3 ms·
While correct, the example given is that they COPY the code, then make adjustments to hide the fact. I suspect this is still a copyright violation. It’s interes
by scott_w 2y ago
While correct, the example given is that they COPY the code, then make adjustments to hide the fact. I suspect this is still a copyright violation. It’s interesting that a judge sees it differently when it’s just run through a programme. I’m not a legal expert so I’m guessing it’s a bit more complex than the headline?
- scott_w 2y agoOk I read the article and it looks like the issue is the DMCA specifically, which require the code to be more identical than is presented. I’m guessing separate claims could still come from other copyright laws?
- itishappy 2y agoNo copy-paste was explicitly used. They compressed it into a latent space and recreated from memory, perhaps with a dash of "creativity" for flavor. Hypothetically, of course. The distinction is pedantic but important, IMHO. AI doesn't explicitly copy either.
- scott_w 2y agoBut isn’t that the same as memorising it and rewriting the implementation from memory? I’m sure “it wasn’t an exact reproduction” is not much of a defence.
- itishappy 2y agoI sure think so. I also think that (to first order) this is exactly what modern AI products do. Is a lossy copy still a copy?
- scott_w 2y agoI would have thought so but I’m not a lawyer. The article suggests DMCA is intended for direct copies so that’s why it failed here. Maybe more general copyright laws would apply for lossy copies.