6 ms·

> On the other hand, the argument that the outputs of GitHub Copilot are derivative works of the training data is based on the assumption that a machine can pro

> On the other hand, the argument that the outputs of GitHub Copilot are derivative works of the training data is based on the assumption that a machine can produce works. This assumption is wrong and counterproductive. Copyright law has only ever applied to intellectual creations – where there is no creator, there is no work. This means that machine-generated code like that of GitHub Copilot is not a work under copyright law at all, so it is not a derivative work either. The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain. That is good news for the open movement and not something that needs fixing. This is very good news. This line of thought implies that we can legally feed all proprietary code into GitHub Copilot in order to teach it all the patented and secret tricks of the companies we can see (since data mining is not copyright infrigement) in order to have it print those secrets back when we ask it to (so they become public domain). /s

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
"Patented and secret tricks" are not protected by copyright, if the output was an actual reimplementation of an idea instead of Copilot regurgitating existing code (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287). The specific implementations are protected by copyright, and the ideas may be protected by patents. In the case of "secret" tricks, they may be protected by trade secret laws, but not if it's in a public GitHub repo.
jakobdabo 5y ago
> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection Good, does the `cp` or `cat` command qualify for the "output of a machine"? Now I can uncopyright everything, hooray. What about converting a video or an image to another format? Again, it's just output of a machine. Added: Really, I would've been happy if this was the situation, as I'm, in general, against patents and copyright (in the form that they are now being used).
bsza 5y ago
Except Copilot itself is not open source, so your only way to feed that proprietary code into it would be to upload it to github, which would make you an infringer.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > your only way to feed that proprietary code into it would be to upload it to github, which would make you an infringer Somebody has to do it. Someone ready to take one for the team (or better yet, already skilled in software piracy, so that it's not a big deal for them). Then, if this argument holds, everyone gets the result in public domain. As I see it, the argument presented in this post essentially makes Copilot to be an universal copyright laundering machine. Not just for code, but for anything that can be represented digitally. Obviously this won't stand. While I can see Github ending up protected from all liability, the only way for this to not kill copyright is for the users of Copilot to become at risk of copyright infringement. Which kills the whole value proposition of Copilot.
  - dTal 5y ago
    This seems like a good time to ask what the heck is the value proposition of a thing like this. Are people really going to use the output of this blindly? And if they're going to audit every line - is that really easier than just writing the code yourself? Honestly, at best it feels like a machine for introducing pernicious bugs that "look right" but are semantically wrong. (Which reminds me - were any of the Underhanded C Contest entries in the training data?)
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      That's a very good question. On the surface, the idea seems to be helping people write code faster - but as you observe, properly auditing generated code is more work than actually writing it from scratch. Best I can think of in terms of real value delivered, is helping people with first drafts, breaking through the "staring at an empty page" problem. But even with this, I feel it's too risky compared to doing a StackOverflow search, where you can at least see some explanations, discussions, and other relevant context. It's definitely an interesting vision demonstrator - despite not being quite there, it lets us see that a tool like this that actually worked well (in terms of generating correct, explainable, license-respecting code) would be very useful.
    - visarga 5y ago
amelius 5y ago
> This line of thought implies that we can legally feed all proprietary code into GitHub Copilot And lines such as: char *base64_pirated_mp4_file = "YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc3VyZS4...";
shp0ngle 5y ago
Patent is not copyright. Secret tricks are usually a company secret, not really protected by copyright either. NDAs and similar are also not copyrights. Even trademark is not copyright.
chalst 5y ago
> Copyright law has only ever applied to intellectual creations – where there is no creator, there is no work This is, at best, an oversimplification. Code compiled from copyrighted source code is derived work inheriting that copyright according to long-established law. This is exactly why the legal issues around machine learning applied to copyrighted corpora have been contentious.
b3morales 5y ago
Wow, that's quite a strawman/bait-and-switch from the article; thanks for highlighting it. If Copilot is just a machine -- a glorified typewriter -- then the machine's operator is responsible for its output. Or does the author seriously want to claim that any code added via Copilot to a proprietary codebase would not be proprietary as well? If that were true, Copilot's userbase is going to be...limited.
- syshum 5y ago
  So then we come full circle on infringement, if the operator is responsible for the code produced by co-pilot then the articles claim that is not infringement because it is machine created fails, as the operator is responsible The argument in the article is that all code made by co-pilot is not infringement because there is no copyright attached. You seem to imply that the copyright of all code made by co-pilot is copyrighted by the operator of co-pilot thus would then fall under copyright law, and thus would/could be infringing
  - b3morales 5y ago
    > The argument in the article is that all code made by co-pilot is not infringement because there is no copyright attached. Right; I don't see how that's even remotely a tenable argument. I think the article is trying to eat its cake and have it too.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

"Patented and secret tricks" are not protected by copyright, if the output was an actual reimplementation of an idea instead of Copilot regurgitating existing code (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287). The specific implementations are protected by copyright, and the ideas may be protected by patents. In the case of "secret" tricks, they may be protected by trade secret laws, but not if it's in a public GitHub repo.

jakobdabo 5y ago

> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection Good, does the `cp` or `cat` command qualify for the "output of a machine"? Now I can uncopyright everything, hooray. What about converting a video or an image to another format? Again, it's just output of a machine. Added: Really, I would've been happy if this was the situation, as I'm, in general, against patents and copyright (in the form that they are now being used).

bsza 5y ago

Except Copilot itself is not open source, so your only way to feed that proprietary code into it would be to upload it to github, which would make you an infringer.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> your only way to feed that proprietary code into it would be to upload it to github, which would make you an infringer Somebody has to do it. Someone ready to take one for the team (or better yet, already skilled in software piracy, so that it's not a big deal for them). Then, if this argument holds, everyone gets the result in public domain. As I see it, the argument presented in this post essentially makes Copilot to be an universal copyright laundering machine. Not just for code, but for anything that can be represented digitally. Obviously this won't stand. While I can see Github ending up protected from all liability, the only way for this to not kill copyright is for the users of Copilot to become at risk of copyright infringement. Which kills the whole value proposition of Copilot.
- dTal 5y ago
  This seems like a good time to ask what the heck is the value proposition of a thing like this. Are people really going to use the output of this blindly? And if they're going to audit every line - is that really easier than just writing the code yourself? Honestly, at best it feels like a machine for introducing pernicious bugs that "look right" but are semantically wrong. (Which reminds me - were any of the Underhanded C Contest entries in the training data?)
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    That's a very good question. On the surface, the idea seems to be helping people write code faster - but as you observe, properly auditing generated code is more work than actually writing it from scratch. Best I can think of in terms of real value delivered, is helping people with first drafts, breaking through the "staring at an empty page" problem. But even with this, I feel it's too risky compared to doing a StackOverflow search, where you can at least see some explanations, discussions, and other relevant context. It's definitely an interesting vision demonstrator - despite not being quite there, it lets us see that a tool like this that actually worked well (in terms of generating correct, explainable, license-respecting code) would be very useful.
  - visarga 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

> This line of thought implies that we can legally feed all proprietary code into GitHub Copilot And lines such as: char *base64_pirated_mp4_file = "YW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc3VyZS4...";

shp0ngle 5y ago

Patent is not copyright. Secret tricks are usually a company secret, not really protected by copyright either. NDAs and similar are also not copyrights. Even trademark is not copyright.

chalst 5y ago

> Copyright law has only ever applied to intellectual creations – where there is no creator, there is no work This is, at best, an oversimplification. Code compiled from copyrighted source code is derived work inheriting that copyright according to long-established law. This is exactly why the legal issues around machine learning applied to copyrighted corpora have been contentious.

b3morales 5y ago

Wow, that's quite a strawman/bait-and-switch from the article; thanks for highlighting it. If Copilot is just a machine -- a glorified typewriter -- then the machine's operator is responsible for its output. Or does the author seriously want to claim that any code added via Copilot to a proprietary codebase would not be proprietary as well? If that were true, Copilot's userbase is going to be...limited.

syshum 5y ago
So then we come full circle on infringement, if the operator is responsible for the code produced by co-pilot then the articles claim that is not infringement because it is machine created fails, as the operator is responsible The argument in the article is that all code made by co-pilot is not infringement because there is no copyright attached. You seem to imply that the copyright of all code made by co-pilot is copyrighted by the operator of co-pilot thus would then fall under copyright law, and thus would/could be infringing
- b3morales 5y ago
  > The argument in the article is that all code made by co-pilot is not infringement because there is no copyright attached. Right; I don't see how that's even remotely a tenable argument. I think the article is trying to eat its cake and have it too.