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

GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

githubcopilotinvestigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#111

Post by ghaff »

elfatizer wrote: post #49

There are lots of comments arguing for or against Copilot on a value judgment, and having an opinion on it being ethical or legal, etc isn't going to be the same for everyone. But I think regardless of where you stand, there should be some sort of legal ruling to clarify the gray areas that Butterick breaks down.

And if that's the case, the legal ruling shouldn't stop at code. It should encompass any images or text that aren't in the public domain, don't have copyright owned by the training entity, or otherwise permit this use. Which probably throws a massive spanner into a lot of machine learning. Which may well be fine but would probably be a big setback for ML generally.

Any higher court ruling might well draw some lines between different domains, but be clear that a ruling against GitHub would almost certainly be a ruling for copyright maximization and against fair use in other respects. So be careful what you wish for.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#114

Post by scarface74 »

esskay wrote: post #44

I do have to wonder if Copilot will last. It's going to become a legal minefield and I can't imagine for a second that Micrsoft will want to be in the crosshair for another antitrust case.

Yes because it turned out so badly the last time. Microsoft went from being one of the three most valuable companies in the US in 2000 to being one of the three most valuable companies in 2022.

Also back then, Microsoft had 90%+ share of the PC operating system market and was bundling IE in its operating system. I’m glad the DOJ forced MS to change its ways.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#116

Post by paulryanrogers »

Arainach wrote: post #28
blatherard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current github terms of service don't seem to mention this use when they describe the license granted github. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... 4. License Grant to Us We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as n…

That mentions everything: Parsing the content, showing it to/sharing it with other users, using it to improve and provide the service. GitHub and all of its features are "the service".

Sharing with license intact. If GH is sharing with the license and attribution stripped, then just punting IP vetting to pilot users, it seems to exceed their rights.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#117

Post by lbotos »

scarface74 wrote: post #102
smt88 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copilot wouldn't be shut down or neutered because "a few vocal people" protested against it. It would be because it's illegal and violates the licenses, desires, and intentions of the thousands of workers who wrote the code in its corpus. You act like Microsoft is trying to do a public service and people are angry about it. The reality is that they're taking billions of hours of work and using it to build a product t…

> It would be because it's illegal and violates the licenses, desires, and intentions of the thousands of workers who wrote the code in its corpus. I wonder how many people on HN would be on the side of the creators if we were talking about content created by Walt Disney and whether pirating was ethical?

Wait, I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Can you clarify?

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#118

Post by gjsman-1000 »

swhalen wrote: post #104

Why can't Tim Davis (or another software author whose code is emitted verbatim by Copilot) demand that Microsoft take down Copilot, or at least the part of Copilot that contains his code? Microsoft is distributing his software without a license, isn't it?

It could potentially under "fair use," which completely overrides any and all copyright claims if the conduct is found to be, indeed, "fair use."

Fair use in code is broader than just copying. For example, in Google v Oracle, APIs were found to be not copyrightable. Even if you copied the names of, say, 86,000 different functions in a proprietary library, you did not violate copyright.

Then comes the second problem. Let's say there is a function, say, `AddTwoNumbers(int a, int b)`. Just because John Fitzgerald in 1999 implemented that as `return a + b;" doesn't mean you can't too. There's a degree where you can copy the code that made a function work, even if that code existed earlier. It's fuzzy but it is legally real.

Finally, there is your third problem, which is that you risk a "safe harbor"-esque judgement. Just because YouTube has occasional copyright-violating content doesn't make YouTube illegal. Similarly, the person suing here risks a finding that GitHub Copilot is legal as long as any occasional long proprietary code regurgitations are removed as needed.

If your code falls under the first two conditions, copyright be damned, license be damned, it's all irrelevant. See also Linux copying Unix.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#119

Post by dahdum »

ipaddr wrote: post #2

Doesn't really explain how co-pilot is stealing your community. I've used co-pilot and it works great until you are past boilerplate than it falls apart.

The community argument is weak but it’s just content marketing, not a thesis. The goal of the article is to generate leads for potential members of a class action lawsuit.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#120

Post by Spivak »

smt88 wrote: post #78
19h wrote: post #52

I'd be rather saddened if Copilot was shut down or neutered because of a few vocal few protesting against it. It's been a massive productivity improvement to our senior devs, and I got so used to it that it's an annoyance when Copilot doesn't respond.

Copilot wouldn't be shut down or neutered because "a few vocal people" protested against it. It would be because it's illegal and violates the licenses, desires, and intentions of the thousands of workers who wrote the code in its corpus. You act like Microsoft is trying to do a public service and people are angry about it. The reality is that they're taking billions of hours of work and using it to build a product t…

> If they re-released Copilot as FOSS, a lot of the valid criticisms would evaporate.

That changes nothing at all. A FOSS license is, in a legal sense, no different then a proprietary one. If it’s illegal it’s illegal regardless of whether it’s FOSS.

Post reply on HN