4 ms·

I would like to brainstorm more on this. Perhaps offline would make more sense. I agree that for code, the function is more important than form. The "ideas"

• spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > I do think there is creative expression involved in writing code as well, however, I need to understand your point better. Code is just being written in a programming language, whereas a prose/poem is written in a natural language. Both can involve creative expression. I would like to hear more about how exactly you are distinguishing the two which may hold in form of say a revised law. What would a revision to the law look like which enables the code to be always free of creative expression (that copyright protects) but still leave books, paintings, etc., still being open to copyrights protection. I would suggest the form of the code is irrelevant, unless published in a way that exhibits its form AND violated in a way that exhibits its form. E.g. perhaps in a blog about code practices. Code being used to do things is not an expression like poetry. Much in the same way actual language cannot be copyrighted outside of doing a performance. Thinking of an acute example is difficult, but you cannot, for instance, copyright a pickup line at a bar and prevent others from using it, though you may prevent them from publishing it. But pointing again to the fact that it doesn't really matter, because if we fixate on form being relevant, we can train machines to copy intent while distorting form. The complaint of copilot copying code verbatim is a red herring to the problem at hand. edit: though to your other point, I think patents on code are not acceptable either.
  • alok-g 5y ago
    I am not very clear on your arguments. Would help if you could explain more. >> Code being used to do things is not an expression like poetry. Agreed. When "being used to do things" is not an expression. Writing code is to be differentiated from it being used. It's the writing part which can involve creative expression, and where copyright applies. >> Much in the same way actual language cannot be copyrighted outside of doing a performance Whether natural or programming languages are themselves copyrightable or not is unsettled by law as yet. AFAIK, there are no precedants either way. So for now at least, we can assume that language cannot be copyrighted. >> you cannot, for instance, copyright a pickup line at a bar ... Short phrases are not copyrightable. How short is short is an open question (i.e., no fixed rule is available, other than vaguely saying how likely are two people to come up with the same thing independently). >> ... and prevent others from using it, though you may prevent them from publishing it. Copyright usually comes into action when the subject matter is fixed into a tangible medium. So merely someone using a pickup line at a bar may not grant copyrights or prevent someone else from using it. >> But pointing again to the fact that it doesn't really matter, because if we fixate on form being relevant, we can train machines to copy intent while distorting form. The complaint of copilot copying code verbatim is a red herring to the problem at hand. I see your point, which is hinting that code has something that's beyond pure form and patentable ideas. This is what I would like to brainstorm on and understand. What exactly is this, how could this be codified into a law. And how do we still distinguish code from prose/poetry in both respects involved, i.e., creative expression of form, and the functional aspect.
    • spywaregorilla 5y ago
      > Copyright usually comes into action when the subject matter is fixed into a tangible medium. So merely someone using a pickup line at a bar may not grant copyrights or prevent someone else from using it. No I mean you can't prevent someone from using a pickup line you write, publish, and copyright. Let's ignore the length requirement here as I feel that's tangential to my point. My point is that you cannot stop the usage of language as a function with copyright. Performances aside.