4 ms·

I keep seeing developers weigh in on their thoughts about copyright/legal issues but no IP legal experts. Why are people taking any of this without reviewing it

by mbesto 5y ago

I keep seeing developers weigh in on their thoughts about copyright/legal issues but no IP legal experts. Why are people taking any of this without reviewing it with, ya know, lawyers? (for the record, I loathe lawyers like the rest of you, but they have a purpose here) Just like when congressmen try to talk about tech and developers bemoan "you have no idea what you're talking about, stop trying", can developers just take a back seat before becoming a bunch of keyboard warriors here? Telling people they "might get sued" is boring and unhelpful. If you think there is a legal implication - then consult a lawyer. Just like a lawyer would consult their web developer if CSS was broken on their website. That being said - I think it's entirely okay for developers to say "I did not explicitly choose to let Copilot use my data as a training set and I'm taking my code off GitHub until that is done". PS - I want grellas back :(

onli 5y ago
Julia Reda did weigh in: https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin...
- louthy 5y ago
  That seems to entirely ignore that Copilot has 'generated' GPL protected code verbatim, even down to the comments. There appears to be exact copies of certain code segments within their model, and that is being exactly copied out. Doesn't that fall under copyright protection?
  - onli 5y ago
    Where I live: It does fall under it, if the code is sufficient complex enough (e.g. there is evident originality) to be protected under copyright in the first place.
  - jolux 5y ago
    She does say she doesn’t think most snippets meet the originality criteria.
    - onli 5y ago
      You are right: > Otherwise, copyright conflicts would constantly arise when two authors use the same trivial statement independently of each other, such as “Bucks beats Hawks and advance to the NBA finals”, or “i = i+1”. The short code snippets that Copilot reproduces from training data are unlikely to reach the threshold of originality. Precisely because copyright only protects original excerpts, press publishers in the EU have successfully lobbied for their own ancillary copyright that does not require originality as a precondition for protection.
      - louthy 5y ago
        Nobody is complaining about `i = i + 1`, it's examples like this [1], an entire function, including comments written by the original author, protected under GPL: [1] https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309 https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309
        onli 5y ago
        There is still the question of whether such a small part of a bigger work is enough to be protected, but regardless. I think the article was written before that tweet and does not assume that 1:1 copies of longer code parts happen. As I wrote already to you, there is that whole faction of "even using GPL code for learning is wrong", and to my reading Redas article mainly addresses that. And it has the assumption that the verbatim copies will be very small.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  This only covers the part about the training data and derivative work. At what point does exactly cloning code become not a derivative work?
  - loopz 5y ago
    Obviously it is not derivative work anymore when huge international corporations let their "AI" copy the code verbatim./s Emperors new clothes and all that.
nwellinghoff 5y ago
Yeah problem is the lawyers rarely come give free advice on a public forum. So we are left to speculate...
numpad0 5y ago
Real world rights infringement work completely different from programmer's understanding, and is dictated by monetary gains: Rights holders sue manufacturers of million dollar products to get the cut or secure a deal. That is what it is for. Programmers think that a right is granted to novel concepts itself to preserve a technology family tree, independent of cash flows or organizations or stakeholders' power dynamics. That is not what it is. I tend to sympathize with programmer thinking though! Code has to be law and law has to be code.
- silon42 5y ago
  > Code has to be law and law has to be code. No, that's DRM and it's far from all good.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
I completely agree. The copyright issue doesn't seem to be simple at all, at least from the perspective of USA law. This has been posted on another thread and completely destroyed my hope of understanding the consequences: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright-for-literate-robots/ https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright...
arcturus17 5y ago
Exactly my sentiment. It’s particularly ridiculous to see devs shelling out bold statements of fact and not even open-ended questions or more softly worded opinions (“I believe that…”). Arguably, even real domain experts should have the latter attitude, and so should the dev community, in which many are educated in the scientific method. Clearly some people are feeling threatened and are embarrassing themselves as a result.

by mbesto 5y ago

onli 5y ago

Julia Reda did weigh in: https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/ https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringin...

louthy 5y ago
That seems to entirely ignore that Copilot has 'generated' GPL protected code verbatim, even down to the comments. There appears to be exact copies of certain code segments within their model, and that is being exactly copied out. Doesn't that fall under copyright protection?
- onli 5y ago
  Where I live: It does fall under it, if the code is sufficient complex enough (e.g. there is evident originality) to be protected under copyright in the first place.
- jolux 5y ago
  She does say she doesn’t think most snippets meet the originality criteria.
  - onli 5y ago
    You are right: > Otherwise, copyright conflicts would constantly arise when two authors use the same trivial statement independently of each other, such as “Bucks beats Hawks and advance to the NBA finals”, or “i = i+1”. The short code snippets that Copilot reproduces from training data are unlikely to reach the threshold of originality. Precisely because copyright only protects original excerpts, press publishers in the EU have successfully lobbied for their own ancillary copyright that does not require originality as a precondition for protection.
    - louthy 5y ago
      Nobody is complaining about `i = i + 1`, it's examples like this [1], an entire function, including comments written by the original author, protected under GPL: [1] https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309 https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309
      - onli 5y ago
        There is still the question of whether such a small part of a bigger work is enough to be protected, but regardless. I think the article was written before that tweet and does not assume that 1:1 copies of longer code parts happen. As I wrote already to you, there is that whole faction of "even using GPL code for learning is wrong", and to my reading Redas article mainly addresses that. And it has the assumption that the verbatim copies will be very small.
MattGaiser 5y ago
This only covers the part about the training data and derivative work. At what point does exactly cloning code become not a derivative work?
- loopz 5y ago
  Obviously it is not derivative work anymore when huge international corporations let their "AI" copy the code verbatim./s Emperors new clothes and all that.

nwellinghoff 5y ago

Yeah problem is the lawyers rarely come give free advice on a public forum. So we are left to speculate...

numpad0 5y ago

Real world rights infringement work completely different from programmer's understanding, and is dictated by monetary gains: Rights holders sue manufacturers of million dollar products to get the cut or secure a deal. That is what it is for. Programmers think that a right is granted to novel concepts itself to preserve a technology family tree, independent of cash flows or organizations or stakeholders' power dynamics. That is not what it is. I tend to sympathize with programmer thinking though! Code has to be law and law has to be code.

silon42 5y ago
> Code has to be law and law has to be code. No, that's DRM and it's far from all good.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

I completely agree. The copyright issue doesn't seem to be simple at all, at least from the perspective of USA law. This has been posted on another thread and completely destroyed my hope of understanding the consequences: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright-for-literate-robots/ https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright...

arcturus17 5y ago

Exactly my sentiment. It’s particularly ridiculous to see devs shelling out bold statements of fact and not even open-ended questions or more softly worded opinions (“I believe that…”). Arguably, even real domain experts should have the latter attitude, and so should the dev community, in which many are educated in the scientific method. Clearly some people are feeling threatened and are embarrassing themselves as a result.