Microsoft will assume liability for legal copyright risks of Copilot

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #119

CharlesW wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's likely that generative AI in general will be deemed fair use, due to its (generally) transformative nature. This isn't how "fair use" works, in the sense that there can never be a blanket assurance like that. Also, whether the result is "transformative" is just one of many factors (see audio sampling/remixing).

It's not how fair use works now , but many things about copyright law will have to change radically over the next few years. There's too much at stake.

Post by andybak » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:10 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #156

andybak wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if you train it only one my huge repo of GPL code? You are just remixing my code. The word "remixing" here is useful because it will fit any conclusion the reader prefers. Arguably even in your reductive example, the result would be non-infringing. Or not. Which conclusion you reach is exactly the topic under debate. Isn't this textbook question begging?

But in this case the LLM will predict the next token based on the input data, all the input is mine , Microsoft tweaked some numbers to make the interpolation mroe correct. Imagine I get the Windows source code and rename the variables by adding a "314" after each varaible, after each function name and rebuild Windows, in your definition this is remixing and fair ?

Post by bb611 » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #86

It may not be that simple: Microsoft may assume liability but an infringer can still be sued separately. MS may then be on the hook for the court costs. But you can't just categorically shield the users of a product from being sued. This is the key bit: "Specifically, if a third party sues a commercial customer for copyright infringement for using Microsoft’s Copilots or the output they generate, we will defend the c…

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

backendanon wrote: post #185

stale2002 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> side step copyright protections So, are you saying people should only obey the laws they agree with when those people feel they're morally justified higher than those who voted for the laws in the first place, because it's your opinion to do so or did I not grok what you are saying you support?

Post by gareth_untether » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:21 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #194

Let Microsoft first publish a Copilot model that's trained on the internal codebases of Azure, Windows and Office. That's the only way Microsoft can convince me that they truly believe Copilot is non-infringing technology.