3 ms·

If it's actually co authored then you should be fine on copyright. And of course dumb messages that aren't true won't affect copyright.

lelanthran 6mo ago
> If it's actually co authored then you should be fine on copyright How so? All your outoutput is now legally partly owned by Microsoft?
- Dylan16807 6mo ago
  The bot (and therefore microsoft) doesn't get any copyright at all.
  - lelanthran 6mo ago
    > The bot (and therefore microsoft) doesn't get any copyright at all. But then neither do you, for every commit that was marked with copilot.
    - Dylan16807 6mo ago
      What makes you say that? If a monkey uses a typewriter, there's no copyright. If I use a typewriter with a monkey, I get copyright and the monkey doesn't. Why would the monkey need copyright for me to get copyright?
      - lelanthran 6mo ago
        > If I use a typewriter with a monkey, I get copyright and the monkey doesn't. Right, because monkeys cannot be granted copyright. If you use a typewriter along with Microsoft, the resulting copyright will be owned jointly. This story isn't about a monkey claiming co-authorship, it's about Microsoft claiming co-authorship.
        Dylan16807 6mo ago
        > This story isn't about a monkey claiming co-authorship, it's about Microsoft claiming co-authorship. I don't understand your position. Your previous post was agreeing that Microsoft wouldn't get copyright on copilot output, wasn't it? I said the bot doesn't get copyright and you said "neither do you". Why are you now saying Microsoft would get copyright? Copilot is a robo-monkey owned by Microsoft.
- tardedmeme 6mo ago
  No. Legal ownership doesn't depend on whether aislop edited your commit message.
- baobabKoodaa 6mo ago
  If I write "I own lelanthran's car", does that make me the legal owner of your car? No?
  - lelanthran 6mo ago
    > If I write "I own lelanthran's car", does that make me the legal owner of your car? If I counter sign agreement, certainly. How do you think that sales of both movable and immovable property work?
    - baobabKoodaa 6mo ago
      That's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a third party modifying your document without your consent (and sometimes even without your knowledge). You write git commit "Fix bug" and then a third party swoops in the night and modifies that with "Co-authored by: Microsoft".
      - lelanthran 6mo ago
        > That's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a third party modifying your document without your consent (and sometimes even without your knowledge). You write git commit "Fix bug" and then a third party swoops in the night and modifies that with "Co-authored by: Microsoft". Right, and how is a court supposed to differentiate between the cases when copilot was not sharing your typewriter and cases when it was?
        baobabKoodaa 6mo ago
        I don't know! How is the court supposed to differentiate between a forged document and an authentic one? A question for the ages.

lelanthran 6mo ago

> If it's actually co authored then you should be fine on copyright How so? All your outoutput is now legally partly owned by Microsoft?

Dylan16807 6mo ago
The bot (and therefore microsoft) doesn't get any copyright at all.
- lelanthran 6mo ago
  > The bot (and therefore microsoft) doesn't get any copyright at all. But then neither do you, for every commit that was marked with copilot.
  - Dylan16807 6mo ago
    What makes you say that? If a monkey uses a typewriter, there's no copyright. If I use a typewriter with a monkey, I get copyright and the monkey doesn't. Why would the monkey need copyright for me to get copyright?
    - lelanthran 6mo ago
      > If I use a typewriter with a monkey, I get copyright and the monkey doesn't. Right, because monkeys cannot be granted copyright. If you use a typewriter along with Microsoft, the resulting copyright will be owned jointly. This story isn't about a monkey claiming co-authorship, it's about Microsoft claiming co-authorship.
      - Dylan16807 6mo ago
        > This story isn't about a monkey claiming co-authorship, it's about Microsoft claiming co-authorship. I don't understand your position. Your previous post was agreeing that Microsoft wouldn't get copyright on copilot output, wasn't it? I said the bot doesn't get copyright and you said "neither do you". Why are you now saying Microsoft would get copyright? Copilot is a robo-monkey owned by Microsoft.
tardedmeme 6mo ago
No. Legal ownership doesn't depend on whether aislop edited your commit message.
baobabKoodaa 6mo ago
If I write "I own lelanthran's car", does that make me the legal owner of your car? No?
- lelanthran 6mo ago
  > If I write "I own lelanthran's car", does that make me the legal owner of your car? If I counter sign agreement, certainly. How do you think that sales of both movable and immovable property work?
  - baobabKoodaa 6mo ago
    That's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a third party modifying your document without your consent (and sometimes even without your knowledge). You write git commit "Fix bug" and then a third party swoops in the night and modifies that with "Co-authored by: Microsoft".
    - lelanthran 6mo ago
      > That's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a third party modifying your document without your consent (and sometimes even without your knowledge). You write git commit "Fix bug" and then a third party swoops in the night and modifies that with "Co-authored by: Microsoft". Right, and how is a court supposed to differentiate between the cases when copilot was not sharing your typewriter and cases when it was?
      - baobabKoodaa 6mo ago
        I don't know! How is the court supposed to differentiate between a forged document and an authentic one? A question for the ages.