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

Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 505 posts

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#31

Post by satvikpendem »

falcolas wrote: post #30
satvikpendem wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that is true, but I don't think the people who use style transfer are actually passing it off as the original, they just like it for the aesthetic value of their own images. In other words, no one using the Van Gogh LoRA is actually trying to forge the Starry Night.

Given the value of an "authentic" painting of the Starry Night (or more realistically the value of something forged in, say, Samwise Didier's style) I can't agree with "no one". I have to imagine that it's likely quite popular to sell AI generated art that mimics or copies existing works.

Do you use AI art generators? Flaws are extremely easily found out, it is only good for a rough snapshot (without much fiddling and even then, artifacts remain). I can guarantee you it is definitely not popular to sell existing works made with AI, you are better off hiring an actual forger. In fact, your suggestion is even the first I've even heard of such an idea.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#32

Post by polishTar »

whimsicalism wrote: post #28
daedrdev wrote: post #4

> The anonymous programmers have repeatedly insisted Copilot could, and would, generate code identical to what they had written themselves, which is a key pillar of their lawsuit since there is an identicality requirement for their DMCA claim. However, Judge Tigar earlier ruled the plaintiffs hadn't actually demonstrated instances of this happening, which prompted a dismissal of the claim with a chance to amend it. I…

Huh. There have definitely been well publicized examples of this happening, like the quake inverse square root

Fast inverse square root is now part of the public domain.

Also, even if this weren’t the case you can’t sue for damages to other people (they’d need to bring their own suit)

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#33

Post by CuriouslyC »

devmor wrote: post #12
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that this is exactly what will happen; not just with code, but also prose and artwork. Someone is likely to design an LLM that is specifically trained to do exactly that. Lots of money to be made...

On the matter of artwork there's no need for suspicion - it is and has been happening for a while now. There are entire online databases dedicated to providing non-consenting artist's "styles" as downloadable model parameters by name.

I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, I'd like to move through society invisibly and only show myself when it benefitted me. Unfortunately, the only answer is to stay inside if I don't want people to see me.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#34

Post by dredmorbius »

zdragnar wrote: post #25
dmitrygr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of my code is on github (eg https://github.com/syuu1228/uARM ), uploaded by others. I gave no license for its use in training. What now?

If the person didn't have your permission or permission from the license to agree to github's terms, then you sue the person who uploaded it to GitHub. You don't get to go after GitHub because you have no contractual relationship with them. At best, you can get an injunction forcing them to take it down, though getting them to un-train copilot may not be feasible. At best you'd get a small cash offer, since you're un…

17 USC §504 says otherwise:

... the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements ... in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000. ... in a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504>

The issue isn't contract. It's copyright infringement.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#35

Post by anonymoushn »

polishTar wrote: post #32
whimsicalism wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. There have definitely been well publicized examples of this happening, like the quake inverse square root

Fast inverse square root is now part of the public domain. Also, even if this weren’t the case you can’t sue for damages to other people (they’d need to bring their own suit)

Is the particular implementation that the model spits out 70+ years old?

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#36

Post by 201984 »

zdragnar wrote: post #25
dmitrygr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of my code is on github (eg https://github.com/syuu1228/uARM ), uploaded by others. I gave no license for its use in training. What now?

If the person didn't have your permission or permission from the license to agree to github's terms, then you sue the person who uploaded it to GitHub. You don't get to go after GitHub because you have no contractual relationship with them. At best, you can get an injunction forcing them to take it down, though getting them to un-train copilot may not be feasible. At best you'd get a small cash offer, since you're un…

So hypothetically, if a developer publishes GPL software on Codeberg, and someone uploads it to GitHub, could the original developer file takedowns against the Github copy?

I'm curious if Github's ToS make uploading GPL software you don't own a copyright violation.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#37

Post by pton_xd »

zdragnar wrote: post #25
dmitrygr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of my code is on github (eg https://github.com/syuu1228/uARM ), uploaded by others. I gave no license for its use in training. What now?

If the person didn't have your permission or permission from the license to agree to github's terms, then you sue the person who uploaded it to GitHub. You don't get to go after GitHub because you have no contractual relationship with them. At best, you can get an injunction forcing them to take it down, though getting them to un-train copilot may not be feasible. At best you'd get a small cash offer, since you're un…

> then you sue the person who uploaded it to GitHub.

> You don't get to go after GitHub because you have no contractual relationship with them

What makes you say that? If someone eg uploads my copyrighted work to YouTube, I file a DMCA notice with YouTube to stop distributing my work. If YT ignores the notice then I can pursue them with a lawsuit.

How is this situation different?

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#38

Post by pennomi »

bityard wrote: post #3

This is pretty interesting, and I have conflicted feelings about the (seemingly obvious) outcome of this trial. I wonder, if MS and OpenAI win, does that mean it will be legal for anyone to take the leaked source code for a proprietary product, train an LLM on it, and then ask the LLM to emit a version of it that is different enough to avoid copyright infringement? That would be quite the double-edged sword for propr…

Or even those AI-powered decompilers people are working on… you could clone virtually any software with that. Surely there will be limitations.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#39

Post by immibis »

polishTar wrote: post #32
whimsicalism wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. There have definitely been well publicized examples of this happening, like the quake inverse square root

Fast inverse square root is now part of the public domain. Also, even if this weren’t the case you can’t sue for damages to other people (they’d need to bring their own suit)

Has it really already been 70 years since John Carmack died?

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#40

Post by vkou »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #33
devmor wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the matter of artwork there's no need for suspicion - it is and has been happening for a while now. There are entire online databases dedicated to providing non-consenting artist's "styles" as downloadable model parameters by name.

I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, I'd like to move through society invisibly and only show myself when it benefitted me. Unfortunately, the only answer is to stay inside if I don't want people to see me.

> I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world,

You aren't allowed to use photos featuring a non-consenting person to, for instance promote a product.

You are allowed to use photos including a non-consenting person.

There's a lot of complicated law, differing between different jurisdictions to cover this question, and to balance the needs of the public with commercial desires. It's not as simple as you make it sound, and there's no reason we should just default to bending over backwards for commercial interests.

Laws exist to serve society, not the other way around.

Post reply on HN