241–250 of 824 posts
P.S. I am not a lawyer.
I hope this case will fail and establish a good precedent for all future AI litigations and may be even prevent new ones. Your code is open source - irregardless of license, one might read it as a text book and then remember or even copy snippets and re-use this somewhere else unrelated to the original application. If you don't like this, don't make your code open source. This was happening and is happening independe…
> Your code is open source - irregardless of license, one might read it as a text book and then remember or even copy snippets and re-use this somewhere else unrelated to the original application. Yes, but attribution should still be given. Just because you don't copy-paste someone else's creation doesn't mean you're licensed to use it.
What if, instead of a tool, you had a random consultant do some work, and it was found out that he asked a ton of stuff on Stack Overflow and copied the CC-BY-SA 4.0 answers into his work? What if it was then found out that one of those answers was based on copying something from the Linux kernel? Who is responsible for doing the license check on the code before releasing the product?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the core principles of the American system of government is that we outsource enforcement to private parties. Instead of the public needing to fund enforcement with tax dollars private parties undertake risky litigation in exchange for the chance of a big payoff. There is a reasonable argument that's a horrible system. But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit - the entire syste…
> But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit… I don’t know man, I can simultaneously see the systemic issue that needs to be solved and also critique someone for subcoming to base needs like greed when they don’t have the need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the core principles of the American system of government is that we outsource enforcement to private parties. Instead of the public needing to fund enforcement with tax dollars private parties undertake risky litigation in exchange for the chance of a big payoff. There is a reasonable argument that's a horrible system. But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit - the entire syste…
> But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit… I don’t know man, I can simultaneously see the systemic issue that needs to be solved and also critique someone for subcoming to base needs like greed when they don’t have the need.
These people are just following incentives.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this feels like it's more a law firm and individual looking to profit and make their mark in legal history rather than an aggrieved individual looking for justice. Programmer/Lawyer Plaintiff + upstart SF Based Law Firm + novel technology = a good shot at a case that'll last a long time, and fertile ground to establish yourself as experts in what looks to be a heavily litigated area o…
Obviously this is different for the reasons you stated, but I didn’t want people to think bringing a class action lawsuit forward is a way to get rich. It’s a bit of a joke, really.
I am not against this lawsuit but I'm against the implications of this because it can lead to disastrous laws. A programmer can read available but not oss licensed code and learn from it. Thats fair use. If a machine does it, is it wrong ? What is the line between copying and machine learning ? Where does overfitting come in ? Today they're filing a lawsuit against copilot. Tomorrow it will be against stable diffusio…
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
A programmer who studied in school and learned to code did so clearly for and educational purpose. The nature of the work is primarily facts and ideas, while expression and fixation is generally not what the school is focusing on (obviously some copying of style and implementation could occur). The amount and substantiality of the original works is likely to be so minor as to be unrecognized, and the effect of the use upon the potential market when student learn from existing works would be very hard to measure (if it could be detected).
When a machine do this, are we going to give the same answers? Their purpose is explicitly commercial. Machines operate on expression and fixation, and the operators can't extract the idea that a model should have learned in order to explain how a given output is generated. Machines makes no distinction of the amount and substantiality of the original works, with no ability to argue for how they intentionally limited their use of the original work. And finally, GitHub Copilot and other tools like them do not consider the potential market of the infringed work.
API's are generally covered by the interoperability exception. I am unsure how that is related copilot or dall-e (and the likes). In the Oracle v. Google case the court also found that the API in question was neither an expression or fixation of an idea. A co-pilot that only generated header code could in theory be more likely to fall within fair use, but then the scope of the project would be tiny compared to what exist now.
The title of the submitted PDF document: "Microsoft Word - 2022-11-02 Copilot Complaint (near final)"[0] I've noticed this a lot and it's quite funny seeing what the actual filename of the document was. Does this just get included as metadata by default when you export to PDF? [0] https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/pdf/1-0-github_complaint...
I hope this case will fail and establish a good precedent for all future AI litigations and may be even prevent new ones. Your code is open source - irregardless of license, one might read it as a text book and then remember or even copy snippets and re-use this somewhere else unrelated to the original application. If you don't like this, don't make your code open source. This was happening and is happening independe…
So why MS can screw only with some licenses that you call "open source". Your example with a human reading a book would also work with code available licenses or decompiled binaries.
I would have been fine if the open source code was used to create an open model or if MS would have put his ass on the line and also train the model with all the GitHub code because they claim there is no copyright issue.
I hope this case will fail and establish a good precedent for all future AI litigations and may be even prevent new ones. Your code is open source - irregardless of license, one might read it as a text book and then remember or even copy snippets and re-use this somewhere else unrelated to the original application. If you don't like this, don't make your code open source. This was happening and is happening independe…
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this feels like it's more a law firm and individual looking to profit and make their mark in legal history rather than an aggrieved individual looking for justice. Programmer/Lawyer Plaintiff + upstart SF Based Law Firm + novel technology = a good shot at a case that'll last a long time, and fertile ground to establish yourself as experts in what looks to be a heavily litigated area o…
One of the core principles of the American system of government is that we outsource enforcement to private parties. Instead of the public needing to fund enforcement with tax dollars private parties undertake risky litigation in exchange for the chance of a big payoff. There is a reasonable argument that's a horrible system. But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit - the entire syste…
As an aside - I'm almost positive MSFT/Github expected this and their legal teams have been prepping for this moment. Copyright Law and Fair Use in the US is so nuanced and vague that anything created involving prior art by big-pocket individuals or corporations will be litigated swiftly.
I expected one of these lawsuits to come first from Getty or one of the big money artist estates against OpenAI or Stability.ai, but Getty and OpenAI seem to be partnering instead of litigating.