5 ms·

Copyright covers expression, but not the ideas themselves. So it should be ok to mine ideas from projects, open or not, as long as the model doesn't reproduce e

Copyright covers expression, but not the ideas themselves. So it should be ok to mine ideas from projects, open or not, as long as the model doesn't reproduce expression. And even expression can be copied if it is small enough, trivial, public knowledge, the only obvious way to do something or an API call. If you want idea protection you need to look at patents.

elil17 4y ago
>And even expression can be copied if it is small enough This is what I would argue if I was Microsoft's lawyer. You can't win a copyright lawsuit over one bar of music, one dance move, or a few words. Similarly, copilot can't be considered to be infringing on anyone's copyright because the snippets it might copy verbatim are too short to be copyrightable.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > You can't win a copyright lawsuit over one bar of music, one dance move, or a few words. Actually... The smallest successful copyright claim is I believe over 10 words or so.
  - elil17 4y ago
    Yes, this case: https://fkks.com/news/can-borrowing-ten-words-be-copyright-infringement https://fkks.com/news/can-borrowing-ten-words-be-copyright-i... However, this definitely pushed the boundaries of copyright law. Audi never appealed the $1m verdict, so it's hardly settled case law.
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  > You can't win a copyright lawsuit over one bar of music Actually, Kraftwerk did https://www.factmag.com/2019/07/30/kraftwerk-sample-lawsuit-metall-auf-metall-verdict/ https://www.factmag.com/2019/07/30/kraftwerk-sample-lawsuit-...
  - elil17 4y ago
    In Europe - not where this lawsuit is happening
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Somebody needs to apologize to Biz Markie and all of hiphop for establishing precedents that say the opposite, and for all the work they have to go through to clear a sampled 50 year old drum fill (usually including credit as coauthors and publishing residuals.) There are bands that are giving all of the profits of entire albums to the people whose sample they failed to clear on a single song.
jcranmer 4y ago
Google couldn't get this argument to fly for software APIs-are-not-copyrightable at SCOTUS. And that was for an argument where pretty much every computer person except Oracle agreed that Google was right. Arguing that AI is mining ideas and not expressions is going to be a lot less successful when you've got a large pool of expert witnesses who are going to be able and willing to say that AI is only capable of mimicking the form of what it sees.
- visarga 4y ago
  AI is not just that. That's a myth. Yes, when you train on a human generated corpus you're going to get an interpolative AI. But when you train on a dataset generated by AI, you can surpass human level. AlphaZero started, as the name says, from zero. No examples of how we play the game. In just three days of self-play it surpassed the best human. How was that possible? We got a 2000 year head start, larger brains, and many players, not just one model. AlphaZero did it by creating its own training data. Here is an example of using code language models for this kind of dataset-creation by play. > Evolution through Large Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 By the way, GPT-3 and chatGPT are not simple interpolative language models. They have also been trained on many tasks, problems, and codes, which is the kind of data that will awaken the skills of the model to a whole new level. What I am saying is that we can auto-generate more problem data and increase their skills.
- naasking 4y ago
  If Sally wrote a program that generated a giant dataset of token frequencies and associations by analyzing Github source code, that doesn't violate copyright and she could sell that. If Bob wrote a program that took Sally's dataset and produced source code from prompts, that too would in principle not violate copyright and he could sell that. But you're suggesting that if one person did both at once, that would violate copyright?
- rockemsockem 4y ago
  Wait, what do you mean Google couldn't get that argument to fly? Google won the case. Are you referring to the fact that the SCOTUS didn't directly address the copyrightability of APIs and instead ruled in favor of Google on the basis that Google's use was fair use *even if* APIs are copyrightable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
> If you want idea protection you need to look at patents. No. You can't. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea 'A machine sucking dust from a surface in order to clean it' is an idea. Dyson design is an invention. https://www.dyson.com/vacuum-cleaners/cordless/v15/detect/yellow-iron https://www.dyson.com/vacuum-cleaners/cordless/v15/detect/ye... Here a broad description of differences between copyright and patent (trademark included): https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/difference-copyright-patent-trademark/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/difference-copyright-pate... None of them covers the principle of idea. And if you want an example of a dubious (in my opinion) attempt to patent an idea (patent troll): https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3811791A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3811791A1/en While is it a patent trolling attempt (in my opinion) ? Because it's basically an idea (adding a natural compound in ecigarette eliquids as sweetener) with an extensive list of layers covering general principles of everything related to ecigarette and ecigarette eliquid to pretend it's a specific formula (which is not) or an invention (which is neither because it's a natural compound known for its sweetener properties since 19th century).

elil17 4y ago

>And even expression can be copied if it is small enough This is what I would argue if I was Microsoft's lawyer. You can't win a copyright lawsuit over one bar of music, one dance move, or a few words. Similarly, copilot can't be considered to be infringing on anyone's copyright because the snippets it might copy verbatim are too short to be copyrightable.

jcranmer 4y ago
> You can't win a copyright lawsuit over one bar of music, one dance move, or a few words. Actually... The smallest successful copyright claim is I believe over 10 words or so.
- elil17 4y ago
  Yes, this case: https://fkks.com/news/can-borrowing-ten-words-be-copyright-infringement https://fkks.com/news/can-borrowing-ten-words-be-copyright-i... However, this definitely pushed the boundaries of copyright law. Audi never appealed the $1m verdict, so it's hardly settled case law.
pantalaimon 4y ago
> You can't win a copyright lawsuit over one bar of music Actually, Kraftwerk did https://www.factmag.com/2019/07/30/kraftwerk-sample-lawsuit-metall-auf-metall-verdict/ https://www.factmag.com/2019/07/30/kraftwerk-sample-lawsuit-...
- elil17 4y ago
  In Europe - not where this lawsuit is happening
pessimizer 4y ago
Somebody needs to apologize to Biz Markie and all of hiphop for establishing precedents that say the opposite, and for all the work they have to go through to clear a sampled 50 year old drum fill (usually including credit as coauthors and publishing residuals.) There are bands that are giving all of the profits of entire albums to the people whose sample they failed to clear on a single song.

jcranmer 4y ago

Google couldn't get this argument to fly for software APIs-are-not-copyrightable at SCOTUS. And that was for an argument where pretty much every computer person except Oracle agreed that Google was right. Arguing that AI is mining ideas and not expressions is going to be a lot less successful when you've got a large pool of expert witnesses who are going to be able and willing to say that AI is only capable of mimicking the form of what it sees.

visarga 4y ago
AI is not just that. That's a myth. Yes, when you train on a human generated corpus you're going to get an interpolative AI. But when you train on a dataset generated by AI, you can surpass human level. AlphaZero started, as the name says, from zero. No examples of how we play the game. In just three days of self-play it surpassed the best human. How was that possible? We got a 2000 year head start, larger brains, and many players, not just one model. AlphaZero did it by creating its own training data. Here is an example of using code language models for this kind of dataset-creation by play. > Evolution through Large Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 By the way, GPT-3 and chatGPT are not simple interpolative language models. They have also been trained on many tasks, problems, and codes, which is the kind of data that will awaken the skills of the model to a whole new level. What I am saying is that we can auto-generate more problem data and increase their skills.
naasking 4y ago
If Sally wrote a program that generated a giant dataset of token frequencies and associations by analyzing Github source code, that doesn't violate copyright and she could sell that. If Bob wrote a program that took Sally's dataset and produced source code from prompts, that too would in principle not violate copyright and he could sell that. But you're suggesting that if one person did both at once, that would violate copyright?
rockemsockem 4y ago
Wait, what do you mean Google couldn't get that argument to fly? Google won the case. Are you referring to the fact that the SCOTUS didn't directly address the copyrightability of APIs and instead ruled in favor of Google on the basis that Google's use was fair use *even if* APIs are copyrightable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago

> If you want idea protection you need to look at patents. No. You can't. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea 'A machine sucking dust from a surface in order to clean it' is an idea. Dyson design is an invention. https://www.dyson.com/vacuum-cleaners/cordless/v15/detect/yellow-iron https://www.dyson.com/vacuum-cleaners/cordless/v15/detect/ye... Here a broad description of differences between copyright and patent (trademark included): https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/difference-copyright-patent-trademark/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/difference-copyright-pate... None of them covers the principle of idea. And if you want an example of a dubious (in my opinion) attempt to patent an idea (patent troll): https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3811791A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3811791A1/en While is it a patent trolling attempt (in my opinion) ? Because it's basically an idea (adding a natural compound in ecigarette eliquids as sweetener) with an extensive list of layers covering general principles of everything related to ecigarette and ecigarette eliquid to pretend it's a specific formula (which is not) or an invention (which is neither because it's a natural compound known for its sweetener properties since 19th century).