Microsoft will assume liability for legal copyright risks of Copilot

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 8:27 PM UTC

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #157

jcranmer wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's likely that generative AI in general will be deemed fair use, due to its (generally) transformative nature. Have you read the recent SCOTUS decision in Warhol v Goldsmith? Because that's a pretty major redefinition of transformative for the purposes of fair use, and not in a good way for arguing that generative AI is fair use, especially because it ties transformative to the market impact. That generative AI i…

From what I understand, the "market impact" test is about the value of the specific work for which the copyright has been infringed. If, 99% of the times, the generative AI systems do not output anything that a court/jury would deem a derivative work of the original, I don't see how the "effect on the market" prong can be won by the copyright holder.

Post by paxys » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 8:36 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #166

paxys wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also have the ability to install malware on Windows and use everyone's source code for training, but choose not to, because private code is private. Their own code isn't an exception. Microsoft code in Github repos is used for training, just like the rest.

Why would MS need to worry about their private code being fed into their own private AI model?

Post by backendanon » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 8:36 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #69

backendanon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is whether it extinguishes the legal protections of the owner by making the barrier to sue extraordinarily high. Conversely, if you write something that is copyright protected under the law, would you be OK with Microsoft effectively stealing that protected work and sharing it with the world without even attribution to you as the original author?

> it extinguishes the legal protections of the owner by making the barrier to sue extraordinarily high So then it supports the sharing of code for anyone to use freely, which is the opposite of the "extinguish" strategy that microsoft did in the past. > would you be OK with Microsoft effectively stealing that protected work I think that copyright protections are way way to strong and I support making almost all of th…

Post by tough » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #158

jtchang wrote: post #15

This is a very clever move by Microsoft. In essence they are painting a giant bullseye on their back to any lawsuits that may arise. The idea being that they have the resources to challenge them (they aren't wrong). The way AI is going I'm sure we'll see some landmark cases very soon. It is very much in Microsoft's interest to grow this market as fast as possible and be at the center of it. This removes one of the ke…

Yes. This is it. They are throwing down the gauntlet and saying "the Vast MS Legal Machine will fight this." Basically: "Sue me, I dare you, double dare you. or Go Home". Flexing.

Post by tremon » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

riedel wrote: post #110

satvikpendem wrote: post #47

It's likely that generative AI in general will be deemed fair use, due to its (generally) transformative nature. Sure, if you really coax it, you can get code or images out that look similar to existing ones, but the courts might see that generally speaking, it produces new content that has not been seen before, especially in the case of images. Google Books literally copied and pasted books to add to their online da…

I just want to highlight that this a very US centric view. A user of copilot in the EU might be confronted with a totally different legal regime. (No fair use per se, no copyright transferability, ...). It seems quite a bold move as being an internationally active company if there is no small print...