4 ms·

>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 attemp

by 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.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      > It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. Many people on HN assert this based on the Authors Guild vs. Google case, but it's quite important to keep in mind that that case was about Google creating a search algorithm, which is not generating "new" output. We are talking about a very different kind of system here and in many other cases. Claiming the Authors Guild case sets precedent for these very different systems seems unbased to me.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. This is a very bold assumption, one that I assume will not hold in the court of law in all cases. I think the nuanced question is: to train a model that does what, exactly. Let's say distributing meth recipes is illegal[1], can one legally side-step that by training a model that spits out the meth recipe instead? No court will bother with the distinction, causation is well-trod ground. 1. As an example - not sure if its illegal. You may replace with classified nuclear weapon schematics if you like.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        It's not illegal to train a model to spit out classified nuclear weapon schematics. Possessing the original data might be. Releasing software that does this might be illegal, but not for copyright reasons, which is the issue at hand.
- rcfox 5y ago
  It sounds like you're arguing that Github isn't liable for people using copyrighted code through Copilot. I think most people are more concerned about whether the user of Copilot would be liable for using copyrighted code generated by Copilot.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Could be. But I could also see the courts ruling an individual can't be liable for copyright violations if they never accessed the original work, which is generally required.

by agilob 5y ago

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.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    > It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. Many people on HN assert this based on the Authors Guild vs. Google case, but it's quite important to keep in mind that that case was about Google creating a search algorithm, which is not generating "new" output. We are talking about a very different kind of system here and in many other cases. Claiming the Authors Guild case sets precedent for these very different systems seems unbased to me.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. This is a very bold assumption, one that I assume will not hold in the court of law in all cases. I think the nuanced question is: to train a model that does what, exactly. Let's say distributing meth recipes is illegal[1], can one legally side-step that by training a model that spits out the meth recipe instead? No court will bother with the distinction, causation is well-trod ground. 1. As an example - not sure if its illegal. You may replace with classified nuclear weapon schematics if you like.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      It's not illegal to train a model to spit out classified nuclear weapon schematics. Possessing the original data might be. Releasing software that does this might be illegal, but not for copyright reasons, which is the issue at hand.
rcfox 5y ago
It sounds like you're arguing that Github isn't liable for people using copyrighted code through Copilot. I think most people are more concerned about whether the user of Copilot would be liable for using copyrighted code generated by Copilot.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Could be. But I could also see the courts ruling an individual can't be liable for copyright violations if they never accessed the original work, which is generally required.