Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

thelig.ht

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 545 posts

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#61

Post by jcelerier »

lacker wrote: post #34

I thought this was a pretty good thread (by an ex-Wikipedia lawyer) on Twitter about the IP meaning of Copilot. https://twitter.com/luis_in_brief/status/1410242882523459585... And this is a longer article about how IP and AI interact: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright... I am not a lawyer, but I am capable of summarizing the thoughts of lawyers, so my take is that in general, fair use allow…

> As a human, I am allowed to read copyrighted code and learn from it.

Of course not. Reading some copyrighted code can have you entirely excluded from some jobs - you can't become a wine contributor if it can be shown you ever read Windows source code and most likely conversely. Likewise, you can't ever write GPL VST 2 audio plug-ins if you ever had access to the official Steinberg VST2 SDK. Etc etc...

Did people forget why black box reverse engineering of software ever came to be ?

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#63

Post by [deleted] »

lacker wrote: post #34

I thought this was a pretty good thread (by an ex-Wikipedia lawyer) on Twitter about the IP meaning of Copilot. https://twitter.com/luis_in_brief/status/1410242882523459585... And this is a longer article about how IP and AI interact: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright... I am not a lawyer, but I am capable of summarizing the thoughts of lawyers, so my take is that in general, fair use allow…

[deleted]

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#65

Post by messe »

jcelerier wrote: post #61
lacker wrote: post #34

I thought this was a pretty good thread (by an ex-Wikipedia lawyer) on Twitter about the IP meaning of Copilot. https://twitter.com/luis_in_brief/status/1410242882523459585... And this is a longer article about how IP and AI interact: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright... I am not a lawyer, but I am capable of summarizing the thoughts of lawyers, so my take is that in general, fair use allow…

> As a human, I am allowed to read copyrighted code and learn from it. Of course not. Reading some copyrighted code can have you entirely excluded from some jobs - you can't become a wine contributor if it can be shown you ever read Windows source code and most likely conversely. Likewise, you can't ever write GPL VST 2 audio plug-ins if you ever had access to the official Steinberg VST2 SDK. Etc etc... Did people fo…

It's dependent on jurisdiction. Black box reverse engineering is only required in certain countries. If I remember correctly, most of Europe doesn't require it.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#66

Post by wcerfgba »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #38

I abandoned github when they put code that was not licensed (is: copyright retained) and reproduced it and saved it in their Arctic Vault without the authors consent (mine)

What's wrong with the Arctic Code Vault [1]? Is the only problem that they didn't seek your consent? How is it different to deploying a new availability zone and having your public repos accessible on another server? Your code is preserved verbatim, and it's not possible for GitHub to provide their service without the right to make verbatim copies of your code, which presumably you agreed to as part of their ToS.

[1] https://archiveprogram.github.com/arctic-vault/

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#67

Post by throwaway_egbs »

lacker wrote: post #34

I thought this was a pretty good thread (by an ex-Wikipedia lawyer) on Twitter about the IP meaning of Copilot. https://twitter.com/luis_in_brief/status/1410242882523459585... And this is a longer article about how IP and AI interact: https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/copyright... I am not a lawyer, but I am capable of summarizing the thoughts of lawyers, so my take is that in general, fair use allow…

Just when I thought tweetstorms couldn't get any worse, here's one where every tweet is a quote-tweet of the author. I don't even understand how I'm supposed to read this.

> Copyright has concluded that reading by robots doesn’t count. Infringement is for humans only; when computers do it, it’s fair use.

Surely there's a limit to this. If I use a machine to produce something that just happens to exactly match a copyrighted work, now it's not infringement because of the method I used to produce it? That seems nonsensical, but maybe there's precedent for this too? (I have no idea what I'm talking about.)

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#68

Post by EugeneOZ »

Nicksil wrote: post #46
EugeneOZ wrote: post #10

Some unknown person is trying to get some hype on “cancel github” cry. I don't give a shit about the Copilot, but I care even less about Rian Hunter and his statements.

>Some unknown person is trying to get some hype on “cancel github” cry. >I don't give a shit about the Copilot, but I care even less about Rian Hunter and his statements. This is untrue because you had a choice of not saying anything at all and carrying on (clearly not giving a shit) or take the time to leave such a comment (giving enough of a shit to inform everyone you don't give a shit.) So far this and Lloyd's is…

This is true. And I didn't even read your nickname because I don't give a shit about a shmuck who is trying to tell me what I care about :)

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#69

Post by dheera »

Retr0id wrote: post #59
calvinmorrison wrote: post #38

I abandoned github when they put code that was not licensed (is: copyright retained) and reproduced it and saved it in their Arctic Vault without the authors consent (mine)

How is the Arctic Vault different from any other offsite backup? I suppose one issue is that you (presumably) can't request deletion from it (which may even be a GDPR violation). Edit: I looked up the relevant GDPR stuff, apparently there's an exemption for when "erasing your data would prejudice scientific or historical research, or archiving that is in the public interest.", which it arguably includes the Arctic Va…

GDPR only applies to EU users.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#70

Post by bryanrasmussen »

ezoe wrote: post #54
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

robots.txt, or a copyright notice saying the code can't be used to train AI which bots will ignore and open their corporate masters to liability. on edit: fixed typo

Bad news for you. Japanese copyright law, article 47-7 explicitly allow using copyrightable works for data analysis by means of a computer(including recording a derivative work created by adaptation) It should be considered as fair-use of USA except we don't use Common Law system so we explicitly state what exempt from the copyright protection.

Thanks for the bad news! Not glad to hear it but glad to know something I didn't.

That said - so they would be able to sell some things in Japan that they couldn't other places.

Post reply on HN