5 ms·

I'm glad that Copilot is bringing the grey areas of copyright into discussion. If I write a book and it is copyright, what's the smallest unit which is covered

I'm glad that Copilot is bringing the grey areas of copyright into discussion. If I write a book and it is copyright, what's the smallest unit which is covered by that copyright? Each word is obviously not. Some sentences will be fairly generic and I will not be the first person to write them. But some sentences will be characteristic of the work or my own style. Clearly how we apply copyright to subdivisions of an original work is an open question.

nomercy400 5y ago
'Some sentences' makes me think of the link tax introduced to prevent aggregating news sources based on only headlines, so even generic sentences fall under copyright in certain cases.
MontyCarloHall 5y ago
The legal term for this is scènes à faire[0], and there is quite a bit of legal precedent covering exactly the cases you bring up. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scènes_à_faire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scènes_à_faire
- canada_dry 5y ago
  > Limits of the scènes à faire doctrine are a matter of degree — that is, operate on a continuum. Copilot is certainly pushing that envelope.
Engineering-MD 5y ago
I think an interesting analogy is if you rewrote a book in your own words but with each paragraphs meaning intact. So you rewrote Harry Potter but with slightly different sentence structures, but meaning was otherwise near identical. It’s that copyright infringement? I think it would certainly be plagiarism. The other similar analogy is of translation: a translated work is still copied by ‘derived from’ copyright laws. Is this just what copilot is doing in some ways but for smaller components?
breck 5y ago
This. You realize it doesn’t make any sense. All ideas are shared creations, by definition. If you’ve created something that has meaning for other people, the meaning comes from the ideas you are incorporating into your own tree. There is no defending copyright. It is indefensible from first principles. It makes no logical sense. Though it sure has proven to be a profitable con.
- cnma 5y ago
  Nonsense. Above a certain level of creativity people do produce novel or exceptional things that are worthy of protection. Because naked men are a shared concept Michelangelo's David is not protect-worthy? I'm very worried that such opinions are up-voted so highly when Microsoft leeches open source code (but not its own ...). People have no respect for other people's creations. Perhaps it makes them feel better because they haven't created anything difficult themselves.
  - breck 5y ago
    > Above a certain level of creativity people do produce novel or exceptional things that are worthy of protection. Name your very best example that will prove me wrong. It should be so simple. One example, that's all it takes. Take your time, make sure you've got a good one. I'll tell you that not once, not a single time in over 17 years, have I ever seen a single example of this argument hold up under scrutiny. Oh wait, you already did: > Because naked men are a shared concept Michelangelo's David is not protect-worthy? Ah yes, Michelangelo's David. A work free of copyright built under commission! Thank you for again pointing out the futility of the defense of copyright.
    - travisjungroth 5y ago
      Okay, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I’m legitimately trying to understand. Do you think after that book was published it should have no copyright protection? That it should be totally legal for me to print and sell my own copies?

nomercy400 5y ago

'Some sentences' makes me think of the link tax introduced to prevent aggregating news sources based on only headlines, so even generic sentences fall under copyright in certain cases.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago

The legal term for this is scènes à faire[0], and there is quite a bit of legal precedent covering exactly the cases you bring up. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scènes_à_faire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scènes_à_faire

canada_dry 5y ago
> Limits of the scènes à faire doctrine are a matter of degree — that is, operate on a continuum. Copilot is certainly pushing that envelope.

Engineering-MD 5y ago

I think an interesting analogy is if you rewrote a book in your own words but with each paragraphs meaning intact. So you rewrote Harry Potter but with slightly different sentence structures, but meaning was otherwise near identical. It’s that copyright infringement? I think it would certainly be plagiarism. The other similar analogy is of translation: a translated work is still copied by ‘derived from’ copyright laws. Is this just what copilot is doing in some ways but for smaller components?

breck 5y ago

This. You realize it doesn’t make any sense. All ideas are shared creations, by definition. If you’ve created something that has meaning for other people, the meaning comes from the ideas you are incorporating into your own tree. There is no defending copyright. It is indefensible from first principles. It makes no logical sense. Though it sure has proven to be a profitable con.

cnma 5y ago
Nonsense. Above a certain level of creativity people do produce novel or exceptional things that are worthy of protection. Because naked men are a shared concept Michelangelo's David is not protect-worthy? I'm very worried that such opinions are up-voted so highly when Microsoft leeches open source code (but not its own ...). People have no respect for other people's creations. Perhaps it makes them feel better because they haven't created anything difficult themselves.
- breck 5y ago
  > Above a certain level of creativity people do produce novel or exceptional things that are worthy of protection. Name your very best example that will prove me wrong. It should be so simple. One example, that's all it takes. Take your time, make sure you've got a good one. I'll tell you that not once, not a single time in over 17 years, have I ever seen a single example of this argument hold up under scrutiny. Oh wait, you already did: > Because naked men are a shared concept Michelangelo's David is not protect-worthy? Ah yes, Michelangelo's David. A work free of copyright built under commission! Thank you for again pointing out the futility of the defense of copyright.
  - travisjungroth 5y ago
    Okay, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I’m legitimately trying to understand. Do you think after that book was published it should have no copyright protection? That it should be totally legal for me to print and sell my own copies?