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

111–120 of 505 posts

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#111

Post by [deleted] »

stefan_ wrote: post #93
singleshot_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMCA explicitly gives you a cause of action against the party who does not properly comply with your request. GP asserts that you lack a cause of action against GitHub before they fail to comply with DMCA but I’m not certain I agree.

DMCA is a narrow protection for operators of public websites like GitHub. I don't see what it has to do with GitHub taking the data submitted to it with dubious sourcing and developing their CoPilot whatever based on it. That has nothing to do with the privileges in DMCA.

[deleted]

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#113

Post by devmor »

satvikpendem wrote: post #18
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.

Style is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.

The legality of using someone’s copyrighted work to train a model to reproduce it without their consent is still under debate - but the morality of the act at least, is not related to its legality - be it positively or negatively; and I personally consider it abhorrent.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#114

Post by devmor »

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.

We are not discussing people observing people. We are discussing programs observing people.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#115

Post by JoshTriplett »

nadermx wrote: post #103
JoshTriplett wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a much smaller lobbying budget than the AI industry, and you didn't flagrantly rush to copy billions of copyrighted works as quickly as possible and then push a narrative acting like that's the immutable status quo that must continue to be permitted lest the now-massive industry built atop copyright violation be destroyed. Violate one or two copyrights, get sued or DMCAed out of existence. Violate billions,…

What about the copyrights purpose of furthering the arts and sciences?

Copyright has utterly failed to serve that purpose for a long time, and has been actively counterproductive.

But if you want to argue that copyright is counterproductive, I completely agree. That's an argument for reducing or eliminating it across the board, fairly, for everyone; it's not an argument for giving a free pass to AI training while still enforcing it on everyone else.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#116

Post by epolanski »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #109

A slight aside, but this is the subtitle: > A few devs versus the powerful forces of Redmond – who did you think was going to win? I hate that kind of obnoxious "journalism". Sometimes the little guy is actually wrong. To clarify, I'm not commenting on the specifics of this case, I just hate how fake our online discourse has been by appealing to "big guy evil" before even bringing up the specifics of the case.

I think you're misinterpreting the sentence.

I think it merely implies MS has more resources to throw at the legal case.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#117

Post by satvikpendem »

devmor wrote: post #113
satvikpendem wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Style is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.

The legality of using someone’s copyrighted work to train a model to reproduce it without their consent is still under debate - but the morality of the act at least, is not related to its legality - be it positively or negatively; and I personally consider it abhorrent.

Under what morals do you consider it "abhorrent?" I bet got a straight answer from those I've asked about this as the counter arguments seem too easy to make.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#118

Post by BadHumans »

lcouturi wrote: post #106
BadHumans wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no impact to a company's bottom line when you are emulating a product they do not sell.

Yuzu, the emulator that was sued by Nintendo, was emulating the Nintendo Switch, which is a product Nintendo does sell.

Yuzu is not the only emulator taken down by Nintendo and Nintendo is not the only company that has gone after emulators.

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#119

Post by chimeracoder »

ADeerAppeared wrote: post #99
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...

> Someone is likely to design an LLM that is specifically trained to do exactly that. Perplexity AI.

> Perplexity AI.

How does this describe Perplexity AI more than any other LLM?

Re: Judge dismisses DMCA copyright claim in GitHub Copilot suit

#120

Post by singleshot_ »

stefan_ wrote: post #93
singleshot_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMCA explicitly gives you a cause of action against the party who does not properly comply with your request. GP asserts that you lack a cause of action against GitHub before they fail to comply with DMCA but I’m not certain I agree.

DMCA is a narrow protection for operators of public websites like GitHub. I don't see what it has to do with GitHub taking the data submitted to it with dubious sourcing and developing their CoPilot whatever based on it. That has nothing to do with the privileges in DMCA.

That’s right. You have lost the thread of what we are talking about: causes of action based on privity vs those created by statute.
Post reply on HN