> Copilot itself is a commercial product that is built a body of training data, even though it is completely different from that data. It’s clearly “transformat

> Copilot itself is a commercial product that is built a body of training data, even though it is completely different from that data. It’s clearly “transformative.” I don't buy this, given that NNs can and do encode data from their training sets in the network itself, similar to compression, and they can regurgitate that code when given the right incantations. They can also encode "the heart of the work" when it comes to algorithms from copyrighted work being recycled in the NNs output. And I don't buy that it's transformative, either, given that it's taking someone's code as input and just outputting more code. The purpose is literally the same, building software for profit. It's not like the code is being used in an art project, it's being used for the same purposes that the copyrighted works were created. This is not like making a collage out of magazine cut outs, it's like taking "People" magazine's content and rearranging it and selling it as "Persons" magazine for profit. When it comes to fair use, transformative derivative work is not the only factor considered. Another factor is the purpose and character of use, especially whether or not the derivative work is used for commercial purposes. Code regurgitated by these models are used for the same thing as the code they were trained on: building software commercially. Another factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". It's beyond obvious that laundering copyrighted code for commercial use affects the potential market for and value of the copyrighted work.