3 ms·
> Nobody is really being hurt when a new tool makes it easier to copy little bits of code from the internet. That's the first time I've heard copilot get descr
by IncRnd 5y ago
> Nobody is really being hurt when a new tool makes it easier to copy little bits of code from the internet.
That's the first time I've heard copilot get described as copying little bits of code from the Internet. Copilot aggregates all github source code, removes licences from the code, and regurgitates the code without licenses.
Furthermore, both github and the programmers using copilot know this. Look at any one of these threads written by programmers about copilot. Using copilot is knowingly stealing the source code of others without attribution. Using copilot is literally humans stealing source code from others. Copilot was written for the purpose of taking other's code.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y agoIt's not "literally" stealing, because it doesn't deprive anyone of the use the source code. Those two points were somehow extremely obvious to everyone here as long as it was music and movies we were talking about. And Github themselves have stated that only 0.1% of the Copilot output contains chunks taken verbatim from the learning set. Of those, the vast majority are likely to be boilerplate so generic it's silly to claim ownership, and maybe sometimes impossible to avoid.
- IncRnd 5y ago> It's not "literally" stealing, because it doesn't deprive anyone of the use the source code. That's simply not true. You might be confusing idealism about software freedom with how both law and society define theft. Edit: In this comment I refer to the US.
- mdpye 5y agoIt is actually true, in the UK at least the legal definition of theft includes the deprivation of the owner of the property in question. The copyright lobby hedge the term as "copyright theft" (i.e. not actual theft) in order to shift the societal understanding. Whish appears to have worked. This is not a value judgement on copyright infringement. Just that technically it doesn't meet the legal definition of theft. cf. The rather amusing satire of the "you wouldn't steal a handbag" campaign in the UK, which ran "you wouldn't download a bear!"
- IncRnd 5y agoYes! Thank you. I should have clarified that I meant within the US.
- mdpye 5y agoOh, then today I learned! I didn't realise they were different. Just looked it up in a "plain English dictionary of law" and the distinction seems subtle but important. Rather than "with the intention of depriving the owner", the US one says "with the intention of converting it to their use", which seems broad enough to cover exploiting a copy, rather than the original (or only, in the physical realm...)
- native_samples 5y agoThe US definition seems more robust, as otherwise, I could somehow steal something you built (e.g. a farm) and then generously allow you to continue using it, perhaps for a fee. You would therefore not be deprived of it but I would still be the new owner or user. It seems unlikely this distinction would ever matter in a real court though.
- CRConrad 5y agoOh Idunno, it "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"... > Rather than "with the intention of depriving the owner", the US one says "with the intention of converting it to their use", which seems broad enough to cover exploiting a copy ...or rather, on the meaning of "converting". I've always theought of that as "changing", i.e. "it used to be one thing, and now it's something else". But copying IP only adds a use of it, it doesn't fundamentally change it in this sense: it is still available for the original proprietor's use. Is that really "converted"? At least for the ordinary-English uuage of the word, I think it could be argued that it isn't. But then maybe this isn't just English; maybe the word "converting" also has some term-of-trade definition in that dictionary?