4 ms·

And now they can also claim it was just autocompleted by Copilot.

by trickstra 5y ago

libeclipse 5y ago
That's not plausible
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Hey, just because it would get laughed out of court, that doesn't mean they can't claim it!
  - randomluck040 5y ago
    I‘m not so sure about it being laughed out of court unfortunately.
    - donkeyd 5y ago
      Can concur, courts don't know jack about tech and have to rely on experts that aren't always independent.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Rebutting the argument doesn't rely on tech knowledge. “But, your honour, I didn't copy this person's book! I used the autocomplete on my phone, and it just so happened to produce their 500 000 word novel!” You need tech knowledge to think that's even plausible. Sure, they wouldn't dismiss it out of hand (I think “laughed out of court” is a figure of speech), but I wouldn't be surprised if it got a few giggles.
        ShrigmaMale 5y ago
        This would be more like GPT-3 completing a specific novel.
        pabs3 5y ago
        ISTR someone used GPT-3 to autocomplete a chapter of Harry Potter.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        And doing so is still copyright infringement.
kayodelycaon 5y ago
Using a tool to violate copyright isn't a valid legal defense.
- trickstra 5y ago
  There is a "data minig" exception from copyright law, saying that you can use any available code to feed your AI and don't have respect the license. And the output of your AI is yours. So TikTok could claim they either use Copilot, which was fed OBS source, or that they created their own private AI similar to Copilot. Microsoft showed the way. It hasn't been tested at court AFAIK, but if a company can use this defense to protect their profits, for sure they will try.
  - mewse 5y ago
    Is there? Can you point it out to me? I’ve looked, but haven’t been able to find it. I imagine it’d be somewhere on this page, in section 107 or later [0], but I haven’t actually found a clause which looks like it either has the intent or side-effect of making “data minig” exempt from having to obey copyright requirements. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
    - seanhunter 5y ago
      In the UK there is a data mining exemption to copyright for non-commercial research if you otherwise have "lawful access" to the work [1] but it clearly wouldn't cover something like copilot and just allows you to build the model. It doesn't give you a copyright exemption if the outputs of the model would otherwise be infringing on the copyright of the input material.[2] [1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#text-and-data-mining-for-non-commercial-research https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#text-and... [2] That is to say it is not mentioned, and to give you such an exemption it would need to be mentioned. Hasn't been tested in court either as far as I am aware
    - trickstra 5y ago
      It's literally the first search result for "data mining exception": https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/text-data-mining/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/text-dat... This is about EU and UK, but think about it, Microsoft Copilot is already doing it, and so far it seems like they will get away with it. So if feeding an open source code into AI and then using the output in a proprietary application is illegal in the US, then Copilot must be illegal. According to wikipedia in the US it falls under fair use because it is "transformative" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#Situation_in_the_United_States_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#Situation_in_the_U... however Copilot has been seen producing verbatim blocks of code matching some open source projects and so far no legal problems. Why couldn't TikTok claim the same?

And now they can also claim it was just autocompleted by Copilot.

libeclipse 5y ago

That's not plausible

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Hey, just because it would get laughed out of court, that doesn't mean they can't claim it!
- randomluck040 5y ago
  I‘m not so sure about it being laughed out of court unfortunately.
  - donkeyd 5y ago
    Can concur, courts don't know jack about tech and have to rely on experts that aren't always independent.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Rebutting the argument doesn't rely on tech knowledge. “But, your honour, I didn't copy this person's book! I used the autocomplete on my phone, and it just so happened to produce their 500 000 word novel!” You need tech knowledge to think that's even plausible. Sure, they wouldn't dismiss it out of hand (I think “laughed out of court” is a figure of speech), but I wouldn't be surprised if it got a few giggles.
      - ShrigmaMale 5y ago
        This would be more like GPT-3 completing a specific novel.
        pabs3 5y ago
        ISTR someone used GPT-3 to autocomplete a chapter of Harry Potter.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        And doing so is still copyright infringement.

kayodelycaon 5y ago

Using a tool to violate copyright isn't a valid legal defense.

trickstra 5y ago
There is a "data minig" exception from copyright law, saying that you can use any available code to feed your AI and don't have respect the license. And the output of your AI is yours. So TikTok could claim they either use Copilot, which was fed OBS source, or that they created their own private AI similar to Copilot. Microsoft showed the way. It hasn't been tested at court AFAIK, but if a company can use this defense to protect their profits, for sure they will try.
- mewse 5y ago
  Is there? Can you point it out to me? I’ve looked, but haven’t been able to find it. I imagine it’d be somewhere on this page, in section 107 or later [0], but I haven’t actually found a clause which looks like it either has the intent or side-effect of making “data minig” exempt from having to obey copyright requirements. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
  - seanhunter 5y ago
    In the UK there is a data mining exemption to copyright for non-commercial research if you otherwise have "lawful access" to the work [1] but it clearly wouldn't cover something like copilot and just allows you to build the model. It doesn't give you a copyright exemption if the outputs of the model would otherwise be infringing on the copyright of the input material.[2] [1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#text-and-data-mining-for-non-commercial-research https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#text-and... [2] That is to say it is not mentioned, and to give you such an exemption it would need to be mentioned. Hasn't been tested in court either as far as I am aware
  - trickstra 5y ago
    It's literally the first search result for "data mining exception": https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/text-data-mining/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/text-dat... This is about EU and UK, but think about it, Microsoft Copilot is already doing it, and so far it seems like they will get away with it. So if feeding an open source code into AI and then using the output in a proprietary application is illegal in the US, then Copilot must be illegal. According to wikipedia in the US it falls under fair use because it is "transformative" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#Situation_in_the_United_States_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#Situation_in_the_U... however Copilot has been seen producing verbatim blocks of code matching some open source projects and so far no legal problems. Why couldn't TikTok claim the same?