4 ms·

> So the person copying it to you can be targeted by Microsoft, and if you copied Windows without that user's permission, you are probably going to be charged w

by mjg59 5y ago

> So the person copying it to you can be targeted by Microsoft, and if you copied Windows without that user's permission, you are probably going to be charged with a violation of the CFAA. If I'm given permission to use a computer, and I then use that access to duplicate binaries that are not subject to copyright law and which the level of access I have been greanted gives me access to, which provision of the CFAA do you think I'm violating? > Edit: The Windows agreement specifically says that using the software is an implicit agreement to the EULA, and Adobe's [2] says the same thing. Thus, even if you copy from someone else's computer, you are under the EULA. That's something you can enforce if use of the software is controlled by law, and you can refuse me permission to use it if I don't agree to the EULA. If the code isn't copyrightable then you have no ability to do that - I'm entitled to use it without agreeing to the EULA, and asserting that I'm implicitly agreeing to it carries as much weight as me asserting that you agree to pay me $1000 by reading this comment.

ghoward 5y ago
> If I'm given permission to use a computer, and I then use that access to duplicate binaries that are not subject to copyright law and which the level of access I have been greanted gives me access to, which provision of the CFAA do you think I'm violating? The CFAA covers use of a computer that extends beyond the authorized use. > That's something you can enforce if use of the software is controlled by law, and you can refuse me permission to use it if I don't agree to the EULA. If the code isn't copyrightable then you have no ability to do that - I'm entitled to use it without agreeing to the EULA, and asserting that I'm implicitly agreeing to it carries as much weight as me asserting that you agree to pay me $1000 by reading this comment. Good luck when a company comes after you for not agreeing to the EULA. You and I might agree that you are entitled to use it despite the EULA, but that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing how companies will protect their software if copyright does not apply. Saying that me reading your comment implies that I agree to pay you $1000 is wrong because of two major things: 1. You posted in a public forum. 2. I did not need to copy your comment to read it. Windows has not posted their source code in a public forum, and the use of their software on a new machine requires copying it. Actually, this talk of $1000 gave me an idea, so let's make a bet: if you can train a Copilot-like model with a decompiled copy of Windows and not be sued by Microsoft, I'll give you the $1000 you claim I owe you. But if they sue you, then obviously, they think there is something protecting their code, whether EULA or copyright. Good luck with that. Edit: Also, implied contracts are a thing. [1] [1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/implied_contract.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/implied_contract.asp
- mjg59 5y ago
  > The CFAA covers use of a computer that extends beyond the authorized use. Right. I have valid credentials for a system which grant me read access to a bunch of binaries. Are you saying that I need explicit authorisation to copy those? > 2. I did not need to copy your comment to read it. Agreed! I'm not going to be able to cause you to implicitly accept a EULA by doing something you already have permission to do, just as Microsoft wouldn't be able to cause me to implicitly accept a EULA by copying a binary that isn't subject to copyright law. > But if they sue you, then obviously, they think there is something protecting their code, whether EULA or copyright. You seem to be conflating two different situations. At present, since Windows is considered to be under copyright, Microsoft are in a position to enforce a EULA that would forbid me from doing that, even if the model I generated would produce output that wasn't considered to be a derivative work of Windows. If software couldn't be copyrighted at all then their ability to enforce that would be significantly weakened.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    > Right. I have valid credentials for a system which grant me read access to a bunch of binaries. Are you saying that I need explicit authorisation to copy those? Yeah, you do. > Agreed! I'm not going to be able to cause you to implicitly accept a EULA by doing something you already have permission to do, just as Microsoft wouldn't be able to cause me to implicitly accept a EULA by copying a binary that isn't subject to copyright law. Then take the bet. I'm not even asking you to give me $1000 if you lose. > You seem to be conflating two different situations. At present, since Windows is considered to be under copyright, Microsoft are in a position to enforce a EULA that would forbid me from doing that, even if the model I generated would produce output that wasn't considered to be a derivative work of Windows. If software couldn't be copyrighted at all then their ability to enforce that would be significantly weakened. Ah, but you forgot one thing: Microsoft and GitHub are claiming that training a machine learning model is under fair use, which is an exemption to copyright. So if they sue you for training a model with their code, then they either do not actually believe that training an ML model is fair use, or they think that they can enforce the EULA without copyright. Either way, take the bet. Prove me wrong.

by mjg59 5y ago

ghoward 5y ago

> If I'm given permission to use a computer, and I then use that access to duplicate binaries that are not subject to copyright law and which the level of access I have been greanted gives me access to, which provision of the CFAA do you think I'm violating? The CFAA covers use of a computer that extends beyond the authorized use. > That's something you can enforce if use of the software is controlled by law, and you can refuse me permission to use it if I don't agree to the EULA. If the code isn't copyrightable then you have no ability to do that - I'm entitled to use it without agreeing to the EULA, and asserting that I'm implicitly agreeing to it carries as much weight as me asserting that you agree to pay me $1000 by reading this comment. Good luck when a company comes after you for not agreeing to the EULA. You and I might agree that you are entitled to use it despite the EULA, but that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing how companies will protect their software if copyright does not apply. Saying that me reading your comment implies that I agree to pay you $1000 is wrong because of two major things: 1. You posted in a public forum. 2. I did not need to copy your comment to read it. Windows has not posted their source code in a public forum, and the use of their software on a new machine requires copying it. Actually, this talk of $1000 gave me an idea, so let's make a bet: if you can train a Copilot-like model with a decompiled copy of Windows and not be sued by Microsoft, I'll give you the $1000 you claim I owe you. But if they sue you, then obviously, they think there is something protecting their code, whether EULA or copyright. Good luck with that. Edit: Also, implied contracts are a thing. [1] [1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/implied_contract.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/implied_contract.asp

mjg59 5y ago
> The CFAA covers use of a computer that extends beyond the authorized use. Right. I have valid credentials for a system which grant me read access to a bunch of binaries. Are you saying that I need explicit authorisation to copy those? > 2. I did not need to copy your comment to read it. Agreed! I'm not going to be able to cause you to implicitly accept a EULA by doing something you already have permission to do, just as Microsoft wouldn't be able to cause me to implicitly accept a EULA by copying a binary that isn't subject to copyright law. > But if they sue you, then obviously, they think there is something protecting their code, whether EULA or copyright. You seem to be conflating two different situations. At present, since Windows is considered to be under copyright, Microsoft are in a position to enforce a EULA that would forbid me from doing that, even if the model I generated would produce output that wasn't considered to be a derivative work of Windows. If software couldn't be copyrighted at all then their ability to enforce that would be significantly weakened.
- ghoward 5y ago
  > Right. I have valid credentials for a system which grant me read access to a bunch of binaries. Are you saying that I need explicit authorisation to copy those? Yeah, you do. > Agreed! I'm not going to be able to cause you to implicitly accept a EULA by doing something you already have permission to do, just as Microsoft wouldn't be able to cause me to implicitly accept a EULA by copying a binary that isn't subject to copyright law. Then take the bet. I'm not even asking you to give me $1000 if you lose. > You seem to be conflating two different situations. At present, since Windows is considered to be under copyright, Microsoft are in a position to enforce a EULA that would forbid me from doing that, even if the model I generated would produce output that wasn't considered to be a derivative work of Windows. If software couldn't be copyrighted at all then their ability to enforce that would be significantly weakened. Ah, but you forgot one thing: Microsoft and GitHub are claiming that training a machine learning model is under fair use, which is an exemption to copyright. So if they sue you for training a model with their code, then they either do not actually believe that training an ML model is fair use, or they think that they can enforce the EULA without copyright. Either way, take the bet. Prove me wrong.