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

Copilot sells code other people wrote

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 838 posts

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#321

Post by mnd999 »

samatman wrote: post #286
core-utility wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have any evidence that copilot doesn't check/filter by license?

This is in fact impossible . All they could do is filter by the LICENSE file in the repo. Unfortunately for them, by law copyright and license are determined by the authors and merely represented by a LICENSE file, which could be lying about both. The court isn't going to accept that excuse when this goes to trial.

And that is why this project should never have made it past the brainstorming session.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#322

Post by boesboes »

OrwellianTimes wrote: post #289
HumanReadable wrote: post #151

Sorry for the unproductive tone of this comment, but there's something about the attitude of this tweet that really grinds my gears. Any time someone invents something new and incredible, there's always a crowd of negative nancies eager to discredit and explain why the invention is nothing new and a detrement to society. I don't understand why someone would willingly share their code on github where it is publicly av…

Fully agreed. It's just people getting mad and jealous but hear me out. Copilot is NOT SELLING coed other people wrote, it is simply acting as a curator to show you all the solutions people HAVE WRITTEN for free. Copilot does NOT write entire programs, it's simply an assistant. And there is not much copyright you CAN apply to 3-4 lines of generally understandable code. I've used Copilot and am actively paying for and…

Because they _are_ verbatim copying code and not respecting the license. It's not that complicated.

Github knows better, can do better and should.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#323

Post by dgb23 »

rockbruno wrote: post #279
HumanReadable wrote: post #151

Sorry for the unproductive tone of this comment, but there's something about the attitude of this tweet that really grinds my gears. Any time someone invents something new and incredible, there's always a crowd of negative nancies eager to discredit and explain why the invention is nothing new and a detrement to society. I don't understand why someone would willingly share their code on github where it is publicly av…

My problem with this conversation is how we can have a 200 comment thread without anyone providing any kind of proof to these claims. Is there any instance of this bot printing an actual copyrighted algorithm instead of a mundane uncopyrighteable piece of logic?

There are examples of it providing literal copies of code without attribution etc.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#324

Post by zarzavat »

Hamuko wrote: post #251
zarzavat wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of a fair use right is that you don’t need the copyright owner’s permission to be able to exercise it. Fair use allows you to do things that the copyright owner doesn’t like. Is fair use on a massive scale still fair use? Courts generally think so, otherwise Google would have been out of business a long time ago.

What about us that are not Americans?

Then you need to check the laws in your country. But that is nothing new to copilot. Copyright laws vary significantly from country to country.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#325

Post by teakettle42 »

redox99 wrote: post #299
teakettle42 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plagiarism isn’t a legal concept, it’s an ethical one. You need to either attribute the source, or rewrite it in entirely your own words — just like when writing a paper. Confirming to the license is also required; iirc, SO requires attribution under the CC-SA license.

> Plagiarism isn’t a legal concept, it’s an ethical one. Well if it isn't a legal but an ethical concept, then that's just your opinion, since there isn't some universal body that establishes exactly what is ethical and what isn't. And as I said in my previous comment, " I don't consider". > You need to either attribute the source, or rewrite it in entirely your own words — just like when writing a paper. Often times…

> Well if it isn't a legal but an ethical concept, then that's just your opinion

Plagiarism being unethical is just my opinion?

> Are you going to attribute that every time you use Math.pow?

Does a simple 2-ary function call of a well-defined API qualify as “taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”?

If not, then it’s not plagiarism.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#326

Post by gilrain »

jimnotgym wrote: post #309
hansword wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I enter 'Mickey Mouse' into an ML-TTI thing like Craiyon (Dall E mini) do you think I will be able to sell the resulting image on a Tshirt? No, I won't, because Disney has fancy lawyers, the average open source developer hasn't. What you are saying is: Screw little people, let M$ make their money. Either copyright is for everyone, or for no one. I prefer the latter, but this is not the world we live in.

Isnt this an indictment of the justice system rather than the big firms. I once heard this quote, "English justice is open to all, in the same way that The Ritz [very expensive hotel] is open to all."

The useless justice system has been engineered by the firms for their benefit.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#327

Post by matthewmacleod »

HumanReadable wrote: post #151

Sorry for the unproductive tone of this comment, but there's something about the attitude of this tweet that really grinds my gears. Any time someone invents something new and incredible, there's always a crowd of negative nancies eager to discredit and explain why the invention is nothing new and a detrement to society. I don't understand why someone would willingly share their code on github where it is publicly av…

I also disagree with the tone of that tweet, but your dismissal is equally shallow and gear-grinding.

There are real, serious, and genuinely interesting issues to be discussed regarding Copilot. It is neither "just selling code that other people wrote", nor is it something that we should applaud merely because it demonstrates "human ingenuity".

The comments here regarding this are honestly a total dumpster fire. It's mostly a bunch of paper-thin hot takes, either:

- The blatantly stupid "you willingly shared your code so why are you complaining that one of the world's biggest companies is now hoovering up code from your carefully-selected open-source license and reselling it as a service!!!"

- The blatantly lying "I have literally never looked at any other computer software while developing any obviously anybody who has ever seen other source code is a plagarist"

It's dumb because there is an actual interesting discussion here but I guess we're not going to bother having it.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#328

Post by barthvr »

Timwi wrote: post #233
Veen wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a writer, the benefits are quite obvious to me.

Convenient, isn't it? As a consumer, it's quite obvious to me too how it benefits only the writer/creator at the detriment of everyone else.

Because writing a book, shooting a movie, composing a song, takes time ?

So either those pieces are IP-protected, and their author can make money with it, or we have to set up a basic income for everyone, and art becomes free.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#329

Post by Xunjin »

Sakos wrote: post #201
HumanReadable wrote: post #151

Sorry for the unproductive tone of this comment, but there's something about the attitude of this tweet that really grinds my gears. Any time someone invents something new and incredible, there's always a crowd of negative nancies eager to discredit and explain why the invention is nothing new and a detrement to society. I don't understand why someone would willingly share their code on github where it is publicly av…

I share my code without a license because I want others to be able to see how I solved things. However, this doesn't mean I'm okay with wholesale copying my code. If it's some random guy, then whatever. If it's a corporation like Microsoft, then yeah, I have a problem with it. Under German law, the code is legally not allowed to be reproduced or used without explicit permission even if it doesn't have a license. I re…

Well, it depends on where you post it, right? Because if you are using a GitHub which probably is US based, you follow the laws related to US?!

Demanding that the law of a country should be followed by another is totally no sense. They can agree, make agreements about it, and even take legal action to the Highest court, so it could be evaluated, but using your nationality as an argument of what you can do, it's just plain wrong.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#330

Post by teakettle42 »

ThereIsNoWorry wrote: post #312
teakettle42 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explaining a fundamental ethical concept you should have learned in primary school when writing your first book reports is not arguing in bad faith. SO’s license requires attribution. If you don’t want to be a plagiarist, you either need to include attribution, or you need to rewrite the solution in entirely your own words.

So, rearranging conditionals or loops or variables then, problem solved. You cannot 1:1 copy paste anyway. That never works. You always have to adapt it to your particularity. So it's "reworded" by default. And CoPilot is doing nothing else. It's not just 1:1 memorising code, it's a tiny bit smarter than that. I strongly believe you're not a developer. Point taken. I understand your considerations. You should write c…

> I strongly believe you're not a developer.

> You should write code sometimes to solve a complex problem

There’s a very high chance you posted your comment from a device using code I wrote.

Glueing together plagiarized code copied from SO, or stolen from OSS projects on GitHub, is not software engineering.

Post reply on HN