3 ms·

So playing devil's advocate. What if the courts just don't care, and rule that copying code verbatim is not a crime because you didn't copy it, and copilot is n

So playing devil's advocate. What if the courts just don't care, and rule that copying code verbatim is not a crime because you didn't copy it, and copilot is not a human so it can't commit crimes. What's the net effect of a system that draws upon all public code repos? It sounds... net beneficial to society? On the plus side, a large body of work effectively becomes public domain. On the negative side, copyleft licenses lose their teeth. You probably see more power shift to those with big budgets. You probably see fewer things made source available, because you either have the public license or the private license now. This feels like a bad path but I'm not convinced the end result isn't better still.

downrightmike 5y ago
The really nice thing is that this basically creates a library of industry methods and practices. It'd be really nice to be able to destroy copyright trolls because what their patent "covers" is already a known and established industry method, or a prior art.
agilob 5y ago
>copilot is not a human so it can't commit crimes I can setup my drone to detect me and attempt to crash into me. AI would be quite poor, probably would attempt to crash at any human. Would it be my fault it didn't crash into me and someone lost eyes? Can I setup torrent box that automatically downloads and seeds all detected links from public trackers? Would I be responsible for it?
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Both of these examples include you creating something and then using it. I don't know how copilot works, but using the second example, if you wrote a script to download and seed trackers, and someone else used it, I don't think you would be held under any liability, especially if you don't profit off of it. Not a lawyer or even particularly well informed edit: I am reminded of the monkey selfie, in which it was ruled that a non-human cannot create copyrightable works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    Did copilot spring from the aether? Or was it built and trained on licensed code by github? Someone did something.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. There are three questions at play though: 1) Can you be liable for violating copyright if you have never seen the work? 2) Can a non-human be held accountable for violating copyright? 3) Can github be held liable for an end user using their tool to violate copyright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity wikipedia states: Generally, copying cannot be proven without some evidence of access; however, in the seminal case on striking similarity, Arnstein v. Porter, the Second Circuit stated that even absent a finding of access, copying can be established when the similarities between two works are "so striking as to preclude the possibility that the plaintiff and defendant independently arrived at the same result." This is a different situation in which exact replication can be reasonably occurred without access to the original. Secondly, can you actually claim Github has violated copyright if it doesn't have any claims to the work in question? I think it's totally plausible that they win this in the long run.
      - stonemetal12 5y ago
        1) So you are saying if I get a disk duplication machine I can freely copy and distribute blu ray disks as long as I don't watch the movie on the disk? 2,3) Seems pretty settled at this point, look at the cases around the VCR and copy machine. In general the one using the machine is liable. The creator of the machine can be held liable if there aren't substantial non infringing uses.
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        1) No. But you can freely distribute the disk duplication machine. 2) Someone using a copy machine is knowingly copying a specific work.
mook 5y ago
Would that mean I can start sampling songs if they get fed through a neutral network? It'll be fine if I train it on whatever is playing on the radio right? Doing the same for poems?
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  I would expect the legal argument to get into the intentions of the user and their relationship to the tool. I would also expect perspectives of art and code to diverge.

downrightmike 5y ago

The really nice thing is that this basically creates a library of industry methods and practices. It'd be really nice to be able to destroy copyright trolls because what their patent "covers" is already a known and established industry method, or a prior art.

agilob 5y ago

>copilot is not a human so it can't commit crimes I can setup my drone to detect me and attempt to crash into me. AI would be quite poor, probably would attempt to crash at any human. Would it be my fault it didn't crash into me and someone lost eyes? Can I setup torrent box that automatically downloads and seeds all detected links from public trackers? Would I be responsible for it?

spywaregorilla 5y ago
Both of these examples include you creating something and then using it. I don't know how copilot works, but using the second example, if you wrote a script to download and seed trackers, and someone else used it, I don't think you would be held under any liability, especially if you don't profit off of it. Not a lawyer or even particularly well informed edit: I am reminded of the monkey selfie, in which it was ruled that a non-human cannot create copyrightable works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  Did copilot spring from the aether? Or was it built and trained on licensed code by github? Someone did something.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. There are three questions at play though: 1) Can you be liable for violating copyright if you have never seen the work? 2) Can a non-human be held accountable for violating copyright? 3) Can github be held liable for an end user using their tool to violate copyright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity wikipedia states: Generally, copying cannot be proven without some evidence of access; however, in the seminal case on striking similarity, Arnstein v. Porter, the Second Circuit stated that even absent a finding of access, copying can be established when the similarities between two works are "so striking as to preclude the possibility that the plaintiff and defendant independently arrived at the same result." This is a different situation in which exact replication can be reasonably occurred without access to the original. Secondly, can you actually claim Github has violated copyright if it doesn't have any claims to the work in question? I think it's totally plausible that they win this in the long run.
    - stonemetal12 5y ago
      1) So you are saying if I get a disk duplication machine I can freely copy and distribute blu ray disks as long as I don't watch the movie on the disk? 2,3) Seems pretty settled at this point, look at the cases around the VCR and copy machine. In general the one using the machine is liable. The creator of the machine can be held liable if there aren't substantial non infringing uses.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        1) No. But you can freely distribute the disk duplication machine. 2) Someone using a copy machine is knowingly copying a specific work.

mook 5y ago

Would that mean I can start sampling songs if they get fed through a neutral network? It'll be fine if I train it on whatever is playing on the radio right? Doing the same for poems?

spywaregorilla 5y ago
I would expect the legal argument to get into the intentions of the user and their relationship to the tool. I would also expect perspectives of art and code to diverge.