4 ms·

There are two issues -- (1) feeding copyrighted material in to an AI model, and (2) getting copyrighted material out. The latter is obviously a violation of co

by bo1024 4y ago

There are two issues -- (1) feeding copyrighted material in to an AI model, and (2) getting copyrighted material out. The latter is obviously a violation of copyright, full stop. The former, to me, is obviously not a violation. If it were, that would massively tilt the playing field in favor of large corporations. It would become very hard to independently train your own models. Philosophically, I go by the principle that if it's (il)legal to do yourself, then it should be (il)legal to do the same thing with an AI's assistance. The massive complicating factor is that nobody knows how to do (1) without also doing (2) as a side effect, because we don't understand how deep learning works well enough to control it.

deathanatos 4y ago
This was a comment made to me in a previous, similar discussion, discussing case law around Google's use of copyrighted books in building a search engine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32654478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32654478 I'm not sure I completely agree w/ the comment (nor do I think it vindicates CoPilot), but I think it does provide insight into why CoPilot is violating copyright.
- bo1024 4y ago
  But fair use, as I understand it, is only about outputs, not inputs. (Licenses can apply to inputs.) A copyright violation occurs when one produces a work that infringes copyright. In this case, Google made digital copies of the books and showed snippets of the books to website visitors. Fair use refers to cases where producing that work is nevertheless legal. The only analogy I can see is that copying the code internally to use in CoPilot training could be a violation of copyright (like how backing up your own MP3s is a violation of copyright?), but the licenses on these public repositories probably already allow that...
jarsj 4y ago
But is it illegal for AI to provide the said assistance ? That, I believe, is the bigger question.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  when you put your code on GitHub.com, you grant GitHub the right to show that code to others. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#d-user-generated-content https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... this is separate from the license you specify in the repository and you can't revoke it without removing your code from github.com.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    Does “I give you permission to show this code to others” include “I give you permission to offer this code to others for their use in their code”?
    - naikrovek 4y ago
      users of github.com are responsible for their own use of any code they find, however they find it. GitHub shows code to those who wish to see it. it is up to the person using that code to use it according to the license. when I buy a car, it is up to me to use that car according to the law. when I buy a gun, it is up to me to use that gun according to the law. etc.
      - vineyardmike 4y ago
        > when I buy a car, it is up to me to use that car according to the law. And yet we (modified) the law to mandate speedometers and seatbelts to make you more aware of the speed and more secure against failure. We require car companies to perform thousands of crash tests to validate that the tool the give you is safe for when you inevitably push “according to the law” a little too far. We mandate mirrors and backup cameras because we know that those who intend to follow the law closely still have blind spots and it’s in everyone’s best interest to mitigate and increase awareness. > when I buy a gun, it is up to me to use that gun according to the law. etc. And yet few laws have caused the US (and other nations) to question this principle quite like gun laws. Gun laws are really both a perfect example and the worst example of why we’re having a debate around CodePilot. We both expect people to be responsible for their decisions (you need to verify legality of that code snippet before using) while also giving them the notion that they can toe the line as much as possible (why regulate the availability of dangerous tools, crime is illegal, users won’t make a mistake). Guns are used to kill people despite it being illegal. That’s why people want gun control laws. And in a comparison I never expected I would make, perhaps people want AI to be regulated because it will be (is?) used to circumvent copyright. Edit: I don’t know if I really have a side I stand on in this debate overall, but I think the argument for why it’s copyright violation today is pretty compelling. We wouldn’t make the progress we’ve made without this violation and perhaps the loss of copyright is a worthy sacrifice?
statheros 4y ago
> how deep learning works well enough to control it. I don't think you can control it. Machine Learning models do not create anything, they make a prediction of the expected outcome based on the training/validation data. Similar to how human beings are an outcome of their experiences, so are ML models. Ofc human beings are much more complex than a ML model.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
maoeurk 4y ago
> There are two issues -- (1) feeding copyrighted material in to an AI model, and (2) getting copyrighted material out. > The latter is obviously a violation of copyright, full stop. It's not obvious to me that (2) is a violation of copyright. Unlike patents, copyright violation is not as simple to prove. My understanding is that, at least in the US, independent creation is a valid defense against copyright infringement. For example if 2 people independently write the same story and can prove that they did, they can both hold copyright over that story. The analogue to this does exist without AI, when creating something that looks like copyright infringement, clean room design (don't look at similar things) is often done to ensure that "independent creation" can be used as a valid defense in court. Given that, I think (1) is probably not safe to do at all if you can't prevent (2).
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  > For example if 2 people independently write the same story and can prove that they did, they can both hold copyright over that story. This is the theoretical case but I don't think I've ever seen that actually happen in practice.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Get Stable Diffusion to output Micky Mouse and see how far you can use that commercially without Disney stomping down on you hard. Outputting copyrighted material is a violation of copyright, period. Whether that violation is enforceable depends on your means though.
  - Siira 4y ago
    And why is Micky Mouse not in the public domain as of 2022? There lies in the root of all these questions. The system is not designed to benefit people, but rent-seeking.
    - anilakar 4y ago
      While I agree that copyright terms are unreasonably long, it's not relevant to this specific case.
abigail95 4y ago
Fair use is baked into copyright law, "full stop". The only way to prevent all uses of your code is to keep it secret. If anyone wants to say me using copilot violates their copyright, then sue me. But if you have no loss of reputation or revenue, and I have an innocent infringer defense - noone can stop me.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > Fair use is baked into copyright law, "full stop". Someone recently said most statements on HN should automatically get "in the US" appended to them due to how US centric many of the views are. This is an excellent example. There are plenty of juristictions where "fair use" doesn't exist.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > if you have no loss of reputation or revenue Statutory damages still apply. > I have an innocent infringer defense There's no such thing. It's a meaningless phrase, in a legal sense. Claiming that infringement was accidental or unintentional is not a defense. It has no effect on a determination of guilt or innocence. All it affects is the penalty. Fair use is a defense, but a more limited one than you seem to believe. The usual formulation is "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" but none of those apply to Copilot. Fair-use claims are also not accepted by default, but only by demonstration that the four factors defining it are all applicable. Also, since you've brought it up recently, you as the defendant in a copyright case don't get to choose jurisdiction. Usually the plaintiff does, either because it's explicitly defined in the same license that grants anyone rights at all or because it's a place where they do business. If you live in a different jurisdiction that might affect whether the plaintiff or court can collect any penalties, but not whether any are assessed. Having yourself declared persona non grata in multiple jurisdictions doesn't seem like a good long-term choice. https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html Instead of "flooding the zone" with dozens of comments offering nothing but the same few (false) claims - strong echoes of a recently banned user BTW - I strongly suggest you actually read up on copyright and fair use. They're not whatever you want them to be. Courts are unimpressed by your towering intellect.
carom 4y ago
There is no obvious violation or obvious not violation. It is a matter of fair use and it will be settled in court. Using copywritten code and not open souring the derivative work (copilot's model) may very well be a violation.

by bo1024 4y ago

deathanatos 4y ago

This was a comment made to me in a previous, similar discussion, discussing case law around Google's use of copyrighted books in building a search engine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32654478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32654478 I'm not sure I completely agree w/ the comment (nor do I think it vindicates CoPilot), but I think it does provide insight into why CoPilot is violating copyright.

bo1024 4y ago
But fair use, as I understand it, is only about outputs, not inputs. (Licenses can apply to inputs.) A copyright violation occurs when one produces a work that infringes copyright. In this case, Google made digital copies of the books and showed snippets of the books to website visitors. Fair use refers to cases where producing that work is nevertheless legal. The only analogy I can see is that copying the code internally to use in CoPilot training could be a violation of copyright (like how backing up your own MP3s is a violation of copyright?), but the licenses on these public repositories probably already allow that...

jarsj 4y ago

But is it illegal for AI to provide the said assistance ? That, I believe, is the bigger question.

naikrovek 4y ago
when you put your code on GitHub.com, you grant GitHub the right to show that code to others. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#d-user-generated-content https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... this is separate from the license you specify in the repository and you can't revoke it without removing your code from github.com.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  Does “I give you permission to show this code to others” include “I give you permission to offer this code to others for their use in their code”?
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    users of github.com are responsible for their own use of any code they find, however they find it. GitHub shows code to those who wish to see it. it is up to the person using that code to use it according to the license. when I buy a car, it is up to me to use that car according to the law. when I buy a gun, it is up to me to use that gun according to the law. etc.
    - vineyardmike 4y ago
      > when I buy a car, it is up to me to use that car according to the law. And yet we (modified) the law to mandate speedometers and seatbelts to make you more aware of the speed and more secure against failure. We require car companies to perform thousands of crash tests to validate that the tool the give you is safe for when you inevitably push “according to the law” a little too far. We mandate mirrors and backup cameras because we know that those who intend to follow the law closely still have blind spots and it’s in everyone’s best interest to mitigate and increase awareness. > when I buy a gun, it is up to me to use that gun according to the law. etc. And yet few laws have caused the US (and other nations) to question this principle quite like gun laws. Gun laws are really both a perfect example and the worst example of why we’re having a debate around CodePilot. We both expect people to be responsible for their decisions (you need to verify legality of that code snippet before using) while also giving them the notion that they can toe the line as much as possible (why regulate the availability of dangerous tools, crime is illegal, users won’t make a mistake). Guns are used to kill people despite it being illegal. That’s why people want gun control laws. And in a comparison I never expected I would make, perhaps people want AI to be regulated because it will be (is?) used to circumvent copyright. Edit: I don’t know if I really have a side I stand on in this debate overall, but I think the argument for why it’s copyright violation today is pretty compelling. We wouldn’t make the progress we’ve made without this violation and perhaps the loss of copyright is a worthy sacrifice?

statheros 4y ago

> how deep learning works well enough to control it. I don't think you can control it. Machine Learning models do not create anything, they make a prediction of the expected outcome based on the training/validation data. Similar to how human beings are an outcome of their experiences, so are ML models. Ofc human beings are much more complex than a ML model.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

maoeurk 4y ago

> There are two issues -- (1) feeding copyrighted material in to an AI model, and (2) getting copyrighted material out. > The latter is obviously a violation of copyright, full stop. It's not obvious to me that (2) is a violation of copyright. Unlike patents, copyright violation is not as simple to prove. My understanding is that, at least in the US, independent creation is a valid defense against copyright infringement. For example if 2 people independently write the same story and can prove that they did, they can both hold copyright over that story. The analogue to this does exist without AI, when creating something that looks like copyright infringement, clean room design (don't look at similar things) is often done to ensure that "independent creation" can be used as a valid defense in court. Given that, I think (1) is probably not safe to do at all if you can't prevent (2).

BeefWellington 4y ago
> For example if 2 people independently write the same story and can prove that they did, they can both hold copyright over that story. This is the theoretical case but I don't think I've ever seen that actually happen in practice.
adastra22 4y ago
Get Stable Diffusion to output Micky Mouse and see how far you can use that commercially without Disney stomping down on you hard. Outputting copyrighted material is a violation of copyright, period. Whether that violation is enforceable depends on your means though.
- Siira 4y ago
  And why is Micky Mouse not in the public domain as of 2022? There lies in the root of all these questions. The system is not designed to benefit people, but rent-seeking.
  - anilakar 4y ago
    While I agree that copyright terms are unreasonably long, it's not relevant to this specific case.

abigail95 4y ago

Fair use is baked into copyright law, "full stop". The only way to prevent all uses of your code is to keep it secret. If anyone wants to say me using copilot violates their copyright, then sue me. But if you have no loss of reputation or revenue, and I have an innocent infringer defense - noone can stop me.

cycomanic 4y ago
> Fair use is baked into copyright law, "full stop". Someone recently said most statements on HN should automatically get "in the US" appended to them due to how US centric many of the views are. This is an excellent example. There are plenty of juristictions where "fair use" doesn't exist.
notacoward 4y ago
> if you have no loss of reputation or revenue Statutory damages still apply. > I have an innocent infringer defense There's no such thing. It's a meaningless phrase, in a legal sense. Claiming that infringement was accidental or unintentional is not a defense. It has no effect on a determination of guilt or innocence. All it affects is the penalty. Fair use is a defense, but a more limited one than you seem to believe. The usual formulation is "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" but none of those apply to Copilot. Fair-use claims are also not accepted by default, but only by demonstration that the four factors defining it are all applicable. Also, since you've brought it up recently, you as the defendant in a copyright case don't get to choose jurisdiction. Usually the plaintiff does, either because it's explicitly defined in the same license that grants anyone rights at all or because it's a place where they do business. If you live in a different jurisdiction that might affect whether the plaintiff or court can collect any penalties, but not whether any are assessed. Having yourself declared persona non grata in multiple jurisdictions doesn't seem like a good long-term choice. https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html Instead of "flooding the zone" with dozens of comments offering nothing but the same few (false) claims - strong echoes of a recently banned user BTW - I strongly suggest you actually read up on copyright and fair use. They're not whatever you want them to be. Courts are unimpressed by your towering intellect.

carom 4y ago

There is no obvious violation or obvious not violation. It is a matter of fair use and it will be settled in court. Using copywritten code and not open souring the derivative work (copilot's model) may very well be a violation.