5 ms·
On page 18, they show Copilot produces the following code: >function isEven(n) { > return n % 2 === 0; >} They then say, "Copilot’s Output, like Codex’s,
by Imnimo 4y ago
On page 18, they show Copilot produces the following code:
>function isEven(n) {
> return n % 2 === 0;
>}
They then say, "Copilot’s Output, like Codex’s, is derived from existing code. Namely, sample code that appears in the online book Mastering JS, written by Valeri Karpov."
Surely everyone reading this has written that code verbatim at some point in their lives. How can they assert that this code is derived specifically from Mastering JS, or that Karpov has any copyright to that code?
- williamcotton 4y agoThere is no way in hell that isEven is covered by copyright. "In computer programs, concerns for efficiency may limit the possible ways to achieve a particular function, making a particular expression necessary to achieving the idea. In this case, the expression is not protected by copyright." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari... Think about how absurd this is. So if Microsoft was the first company to write and publish an isEven function then no one else can legally use it?
- eurasiantiger 4y agoDoes that mean any perfectly optimal function is copyright-free?
- bawolff 4y agoAny function devoid of "creativity" is. No choices equal no creativity. As a note the same applies to logos. Very simple logos that are only some lines and shapes, do not have copyright (in usa)
- squokko 4y agoLogos can still have trademark without having copyright as creativity is not a requirement of trademarks.
- bawolff 4y agoTrue, but trademark and copyright are pretty different on a fundamental level both in the purpose behind the law and how its implemented. I suspect if it weren't for the term "intellectual property" tying trademark, copyright and patents together, we wouldn't really think of them in such a unified way since they are all really different from each other.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoThere are software patents on bit twiddling operations that people do end up having to work around.
- Phrodo_00 4y ago> There is no way in hell that isEven is covered by copyright. Hey, I said the same thing about APIs, but here we are. Edit: Actually, the Supreme Court declined ruling whether APIs are copyrightable, but they did say that if they are, reusing them like google reused the java apis in android would fall under fair use. Given that lower courts did think that APIs should be copyrightable, we don't know if they are anymore.
- az226 4y agoWhat's interesting in that case is I would argue the interface code is MORE important than the implementing code. You can hire any SWE to re-implement the entire API and it being pretty straightforward. The interface code was what actually mattered with developers and took creative expression, design, sequence, organization to put together and feedback and iteration over the years. Google knew this too, taking the interface code was WAY more important for them than if they had done the reverse.
- nikanj 4y agoThis reminds me of the SCO vs Linux lawsuits.
- lelandfe 4y agoThey determined the other `isEven()` function was cribbed from Eloquent Javascript because of matching comments. I wonder if the complaint just left off telltale comments from that Mastering JS one?
- Imnimo 4y agoYeah, the other one I found much more persuasive. The extra comments were unequivocally reproduced from the claimed source. (although that output was from Codex, rather than Copilot).
- counttheforks 4y agoI wrote that exact function the other day, and I've never even heard of that book.
- eddsh1994 4y agoYep, same. Not in JS, but in Haskell, for the Even Fib project Euler problem. Something like a million people have submitted right answers for that problem and assuming half wrote their own filter rather than importing a isEven library then that's half a million people there.
- moffkalast 4y agoI'd hire a legal team if I were you, the injunction is on the way. /s
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y agoShould have used snake case. Would have avoided legal hot water and established precedent.
- schleck8 4y ago> Surely everyone reading this has written that code verbatim at some point in their lives Ironically their Twitter account uses a screenshot from a TV series as profile picture. I wonder how legal that is, even if meant as a joke. https://twitter.com/saverlawfirm https://twitter.com/saverlawfirm Edit: It's been changed 2 minutes after I wrote this comment
- zeven7 4y agoThis comment is 1 minute old and I only see a plain black profile picture. Or is your comment itself the joke?
- schleck8 4y agoThey changed it, I'm 100 % sure. The profile picture was Saul from Breaking Bad. I assume they read the comments here and changed it in a matter of one or two minutes.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y agoIs there a Wayback Machine for Twitter?
- 0x_rs 4y ago>their "Joined November 2022", following one account and no followers. It's generous to consider it a genuine account, no?
- schleck8 4y agoIt's linked in their official campaign twitter bio, which in turn is linked on the website
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bogwog 4y agoThat seems like a really bad choice of an example for this, but as I haven't read the document I don't have any other context beyond what you've posted here, I have to take your word for it that that's the purpose of this snippet. However, if you are looking to understand the reasoning behind this lawsuit, there are lots of better examples online where Copilot blatantly ripped off open source code.
- leepowers 4y agoIt's possible the complaint is using a trivial example to illustrate the type of argument plaintiffs want to make during any trial. A 200-line example is too unwieldy for non-programmers to digest, especially given the formatting constraints of a legal brief. Look at paragraphs 90 and 91 on page 27 of the complaint[1]: "90. GitHub concedes that in ordinary use, Copilot will reproduce passages of code verbatim: “Our latest internal research shows that about 1% of the time, a suggestion [Output] may contain some code snippets longer than ~150 characters that matches” code from the training data. This standard is more limited than is necessary for copyright infringement. But even using GitHub’s own metric and the most conservative possible criteria, Copilot has violated the DMCA at least tens of thousands of times." Does distributing licensed code without attribution on a mass scale count as fair use? If Copilot is inadvertently providing a programmer with copyrighted code, is that programmer and/or their employer responsible for copyright infringement? There's a lot of interesting legal complications I think the courts will want to adjudicate. [1] https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/pdf/1-0-github_complaint.pdf https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/pdf/1-0-github_complaint...
- janef0421 4y agoThat is likely only a brief example of the general principle underlying the lawsuit.
- az226 4y agoShows how hilariously dumb this lawsuit is. The plaintiff is a lawyer but somehow missed the merger doctrine class.