Live data from Hacker News

Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

writings.hongminhee.org

311–320 of 623 posts

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds very similar to that whole API lawsuit with oracle.

And the whole Adobe pdf thing and the whole Microsoft word thing. And the whole ibm pc thing. Imagine if we were forced to keep using ibm from when they lost their way until now simply because anti-ai luddites were able to scare monger

I would wager that the vast majority of people commenting here about the pitfalls of AI, especially as it relates to governance and laws, are heavy users of AI, recognize the import and value it brings, and find ways to utilize it more themselves, so not sure using an ad-hominem dismissal of very valid objections are going to be effective.

(side bar: the phrase "anti- luddites" is way, way overused, especially here. Let's get more creative, people!)

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#312
post #166

I think the missing thing here is that the license violation already happened. Most of the big models trained on data in a manner that violated terms of service. We'll need a court case but I think it's extremely reasonable to consider any model trained on GPL code to be infected with open licensing requirements.

You might wish that were true, but there are very strong arguments it's not. Training on copyleft licensed code is not a license violation. Any more than a person reading it is. In copyright terms, it's such an extreme transformative use that copyright no longer applies. It's fair use. But agreed that we're waiting for a court case to confirm that. Although really, the main questions for any court cases are not going…

Transformative is not the only component of determining fair use, there’s also the economic displacement aspect. If you’re doing a book report and include portions of the original (or provide an interface for viewing portions à la Google Books) you aren’t a threat to the original authors ability to make a living.

If you’ve used copyrighted books and turned them into a free write-a-book machine, you are suddenly using the authors own works against them, in a way that a judge might rule is not very fair.

“ Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.”

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#313
It also erodes copyright. A decent amount of commercial software can be AI cloned with no copyright violation.

A lot of SaaS too, especially if AI can run a simple deploy.

We might be approaching a huge deflationary catastrophe in the cost of a lot of software. It’s not a catastrophe for the consumer but it is for the industry.

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#314

> If source code can now be generated from a specification, the specification is where the essential intellectual content of a GPL project resides. Our foreparents fought for the right to implement works-a-like to corporate software packages, even if the so-called owners did not like it. We're ready to throw it all away, and let intellectual property owners get so much more control. The implications will not end up b…

>Our foreparents fought for the right to implement works-a-like to corporate software packages, even if the so-called owners did not like it Our "foreparents" weren't competing with corporations with unlimited access to generative AI trained on their work . The times, they're-a-changin'. You're rehashing the argument made in one of the articles which this piece criticizes and directly addresses, while ignoring the en…

I mean. Yeah. GPL's genius was that it used Copyright, which proprietary enterprise wouldn't dare dismantle, to secure for the public a permanent public good.

Pretty sure no one, (but me anyway) saw overt theft of IP by ignoring IP law through redefinition coming. Admittedly I couldn't articulate for you capital would skill transfer and commoditize it in the form of pay to play data centers, but give me a break, I was a teenager/twenty something at the time.

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#315
post #166

I think the missing thing here is that the license violation already happened. Most of the big models trained on data in a manner that violated terms of service. We'll need a court case but I think it's extremely reasonable to consider any model trained on GPL code to be infected with open licensing requirements.

I agree there has to be a court case about it. I think the current argument, however, is that it is transformative, and therefore falls under fair use.

You don’t get to simply claim fair use based on how transformative your derivative work is.

“”” Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use:

Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.

Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread. “””

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#316

> If source code can now be generated from a specification, the specification is where the essential intellectual content of a GPL project resides. Our foreparents fought for the right to implement works-a-like to corporate software packages, even if the so-called owners did not like it. We're ready to throw it all away, and let intellectual property owners get so much more control. The implications will not end up b…

>Our foreparents fought for the right to implement works-a-like to corporate software packages, even if the so-called owners did not like it Our "foreparents" weren't competing with corporations with unlimited access to generative AI trained on their work . The times, they're-a-changin'. You're rehashing the argument made in one of the articles which this piece criticizes and directly addresses, while ignoring the en…

I believe the GP post is saying that if we react to the new AI-enabled environment by arbitrarily strengthening IP controls for IP owners, the greatest benefactors will almost certainly be lawyer-laden corporations, not communities, artists, or open source projects. That seems like a reasonable argument.

It seems like the answer is to adjust IP owner rights very carefully, if that's possible. It sounds very hard, though.

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big question is: if copyrighted material was used in the training material, is the LLM's output copyright infringement when it resembles the training material? In your example, you are taking the copyrighted material and giving it to the LLM as input and instructing the LLM to process it. Regardless of where the legal cards fall, this is a much less ambiguous scenario.

I think Disney ran into this with people generating Marvel characters etc

Fictional characters can have their own copyright.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/protecting-fictional...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#318
I largely agree with the author that AI can't just magically remove license agreements by rewriting code.

However, I take issue with his version of history:

>The history of the GPL is the history of licensing tools evolving in response to new forms of exploitation: GPLv2 to GPLv3, then AGPL.

GPLv3 set open source backwards: it wasn't an evolution to protect anything, it was a an overly paranoid failure. Don't believe me? Just count how many GPL3 vs. how many GPL2 projects have been started since GPL3 dropped.

Again, I'm very pro-OSS, but let's not pretend the community has always had a straight line of progress forward; some stuff is crazy Stallman stuff that set us back.

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#319
post #162

The really interesting question to me is if this transcends copyright and unravels the whole concept of intellectual property. Because all of it is premised on an assumption that creativity is "hard". But LLMs are not just writing software, they are rapidly being engineered to operate completely generally as knowledge creation engines: solving math proofs, designing drugs, etc. So: once it's not "hard" any more, does…

The basis of your argument is that AI-generated work isn't hard, but your conclusion is that ALL work, AI-generated or not, should lose IP rights?

Re: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally that's been established as acceptable. Google LLC v Oracle America assumed (though didn't establish) that API's are copyrightable... BUT that developing against them falls under fair use , as long as the function implementations are independent. Test suites are again generally considered copyrightable... but the behavior being tested is not . So no, it's not considered to be a work based on the library. This…

> Also, the LGPL text doesn't say "work based on the library". It does, about a dozen times. Are you perhaps referring to LGPL3? I think the license under discussion here is LGPL2.1. https://github.com/chardet/chardet/blob/6.0.0/LICENSE I'm not well versed in copyright case law, so I won't argue with the rest of what you wrote. Thanks for elaborating on your thoughts.

Oh sorry, I was indeed looking at the newer LGPL version. I stand corrected, thanks! But yes, all the same points stand. Good discussion!
Post reply on HN