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

GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

felixreda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 156 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#51

Post by lifeformed »

dtech wrote: post #14
jclulow wrote: post #10

> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain. The machine, such as it is, is generally not acting on its own. A person operates the machine, and presumably is on the hook for infringement on some level. Consider: what if one directs the machine to reproduce a specific body of code and it ostensibly does so. Was there copying? What if I have a person read out…

The machine argument also rings hollow to me. This same argument could be made for a scanner + printer that does some transformation - changes colors a bit randomly or something - I'd be having a hard time convincing a court the resulting image is now copyright free. Obviously LLMs are much more advanced than this, but in the basis it's still a machine that takes its input data and applies specified transformations w…

The machine argument makes sense to me. It shifts the blame from the machine creators to the machine users. A copying machine creator is not responsible for misuse of the machine, nor is it illegal to simply Xerox a copyrighted work. Distributing the copy is where the law comes into play, and it targets the person distributing it, not the machine or the manufacturer.

Obviously, it seems impossible for an LLM user to verify the legality of the output, so it seems like the only conclusion is not to use it, or to only release your works under copyleft.

I guess an alternate interpretation is treating them like gun manufacturers. They aren't the ones pulling the trigger, but one could argue their business and marketing practices are done negligently enough for them to carry a portion of the responsibility. I guess then one must show that the LLM creators are sufficiently negligent in preventing misuse of their product at the same scale.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#52

Post by kimixa »

zarzavat wrote: post #42
kimixa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those weights are a derivative of GPL'd code in a different form, and the results generate things derived from that derivative, then the generated code is still under license. "How much change is enough" has always been a gray area for courts and humans to decide. If you can get a decent facsimile of licensed code out the other end, how is it really any different from lossy compression? I doubt the courts would co…

If the output is substantially similar to GPL’d training data it may be infringing. Nobody disputes this. However, copyright isn’t cooties. If the output is not similar, then it is not infringing regardless of how much GPL’d training data was used to generate it.

Indeed, that's why I said

>"How much change is enough" has always been a gray area for courts and humans to decide.

But copilot has been shown to generate chunks of sufficient size and specificity that as a layman it very much feels like "copied GPL code". And my boss agrees too - we have a blanket ban on generative AI tools in our work because it's not considered worth the risk.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#53

Post by ealexhudson »

Y-bar wrote: post #26

> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain. I am reading this right… ? If this argument is generally true, does this mean that the output of a compiler might also be sent into the public domain? Or the live recording and broadcast of an event which involves automated machines on all levels?

No, it's incorrect and/or badly worded. The author is right that a machine cannot author things, and the stuff that the LLM might create de novo would not have copyright protection. But it's missing the point when the argument is that existing authored works could be generated via an LLM, and the authorship/copyright is already established.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#54

Post by denton-scratch »

carom wrote: post #20

This is missing the largest argument in my opinion. The weights are the derivative work of the GPL licensed code and should therefore be released under the GPL. I would say these companies release their weights or simply not train on copyleft code. It is truly amazing how many people will shill for these massive corporations that claim they love open source or that their AI is open while they profit off of the violat…

But they train their models on everything, regardless of the licence. It follows that the resulting derivative work likely mixes stuff that is under incompatible licences, with the result that it can't be distributed at all.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#55

Post by elpocko »

jeroenhd wrote: post #45
elpocko wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've coded dozens of procedural asset/"art" generators. It's really surprising to me that, apparently, the output of my creative work (i.e. the novel algorithms) is not protected by copyright.

Your creative work (the novel algorithms) are protected under normal copyright. Depending on where you live, you may even be able to patent those algorithms. The output of those algorithms isn't a creative work (as you're running a creative work to generate them, not applying any kind of creativity once the program is finished), so it's not protected. Same with generated code. The lines get a bit blurry when you star…

I have an unreleased game that contains thousands of procedurally generated 3d models, textures and sounds. I've worked for years on those algorithms; they are my brushes and my paint.

So when (if) I release that game, anyone can just rip the assets, not even apply any transformation, and put them in their own product. I would have to let them do it with no legal recourse. That doesn't seem right.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#56

Post by lelanthran »

lukan wrote: post #43
minot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Free Software community has made it clear from day 1 that the GPL can only achieve its goals through enforcement of copyright We should mention when we say this, although I think it is self-evident, that the preferable alternative is reducing the scope of copyright across the board -- be it with shorter time frames (I'd argue even twenty years total is too long!) or some other means. To programmers and develope…

"The core is always the user and what they need." Which is why gnu/linux without a terminal is totally usable and therefore accesible to the non programmer. /s I agree that user centric developement should be the goal, but I hardly see it implemented. Free software programmers almost allways solved their own needs first, which is alright, because usually no one paid them to serve other peoples needs, but I seldom see…

You are confusing "software UX" with "software freedom".

The primary consideration is freedom for the user. Ease-of-use for the user is a different consideration.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#57

Post by Y-bar »

ealexhudson wrote: post #53
Y-bar wrote: post #26

> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain. I am reading this right… ? If this argument is generally true, does this mean that the output of a compiler might also be sent into the public domain? Or the live recording and broadcast of an event which involves automated machines on all levels?

No, it's incorrect and/or badly worded. The author is right that a machine cannot author things, and the stuff that the LLM might create de novo would not have copyright protection. But it's missing the point when the argument is that existing authored works could be generated via an LLM, and the authorship/copyright is already established.

> the stuff that the LLM might create de novo would not have copyright protection

Can you expand on this? From my academic studies (which are indeed growing a bit stale) a Language Model (Large, Medium, Small doesn't matter) is a deterministic machine. Give the same x input n times it will produce the same output y, n times. Some implementations of LM:s might introduce noise to randomise output, but that is not intrinsic to all LM:s.

A language model has no volition, no intent, it does not start without the intervention of a human (or another machine if it is a part of an automated chain).

How is this different compared to a compiler?

With a compiler I craft something in a specific language, often a programming language, I commit it, then a long chain of automated actions happen:

1. The code gets automatically pushed to a repository by my machine

2. The second machine automatically runs tests and fuzzes

3. The second machine automatically compiles binaries

4. The second machine packages the binaries

5. The second machine publishes the binaries to a third machine

How is the above workflow any different from someone using a Language Model to craft something in a specific language and send it through a deterministic LM?

edit re-reading my own question, I think I need to clarify a bit: How can an LLM be said to create anything, and if yes, how is that really any different from a run-of-the-mill developer workflow?

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#58

Post by cdrini »

simion314 wrote: post #24

Was proven with examples that LLM can produce exact text from it's input, this was such a problem that OpenAI had to add various filters to stop those things to repeat, this was also proven when the pre prompt was revealed. So we know for sure the LLM can spit out exact code with exact same names and comments, or exact paragraphs from books, so there is no question that it memorizes stuff and my explanation is that p…

I think there are a few different ways you can define "memory" and "memorization" here. When folks say "memorising" in the context of AI they mean "Does they AI have chunks of its training data fully/identically inside its neural network". To say "it doesn't memorize" is _not_ the same thing as saying "it has no memory". An AI also learns abstract information devoid from its textual representation. This would be an example of memory without memorization.

And you are correct; if the current lawsuits against these corporations result in a legal precedence that training on copyrighted material is not an infringement of copyright, then yes, anyone will be able to train models in that way. (Within reason; copyright/fair use is very much handled on a case-by-case basis)

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#60

Post by dist-epoch »

carom wrote: post #20

This is missing the largest argument in my opinion. The weights are the derivative work of the GPL licensed code and should therefore be released under the GPL. I would say these companies release their weights or simply not train on copyleft code. It is truly amazing how many people will shill for these massive corporations that claim they love open source or that their AI is open while they profit off of the violat…

> The weights are the derivative work of the GPL licensed code

EU courts disagree:

> Under European copyright law, scraping GPL-licensed code, or any other copyrighted work, is legal, regardless of the licence used.

Post reply on HN