4 ms·

If the code is only being used for private internal applications who cares?

by xwdv 4y ago

yakcyll 4y ago
If a piece of copyrighted artistic work is only being used for private pleasure, who cares? Copyright doesn't, for sure.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  If a computer game or software is only distributed to be played or used on private machines, who cares?
  - tpxl 4y ago
    Wat. Most computer games are distributed to be played on private machines. Everyone cares, especially the copyright owners.
    - bakugo 4y ago
      Pretty sure that's the point being made.
    - xwdv 4y ago
      Most computer games are leased to you in accordance with a terms of service. You play privately, but you have absolutely no right to copy and redistribute the work to the masses, or even do whatever you please with it. Not so with a piece of code that you use privately.
    - forgotpwd16 4y ago
      It was sarcastic, pointing to the similarity between what previous comment says and pirated games.
- manholio 4y ago
  Depending on how you acquired the work, copyright most certainly does care.
ben_w 4y ago
The copyright holders care, historically speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers/courts/lawmakers determine that current generative AI are on the "infringing" rather than the "inventive" side of things. I think there is potential for this to change as AI gets better: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-copyright/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-c...
- manholio 4y ago
  > AI are on the "infringing" rather than the "inventive" side of things Does it really matter? Once you embed copyrighted works into your learning dataset, any model you ship and any "creation" of that model is by definition a derived work, must have a license from the original authors and must obey the terms of that license. The extent of derivation is immaterial. The AI crowd is on a hard collision course with an army of gavels.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    That's definitely one legal theory. The theory used here though is that fair use permits transformative use. Normally copilot output should be sufficiently transformative. This particular situation appears to be a sort of bug (overfit). Note that AI models already work somewhat similarly to how humans work (becoming bug-for-bug compatible at times even :-P ). We may need laws to be amended in the opposite direction even, else it might become illegal for humans to learn too.
    - blibble 4y ago
      the US concept of "fair use" is far from universal and is more liberal than in the vast majority of the rest of the world
    - manholio 4y ago
      I think any legal theory that must equate people with machines to prove its point is dead in any real court. Laws are made by people for people, to protect people's interests, so the analogy is just about as effective as requiring a human to work 16 hours because a horse can, and both operate on similar principles. Of course everything a human learns and produces is a derivative of real world input, some of it copyrighted. But people agreed that this transformation is a form of fair use, as long as the derived work is sufficiently creative - where the key implicit assumption is that creativity is a human ability that warrants protection. Both the creator and the learner enjoy protection because they are human. In the AI case, the output of a program will certainly not receive protection by default - it will be protected only as a consequence of its human creator or user rights. It doesn't really matter how transformative and analogous to the human mind the program is, the output only deserves protection solely for its unique human created parts - the internal working and the extent of the craft embedded in a GPT3 text prompt. The first is unrelated directly to the work produced, and the second is laughable vs the artworks embedded in the model. If in the future AI advances to the point where it can be granted natural rights, this could change, but we are far far from that point.

If the code is only being used for private internal applications who cares?

by xwdv 4y ago

If the code is only being used for private internal applications who cares?

If a piece of copyrighted artistic work is only being used for private pleasure, who cares? Copyright doesn't, for sure.

Ekaros 4y ago
If a computer game or software is only distributed to be played or used on private machines, who cares?
- tpxl 4y ago
  Wat. Most computer games are distributed to be played on private machines. Everyone cares, especially the copyright owners.
  - bakugo 4y ago
    Pretty sure that's the point being made.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    Most computer games are leased to you in accordance with a terms of service. You play privately, but you have absolutely no right to copy and redistribute the work to the masses, or even do whatever you please with it. Not so with a piece of code that you use privately.
  - forgotpwd16 4y ago
    It was sarcastic, pointing to the similarity between what previous comment says and pirated games.
manholio 4y ago
Depending on how you acquired the work, copyright most certainly does care.

ben_w 4y ago

The copyright holders care, historically speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers/courts/lawmakers determine that current generative AI are on the "infringing" rather than the "inventive" side of things. I think there is potential for this to change as AI gets better: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-copyright/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-c...

manholio 4y ago
> AI are on the "infringing" rather than the "inventive" side of things Does it really matter? Once you embed copyrighted works into your learning dataset, any model you ship and any "creation" of that model is by definition a derived work, must have a license from the original authors and must obey the terms of that license. The extent of derivation is immaterial. The AI crowd is on a hard collision course with an army of gavels.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  That's definitely one legal theory. The theory used here though is that fair use permits transformative use. Normally copilot output should be sufficiently transformative. This particular situation appears to be a sort of bug (overfit). Note that AI models already work somewhat similarly to how humans work (becoming bug-for-bug compatible at times even :-P ). We may need laws to be amended in the opposite direction even, else it might become illegal for humans to learn too.
  - blibble 4y ago
    the US concept of "fair use" is far from universal and is more liberal than in the vast majority of the rest of the world
  - manholio 4y ago
    I think any legal theory that must equate people with machines to prove its point is dead in any real court. Laws are made by people for people, to protect people's interests, so the analogy is just about as effective as requiring a human to work 16 hours because a horse can, and both operate on similar principles. Of course everything a human learns and produces is a derivative of real world input, some of it copyrighted. But people agreed that this transformation is a form of fair use, as long as the derived work is sufficiently creative - where the key implicit assumption is that creativity is a human ability that warrants protection. Both the creator and the learner enjoy protection because they are human. In the AI case, the output of a program will certainly not receive protection by default - it will be protected only as a consequence of its human creator or user rights. It doesn't really matter how transformative and analogous to the human mind the program is, the output only deserves protection solely for its unique human created parts - the internal working and the extent of the craft embedded in a GPT3 text prompt. The first is unrelated directly to the work produced, and the second is laughable vs the artworks embedded in the model. If in the future AI advances to the point where it can be granted natural rights, this could change, but we are far far from that point.