4 ms·

In the big picture, if we enter a world where an AI is instantly capable of doing code better than you do and without efforts, then I'm not sure why code should

by rvnx 4y ago

In the big picture, if we enter a world where an AI is instantly capable of doing code better than you do and without efforts, then I'm not sure why code should be copyrightable at all. Copyright protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. Here (and in the future even more), AI is totally capable of expressing one idea in any programming language if you ask for it (even if conceptually inspired by copyrighted code). Which means that a particular expression (a specific implementation) is practically of no value or particular interest at this stage. You could ask the AI to do a slightly different implementation, it would not be a problem for it and would require no efforts. There is no point to protect something that can be generated using no effort and has no particular genius in it.

DanHulton 4y ago
We don't need to enter a world where AI gets any better at all to be able to argue that software shouldn't be copyrightable, smart people have been doing that for ages. The problem, however, is that we live in this world, where it is copyrightable, and componies relying on Copilot to do large swathes of code generation do potentially have to worry about including copyrighted code in their codebase, and what the legal fallout from that might be.
- Longlius 4y ago
  It also creates a world where developers who have created code and specifically protected it with copyleft licenses to ensure that derivative works always remain a public good are having their rights laundered away via LLMs. I fully expect the FOSS community to fold if their rights are not respected and it could lead to a software dark age.
  - blibble 4y ago
    > I fully expect the FOSS community to fold if their rights are not respected and it could lead to a software dark age. just happens to be a coincidence this was all initiated by Microsoft?
  - jimmaswell 4y ago
    How often does GPL succeed in bullying people into sharing code under the same license when they wouldn't have wanted to otherwise? I imagine it mostly results in wasted duplicative effort to keep GPL out of the codebase. I'm glad more permissive licenses appear more popular now, like MIT.

by rvnx 4y ago

DanHulton 4y ago

We don't need to enter a world where AI gets any better at all to be able to argue that software shouldn't be copyrightable, smart people have been doing that for ages. The problem, however, is that we live in this world, where it is copyrightable, and componies relying on Copilot to do large swathes of code generation do potentially have to worry about including copyrighted code in their codebase, and what the legal fallout from that might be.

Longlius 4y ago
It also creates a world where developers who have created code and specifically protected it with copyleft licenses to ensure that derivative works always remain a public good are having their rights laundered away via LLMs. I fully expect the FOSS community to fold if their rights are not respected and it could lead to a software dark age.
- blibble 4y ago
  > I fully expect the FOSS community to fold if their rights are not respected and it could lead to a software dark age. just happens to be a coincidence this was all initiated by Microsoft?
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  How often does GPL succeed in bullying people into sharing code under the same license when they wouldn't have wanted to otherwise? I imagine it mostly results in wasted duplicative effort to keep GPL out of the codebase. I'm glad more permissive licenses appear more popular now, like MIT.