5 ms·

If GitHub Copilot Is a Copyright Problem, Perhaps the Problem Is Copyright

12 points by alexzeitler 4y ago

mikece 4y ago
"If stealing is a problem then maybe the problem is private property." Just because something is created with one's mind and expressed in text that can be copied infinitely on the internet doesn't mean the person who created cannot claim ownership of their work.
- MrCharismatist 4y ago
  “Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong.”
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Not sure who you are criticizing here.
    - bananarchist 4y ago
      Best kind of comment/100
- jerojero 4y ago
  Well. Stealing removes the original from the owner, so it's a distinctively different act to copying. You're kind of making the "you wouldn't download a car" argument which personally I always found a bit ridiculous, if I could download a car of course I would. What reasoning is there to pay for something that can be obtained for free and the consequences of you obtaining it for free are the same consequences of you never having it in the first place. The difference between illegal copying and stealing is that in the first one the original author has no way of knowing they have been affected by it while in the second one the original owner always knows they've been affected. Of course, the "stealing" only works if you think about the "potential loss". That a pirated copy in the now means a loss of profit in the future (I won't buy the item if I've already enjoyed it). But in realistic terms, this isn't necessarily true. I think it is the case for a lot of people that when they were children they incurred in illegal copying of media but what was the alternative? To ask your parents to buy you everything? Think of, for example, the anime industry in the west; if you think anime became popular in the west because they had some anime shows in cartoon network you couldn't be more wrong. How many of these illegal copying children have become paying adults? Not only that, but can we really say in all honesty that the world is a better place when people in poor countries that manage to obtain a piece of hardware are incapable of accessing software because they can't pay for it? Now, this might seem like a problem of pricing but any price will always be a barrier for someone that's struggling. And who are the people that benefit the most from illegal copying? Is it rich people in developed countries, or poor people in developing countries? Knowledge and information has the particularity that it can be copied at an almost negligible cost. We don't charge for air because we need it to breathe and because it is so accessible. We tend to charge "the right price" for water because we need it to live and it's not as accessible as we'd like. So what about information? Knowledge? Information-based entertainment? Are these required for living a fulfilling life? I think yes, are these accessible? As long as you have the hardware, yes. So what kind of world is the one where things we can obtain for free are restricted through artificial monopolies? Is this not actually a problem? Maybe you'll think that if people can obtain stuff for free then no one will want to make stuff anymore; but I think this is an assertion that actually needs proving, and if it were the case. Wouldn't that be pointing out at an even bigger systemic problem?
bediger4000 4y ago
GitHub Copilot just sharpens the focus of copyright violation. If you've ever used an algorithm tutorial to write a program you've arguably done the same thing as Copilot.
jerojero 4y ago
It's kind of funny because a lot of the complaints come precisely from people that publish their code through copyleft (such as GPL) licenses. As it is pointed out in the article, sharing is starting to become the default for many developers out there. And personally I think this is a great thing, and I think the author agrees. But copyright is built on a rewards-idea, which counters the altruistic nature of sharing. If you expect something in return you're not actually sharing, but lending. And I think this is where the issue becomes really tricky. There's a societal expectation of reward, we don't live in a sharing economy. I actually want to live in a society where tools such as copilot or AI generated art do not harm artists or developers but improve the capabilities of people who previously couldn't do as they wishes for lack of time, patience or skill. But it seems to me like we can't really make use of our collective knowledge building to the fullest under our current economic and societal paradigms. Now, I'm not sure what kind of society is the one that can truly achieve what we want; but I think it's worth thinking about. And to me, this copyright/machine assistant issue is right at the center of this problem. And, well, not just that but technology as a whole is always a driver of societal innovation as it puts societies in such dire contradictions. Though I do wish artists and people affected by copilot wouldn't focus so much on their individual detriment and would take a bit of a step back and think more about what do we actually want for society as a whole. To me, and I think the article does a pretty good job at explaining this as well, the issue seems to be much bigger than individuals being hurt by the actions of a corporation.
- adastra22 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you find it funny that the complaints come from copyleft advocates? The entire point of copyleft is that code is shared only the condition that later modifications are also shared back. Copilot strips the license from the code it generates, so this condition isn't imposed on derivative code, which defeats the entire point of copyleft. If someone was okay with the shared code being used in a different context and changes not being shared back, they'd have used a permissive license. But they did not. The reason copyleft people are up in arms about this is because it entirely undoes the social and legal contract of copyleft licenses.
wvoch235 4y ago
It's a tool that significantly improves productivity. I've been a programmer ~15 years and the amount of time it saves me from looking shit up on the internet is insane. I think most people who say it doesn't work either aren't giving it a fair shot or don't know how to use it (in a real project, writing code with comments). This productivity improvement should be advancing the open source community even faster, but instead most people are just pissing on it for various ideological reasons.
nuc1e0n 4y ago
Tell that to Disney. I wonder can stable diffusion draw cartoon mice?

12 points by alexzeitler 4y ago

"If stealing is a problem then maybe the problem is private property." Just because something is created with one's mind and expressed in text that can be copied infinitely on the internet doesn't mean the person who created cannot claim ownership of their work.

MrCharismatist 4y ago
“Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong.”
- adastra22 4y ago
  Not sure who you are criticizing here.
  - bananarchist 4y ago
    Best kind of comment/100
jerojero 4y ago
Well. Stealing removes the original from the owner, so it's a distinctively different act to copying. You're kind of making the "you wouldn't download a car" argument which personally I always found a bit ridiculous, if I could download a car of course I would. What reasoning is there to pay for something that can be obtained for free and the consequences of you obtaining it for free are the same consequences of you never having it in the first place. The difference between illegal copying and stealing is that in the first one the original author has no way of knowing they have been affected by it while in the second one the original owner always knows they've been affected. Of course, the "stealing" only works if you think about the "potential loss". That a pirated copy in the now means a loss of profit in the future (I won't buy the item if I've already enjoyed it). But in realistic terms, this isn't necessarily true. I think it is the case for a lot of people that when they were children they incurred in illegal copying of media but what was the alternative? To ask your parents to buy you everything? Think of, for example, the anime industry in the west; if you think anime became popular in the west because they had some anime shows in cartoon network you couldn't be more wrong. How many of these illegal copying children have become paying adults? Not only that, but can we really say in all honesty that the world is a better place when people in poor countries that manage to obtain a piece of hardware are incapable of accessing software because they can't pay for it? Now, this might seem like a problem of pricing but any price will always be a barrier for someone that's struggling. And who are the people that benefit the most from illegal copying? Is it rich people in developed countries, or poor people in developing countries? Knowledge and information has the particularity that it can be copied at an almost negligible cost. We don't charge for air because we need it to breathe and because it is so accessible. We tend to charge "the right price" for water because we need it to live and it's not as accessible as we'd like. So what about information? Knowledge? Information-based entertainment? Are these required for living a fulfilling life? I think yes, are these accessible? As long as you have the hardware, yes. So what kind of world is the one where things we can obtain for free are restricted through artificial monopolies? Is this not actually a problem? Maybe you'll think that if people can obtain stuff for free then no one will want to make stuff anymore; but I think this is an assertion that actually needs proving, and if it were the case. Wouldn't that be pointing out at an even bigger systemic problem?

bediger4000 4y ago

GitHub Copilot just sharpens the focus of copyright violation. If you've ever used an algorithm tutorial to write a program you've arguably done the same thing as Copilot.

jerojero 4y ago

It's kind of funny because a lot of the complaints come precisely from people that publish their code through copyleft (such as GPL) licenses. As it is pointed out in the article, sharing is starting to become the default for many developers out there. And personally I think this is a great thing, and I think the author agrees. But copyright is built on a rewards-idea, which counters the altruistic nature of sharing. If you expect something in return you're not actually sharing, but lending. And I think this is where the issue becomes really tricky. There's a societal expectation of reward, we don't live in a sharing economy. I actually want to live in a society where tools such as copilot or AI generated art do not harm artists or developers but improve the capabilities of people who previously couldn't do as they wishes for lack of time, patience or skill. But it seems to me like we can't really make use of our collective knowledge building to the fullest under our current economic and societal paradigms. Now, I'm not sure what kind of society is the one that can truly achieve what we want; but I think it's worth thinking about. And to me, this copyright/machine assistant issue is right at the center of this problem. And, well, not just that but technology as a whole is always a driver of societal innovation as it puts societies in such dire contradictions. Though I do wish artists and people affected by copilot wouldn't focus so much on their individual detriment and would take a bit of a step back and think more about what do we actually want for society as a whole. To me, and I think the article does a pretty good job at explaining this as well, the issue seems to be much bigger than individuals being hurt by the actions of a corporation.

adastra22 4y ago
I'm not sure why you find it funny that the complaints come from copyleft advocates? The entire point of copyleft is that code is shared only the condition that later modifications are also shared back. Copilot strips the license from the code it generates, so this condition isn't imposed on derivative code, which defeats the entire point of copyleft. If someone was okay with the shared code being used in a different context and changes not being shared back, they'd have used a permissive license. But they did not. The reason copyleft people are up in arms about this is because it entirely undoes the social and legal contract of copyleft licenses.

wvoch235 4y ago

It's a tool that significantly improves productivity. I've been a programmer ~15 years and the amount of time it saves me from looking shit up on the internet is insane. I think most people who say it doesn't work either aren't giving it a fair shot or don't know how to use it (in a real project, writing code with comments). This productivity improvement should be advancing the open source community even faster, but instead most people are just pissing on it for various ideological reasons.

nuc1e0n 4y ago

Tell that to Disney. I wonder can stable diffusion draw cartoon mice?