, de-drm tools, vcrs, kodi or plex, scanners or any number of day to day items that have the ability to infringe copyright if the user uses it for that purpose.
bastardoperator 4y ago
Except every attorney that has taken a look disagrees with you. So it is complex and unless you have any standing or new data I think it's safe to dismiss your entire argument. https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-thoughts-from-an-english-law-perspective https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-th... https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-copilot/ https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-c... https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin...
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Lawyers don't judge cases, judges do. Until then all you have is opinions, mine is pretty straightforward: if the generative model can be made to work without first training it on other people's code then it isn't copyright infringement, if not then it is transforming one set of works into another. The only thing that might let GitHub off the hook is their terms of service, but that might mean mass exodus from GitHub because if they interpret you using GitHub to host your code as a blanket permission to do with that code whatever they want then that's clearly not the original intent of the service. If Microsoft buying GitHub claims that gave them a blanket license to do as they please with the contributions of millions of FOSS contributors then they are still just as bad as they were in the past. Almost every GitHub repository comes with a license file, even GitHub should have to abide by that license, otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    Unless you have specialized training in copyright law, your opinion is unfortunately invalid when compared to actual experts in the field. You're making assertions that you clearly cannot substantiate coupled with the fact that we're not seeing an influx of litigants. Personally, I'm yet to see any news of even a single litigant challenging copilot. Also, the outcome of cases in the US are in many cases decided by a jury, not a judge.
    - jacquesm 4y ago