4 ms·

> 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

by mabbo 5y ago

> 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 This is fantastic news. I'm going to create a bot that crawls sites like GitHub searching for popular libraries. Then it will copy them- sans any license- to it's own website where it will sell these libraries under a new name. Since there is no creator here, just a piece of software, then there is no copyright violation. My system simply is "inspired" by the original source code using a proprietary algorithm that I call "Copy and paste". I'm open to accepting venture capital for this project.

jdright 5y ago
You know what, I love this idea! We can do the same with music with very few adaptations to the algorithm. This idea is worth gold!
verelo 5y ago
Id expect that since that’s your intention, as described above, then it is copyright and you would be the actor. In the GitHub case, it isn’t the primary intent but rather a byproduct of the goal of helping another developer? Not a lawyer, but spent enough time with lawyers to know that what you’re describing won’t fly. I don’t even know what GitHub is doing will fly, maybe they’re hoping it gets tested.
- mabbo 5y ago
  I can't tell if you are being doubly-sarcastic to my sarcasm, or if you missed my point.
  - verelo 5y ago
    Ah, honestly i missed your sarcasm. Yeah, so i guess we're on the same page.
JorgeGT 5y ago
> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection Does this include my Xerox machine? If so, is anyone looking for very very cheap textbooks?
- progval 5y ago
  Already tried in court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service_shop_copyright_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service_s...
  - chrismorgan 5y ago
    That looks to be as much about exceptions for education as about photocopying. Purely from a quick read of the Wikipedia article’s summary, it looks like a lot of it hinges on the interpretation of Section 52(1)(i), https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf#page=41 https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf#pa..., “the reproduction of any work— (i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or (ii) as part of the question to be answered in an examination; or (iii) in answers to such questions”.
Arnt 5y ago
It's not news, it is fantastic, and you'd do well to understand it. The output of copilot is macnine-generated and is not subject to copyright. Microsoft cannot claim copyright on what it generates. That does not affect my rights, or anyone else's. I can claim copyright on what I write, and neither copilot nor your stupidity diminish my rights. MS may argue that what copilot copies is small enough that I have no copyright on that, and win in court. You may put forward the same argument but I think your fate in court would be different.
- epicide 5y ago
  > The output of copilot is macnine-generated and is not subject to copyright. Microsoft cannot claim copyright on what it generates. That does not affect my rights, or anyone else's. What about when I, a developer working on a proprietary codebase, blindly commit the output code into our product? Have I created a derivative work or, worse, plagiarized?
  - user5994461 5y ago
    >>> Have I created a derivative work or, worse, plagiarized? If you reproduced code that's copyrightable and under another license, then yes you are in violation. It will take a decade for the case to proceed to court and determine exactly what claims can be made against your company and GitHub. In practical terms, you should turn off Copilot this very minute.
    - epicide 5y ago
      Right, which is why it feels like a bad-faith argument in this case to say "a machine can't produce copyrightable code, etc." We aren't talking about a server sitting in a Microsoft data center shuffling code to another server without human intervention. We are talking about a tool that helps developers create code -- code that is "copyrightable and under another license", and thus in violation.

by mabbo 5y ago

jdright 5y ago

You know what, I love this idea! We can do the same with music with very few adaptations to the algorithm. This idea is worth gold!

verelo 5y ago

Id expect that since that’s your intention, as described above, then it is copyright and you would be the actor. In the GitHub case, it isn’t the primary intent but rather a byproduct of the goal of helping another developer? Not a lawyer, but spent enough time with lawyers to know that what you’re describing won’t fly. I don’t even know what GitHub is doing will fly, maybe they’re hoping it gets tested.

mabbo 5y ago
I can't tell if you are being doubly-sarcastic to my sarcasm, or if you missed my point.
- verelo 5y ago
  Ah, honestly i missed your sarcasm. Yeah, so i guess we're on the same page.

JorgeGT 5y ago

> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection Does this include my Xerox machine? If so, is anyone looking for very very cheap textbooks?

progval 5y ago
Already tried in court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service_shop_copyright_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service_s...
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  That looks to be as much about exceptions for education as about photocopying. Purely from a quick read of the Wikipedia article’s summary, it looks like a lot of it hinges on the interpretation of Section 52(1)(i), https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf#page=41 https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf#pa..., “the reproduction of any work— (i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or (ii) as part of the question to be answered in an examination; or (iii) in answers to such questions”.

Arnt 5y ago

It's not news, it is fantastic, and you'd do well to understand it. The output of copilot is macnine-generated and is not subject to copyright. Microsoft cannot claim copyright on what it generates. That does not affect my rights, or anyone else's. I can claim copyright on what I write, and neither copilot nor your stupidity diminish my rights. MS may argue that what copilot copies is small enough that I have no copyright on that, and win in court. You may put forward the same argument but I think your fate in court would be different.

epicide 5y ago
> The output of copilot is macnine-generated and is not subject to copyright. Microsoft cannot claim copyright on what it generates. That does not affect my rights, or anyone else's. What about when I, a developer working on a proprietary codebase, blindly commit the output code into our product? Have I created a derivative work or, worse, plagiarized?
- user5994461 5y ago
  >>> Have I created a derivative work or, worse, plagiarized? If you reproduced code that's copyrightable and under another license, then yes you are in violation. It will take a decade for the case to proceed to court and determine exactly what claims can be made against your company and GitHub. In practical terms, you should turn off Copilot this very minute.
  - epicide 5y ago
    Right, which is why it feels like a bad-faith argument in this case to say "a machine can't produce copyrightable code, etc." We aren't talking about a server sitting in a Microsoft data center shuffling code to another server without human intervention. We are talking about a tool that helps developers create code -- code that is "copyrightable and under another license", and thus in violation.