> So where is github's legal paperwork that shows that they're only processing the code that's copyrighted by the user who uploaded it Under other circumstance

> So where is github's legal paperwork that shows that they're only processing the code that's copyrighted by the user who uploaded it Under other circumstances they don't need it. But if CoPilot is creating a derivative work including parts of that code without including the licence terms or attribution (as required by many licences) things are far more grey, or possible full black. Some argue that the AI is unaware of the terms so can't be held responsible. Two possible counters for that: 1. it is the licence that gives you the right to use the copyrighted code, if you are unaware of the licence then why assume you have the righ tto use the code? 2. if I found some useful code that happened unbeknownst to me to be from MS, and used it in a way that I wasn't licensed to, and MS noticed, it is a pretty safe bet that they'd state ignorance of the copyright terms doesn't mean you can't be held to them. Or another angle: the tool is allowing, even encouraging, people to use code or other materials in a way that infringes copyright (again: you don't have the right to use the code under most licences unless you give correct attribution and such) – the very conditions often stated as reasons for trying to ban other tools. Plus of course the general argument: if this is entirely a non-issue, why is no Windows, Office, or SQL Server code in the training set? Surely they are great examples of how to do things to train the AI with?