Live data from Hacker News

GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

121–130 of 475 posts

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#121
post #11

> “Your honor, we needed so many works that it was simply not practical to ask permission of the creators.” I don’t find this argument convincing given the ability today to license many content types at scale for TDM, including images, music and yes, journal articles (See “Full disclosure” above), but it is an argument often offered by infringers. Why is this type of argument even valid? Isn't this fundamentally sayi…

>So how? Is it not absurd? it is. "Your honor, I've been drink-driving so many times I honestly can't tell you an accurate estimate any more so in both our interests let's agree it was basically uncountable, or 0." wait a minute...

Or after a crypto heist:

"Your honor, it would have been onerous to ask each account owner if we could have their tokens so we just took all of them at once"

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#122

It will be a real shame if the fantastic achievement of OpenAI with copilot etc is smothered by ego. Innovation in code should be heralded but if in the majority of cases the coder using Copilot and similar tools is just saving time on bog standard functions they could write themselves, it's difficult to understand why that needs to be attributed.

Tell me you don't know the history of and reasoning for free software (and attribution) licenses, without telling me you don't know the history of... etc.

Mind-bogglingly entitled.

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider Agreeing to GitHub's terms doesn't try to assign copyright over your code, it grabs licence to use your code however they see fit which is¹ legally quite different. Of course the real fun comes if someone agrees to their terms then uploads some of my code which they have to right to assign the licence to GitHub for. Wh…

It seems a lot of this stems from how the DMCA does not require that these hosting providers actually check for code ownership at submission, or maybe just how they don't have an explicit checkbox for "I affirm that I can license this code to GitHub" every time someone is uploading code. If it is shown that the license in the TOS is valid, the legal question might boil down to "is the TOS License broad enough to wher…

A checkbox would make no difference in the case where the uploaded has not been granted the right to agree to such terms with respect to the code in question, leaving the matter in the same situation.

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#124
post #3

Excellent. GitHub is in my opinion crossing a whole pile of lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider, the expectation is that your host does not automatically claim the rights to anything that you store there. Such projects sho…

[flagged]

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#125
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're facing a copyright extinction event. The whole concept is out of touch with the new reality - when you can generate 100 variations for your text, code or image with the click of a button, what does it even mean to hold copyright over the original? "In the style of" killed copyright in 2022.

This is a pipe dream. There's too much money behind strictly enforcing copyright protections on commercial products. If anything gets killed, it's going to be automatic copyright protection for "little guys". Microsoft will be able to copy your publicly shared code/art/images willy-nilly but will still send their compliance officers to check that your company has a valid Office 365 license if they notice you writing…

I am sure they have an in-house model trained on all their code. It would be immensely more useful than a generic model.

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#127
post #11

> “Your honor, we needed so many works that it was simply not practical to ask permission of the creators.” I don’t find this argument convincing given the ability today to license many content types at scale for TDM, including images, music and yes, journal articles (See “Full disclosure” above), but it is an argument often offered by infringers. Why is this type of argument even valid? Isn't this fundamentally sayi…

> But apparently infringers are using this line of argument. So how? Is it not absurd? You realise that they haven’t actually used that line of argument, right? The article author speculated that it might be part of the defence and then said they didn’t find it compelling. Set up a straw man and then knocked it down in virtually the same breath. Don’t waste your time complaining about legal arguments that have not be…

[flagged]

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#128
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Fyi... Google Books (scanned and OCR'd books) eventually won against the authors filing lawsuits of copyright infringement. So there is some precedent that courts do look at the "utility" or "sufficiently transformative" aspect when weighing copyright infringement. https://www.googl…

A number of points in Google's favor: they are not passing off Google books content as their own, they limit your access to a small fraction of the offering. The thing that surprised me about that ruling is that it was deemed final without a chance of an appeal.

> The thing that surprised me about that ruling is that it was deemed final without a chance of an appeal.

They did appeal it. SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/technology/google-books-c...

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#129
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider Agreeing to GitHub's terms doesn't try to assign copyright over your code, it grabs licence to use your code however they see fit which is¹ legally quite different. Of course the real fun comes if someone agrees to their terms then uploads some of my code which they have to right to assign the licence to GitHub for. Wh…

How did you type the superscript footnotes? Edit: Wow, this is game changing. Markdown parsers need to implement superscript ascii character support! Lowercase ⁽ᵃ⁾ Uppercase ⁽ᴬ⁾ Numbers ⁽⁹⁹⁾

There are Unicode characters for superscripted digits; you can probably find them in some kind of character-map application, depending on the platform you're using.

Re: GitHub is sued, and we may learn something about Creative Commons licensing

#130
post #20
post #3

Excellent. GitHub is in my opinion crossing a whole pile of lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Copyright is not something that can be signed over by a terms-of-use change of a hosting provider, the expectation is that your host does not automatically claim the rights to anything that you store there. Such projects sho…

>lines here that should not have been crossed without the authors explicit permission, regardless of the utility of the tool they built. Fyi... Google Books (scanned and OCR'd books) eventually won against the authors filing lawsuits of copyright infringement. So there is some precedent that courts do look at the "utility" or "sufficiently transformative" aspect when weighing copyright infringement. https://www.googl…

There are two important differences.

Google Books retains the bibliographical information so you can properly cite the authors or contact them for permission to use their material.

And Google Books does not automatically write new books for you that you can then send off to Penguin Books or self-publish on Amazon.

Post reply on HN