4 ms·

How can the user be violating the license, not the distributor? If I give you a binary that gives you a Disney movie, it's not you violating the copyright, it's

by tpxl 4y ago

How can the user be violating the license, not the distributor? If I give you a binary that gives you a Disney movie, it's not you violating the copyright, it's me. The copilot itself is violating the copyright, not its users.

josephcsible 4y ago
If you're making software just for your own use, you're right. But most people who make software do distribute it.
wtetzner 4y ago
If the copilot users then distribute the source they got from it, they are at that point violating copyright. E.g., if I take that Disney movie, incorporate it into my own movie, and distribute it, then I'm also violating copyright.
hnbad 4y ago
If you take the Disney movie the binary gives you and then pass it on, you're in violation even if the company distributing the binary is also in violation. You can sue them for damages that result from you being sued but good luck.
danuker 4y ago
The user of Copilot is a developer - the distributor. And you might argue that Copilot is also a distributor.
tinco 4y ago
Where I live, copyright literally means the right to copy. Which means using a binary that gives/produces/generates a Disney movie when you do not have rights to that movie, you violate copyright by virtue of copying the IP into your computers memory and then onto the view buffer of your display. Also if the binary manages to do that without actually violating copyright itself it might even be legal. There's other laws that could be used though, I forgot what they got Napster on but they had something to shut it down, same for torrent sites like Piratebay.
CobrastanJorji 4y ago
"Your honor, I had no way of knowing that this mysterious device I purchased that manufactured shrinkwrapped Disney DVDs was violating copyright." "Intent is not relevant to copyright infringement liability." "But your honor, I heard on Hacker News that it was." "I find you guilty." "But your honor, copyright violation is usually a civil issue, and 'guilty' is a criminal trial concept." "Well, I also get my legal training from Hacker News."

by tpxl 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

If you're making software just for your own use, you're right. But most people who make software do distribute it.

wtetzner 4y ago

If the copilot users then distribute the source they got from it, they are at that point violating copyright. E.g., if I take that Disney movie, incorporate it into my own movie, and distribute it, then I'm also violating copyright.

hnbad 4y ago

If you take the Disney movie the binary gives you and then pass it on, you're in violation even if the company distributing the binary is also in violation. You can sue them for damages that result from you being sued but good luck.

danuker 4y ago

The user of Copilot is a developer - the distributor. And you might argue that Copilot is also a distributor.

tinco 4y ago

Where I live, copyright literally means the right to copy. Which means using a binary that gives/produces/generates a Disney movie when you do not have rights to that movie, you violate copyright by virtue of copying the IP into your computers memory and then onto the view buffer of your display. Also if the binary manages to do that without actually violating copyright itself it might even be legal. There's other laws that could be used though, I forgot what they got Napster on but they had something to shut it down, same for torrent sites like Piratebay.

CobrastanJorji 4y ago

"Your honor, I had no way of knowing that this mysterious device I purchased that manufactured shrinkwrapped Disney DVDs was violating copyright." "Intent is not relevant to copyright infringement liability." "But your honor, I heard on Hacker News that it was." "I find you guilty." "But your honor, copyright violation is usually a civil issue, and 'guilty' is a criminal trial concept." "Well, I also get my legal training from Hacker News."