3 ms·

> I'm sorry that I was not making points that support your feelings on Copilot. That's a very petulant way to defend cherry picking. I wasn't asking you to sup

> I'm sorry that I was not making points that support your feelings on Copilot. That's a very petulant way to defend cherry picking. I wasn't asking you to support one particular view; in fact that's the problem I was identifying. Your sources presented a balanced view, which you misrepresented by citing only the part that supported your own conclusion. > focus on the first part No, because the second part matters too. Here's Lemley and Casey again (emphasis mine): <<<some purposes—say, ... a translation program that produces a translation of an entire copyrighted work—seem more substitutive than transformative, so that if they run afoul of the ever-broadening definition of similarity in music, fair use is unlikely to save them.>>> Or the Register: <<<"I actually think there's a decent chance there is a good copyright claim," said Tyler Ochoa ... the functional nature of the code means that reproducing it in a suggestion may not be seen as particularly transformative, which is one of the criteria for determining fair use>>> Those are your own sources undermining - if not outright contradicting - your one-sided interpretation. The limitation to market harms in the four-factor test for fair use should not be considered permanent. Law is, after all, a social construct. There's ample precedent for considering harms to the commons, to communities, and so on in other areas of law. Also, there might indeed be market harms. If a company open-sources some of their code but also hopes to profit by selling it in pre-packaged form or as a service, then AI-washed copying could constitute harm in even the most market-myopic terms. The "transformative" test is also pretty suspect in the context of AI-assisted copying, but this is getting long enough so I'll not go down that rabbit hole just yet. > <verbosity about "utilitarian" copies which are not the issue here> Enjoy your red herrings. I don't share your taste for them.

williamcotton 4y ago
Again, there is a distinction to be made between the outputs of the model and the model itself! When Tyler Ochoa is saying that there is a decent chance of a copyright claim he is specifically talking about the output of the model. Here is the full quote: In the Texas Law Review in March, 2021, Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor, and Bryan Casey, then a lecturer in law at Stanford, posed a question: "Will copyright law allow robots to learn?" They argue that, at least in the United States, it should. "[Machine learning] systems should generally be able to use databases for training, whether or not the contents of that database are copyrighted," they wrote, adding that copyright law isn't the right tool to regulate abuses. But when it comes to the output of these models – the code suggestions automatically made by the likes of Copilot – the potential for the copyright claim proposed by Butterick looks stronger. "I actually think there's a decent chance there is a good copyright claim," said Tyler Ochoa, a professor in the law department at Santa Clara University in California, in a phone interview with The Register. The use of the word "but" marks the transition from a discussion around the model itself to the outputs of the model. Is it not also perfectly clear that Lemley and Casey are also of the opinion that the model itself is fair use?
- notacoward 4y ago
  > Again, there is a distinction to be made between the outputs of the model and the model itself! Oh, you mean the very first thing I had to explain to you at the beginning of this exchange because you seemed to be ignoring it? Very little of these discussions has been about the models. Most of the discussion is about the outputs, and there the fair-use case is - as Lemley/Casey and Ochoa both concede - much weaker. But by all means keep going on about feelings. We can all tell it's not others' feelings that are being hurt by mere disagreement.

williamcotton 4y ago

Again, there is a distinction to be made between the outputs of the model and the model itself! When Tyler Ochoa is saying that there is a decent chance of a copyright claim he is specifically talking about the output of the model. Here is the full quote: In the Texas Law Review in March, 2021, Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor, and Bryan Casey, then a lecturer in law at Stanford, posed a question: "Will copyright law allow robots to learn?" They argue that, at least in the United States, it should. "[Machine learning] systems should generally be able to use databases for training, whether or not the contents of that database are copyrighted," they wrote, adding that copyright law isn't the right tool to regulate abuses. But when it comes to the output of these models – the code suggestions automatically made by the likes of Copilot – the potential for the copyright claim proposed by Butterick looks stronger. "I actually think there's a decent chance there is a good copyright claim," said Tyler Ochoa, a professor in the law department at Santa Clara University in California, in a phone interview with The Register. The use of the word "but" marks the transition from a discussion around the model itself to the outputs of the model. Is it not also perfectly clear that Lemley and Casey are also of the opinion that the model itself is fair use?

notacoward 4y ago
> Again, there is a distinction to be made between the outputs of the model and the model itself! Oh, you mean the very first thing I had to explain to you at the beginning of this exchange because you seemed to be ignoring it? Very little of these discussions has been about the models. Most of the discussion is about the outputs, and there the fair-use case is - as Lemley/Casey and Ochoa both concede - much weaker. But by all means keep going on about feelings. We can all tell it's not others' feelings that are being hurt by mere disagreement.