4 ms·
When humans make a direct copy of something it can be considered plagiarism or copyright violation, and any work produced in this manner is potentially subject
by naet 4y ago
When humans make a direct copy of something it can be considered plagiarism or copyright violation, and any work produced in this manner is potentially subject to serious litigation and consequence.
There are different levels of learning and reproducing. I think you could easily make a "neural net" trained exclusively on a copyright work, that reproduces the work exactly on request. Simply because the data entered and then subsequently exited a black box of a system doesn't mean it was transformed in any way.
If you have a movie camera and you use it to record a copyright movie at a movie theater and upload your recording, you used a creative tool but in a way that directly violates copyright. I don't see why using a tool like Copilot to reproduce a copyright work is any different.
- cdrini 4y agoThe parent comment seemed to me to be implying that humans aren't capable of copying. In my experience I've had more issues with human developers plagiarising than with copilot plagiarising. You could create such a system. I agree that Copilot operates at a very different level of learning :) the question is a little murky actually, but I think some people are arguing that everything Copilot produces isn't sufficiently transformative and hence violates GPL of code in its training set. Some people are arguing it sometimes generates direct copies and hence violates GPL. Some people are arguing that it is sufficiently transformative and at little to no risk of violating copyright. It's a big question!