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

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.