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

We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

githubcopilotlitigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#301

Post by test098 »

cheriot wrote: post #85
citilife wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I produce a licensed library. Someone can pay me $5/year per license. I keep the code private and compile the code before sending it to customers. If you have co-pilot trained on my code base (which was private), that then reproduces near replica's of my code then they sell it for $5/year... Well, I'm eligible for damages.

> that then reproduces near replica's of my code Copying a few lines is not the same as copying the whole thing. Sharing quotes from a book is not copyright infringement.

> Sharing quotes from a book is not copyright infringement.

It is if I take those quotes and publish them as my own in my own book.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#302

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

lovich wrote: post #262
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they're doing is a service, though. Say that $10 million worth of damage against others has been done. If the law firm does not act, the villainous curs who caused that damage get to keep their money and are incentivized to do it again. If the law firm does act and prevails, then the villains lose their ill-gotten gains (in favor of the law firm and, sometimes, to an extent, the injured parties). That's preferab…

That implies it’s a service I want, which I have not decided on in this situation. Either way I was more arguing with the other posters claim that it “didn’t make sense” to critique this move, which I think is factually incorrect since I can come up with a few plausible situations where it does make sense

it doesn't imply it's a service you want, but rather, if you do want it, you can opt-in to the service by joining the lawsuit when the time comes

if you feel the class doesn't represent you, you can just not opt-in

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#303

Post by Supermancho »

rowanG077 wrote: post #297
Cort3z wrote: post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.

> The brain is also just a "complex math program".

This is not a fact.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#304

Post by lisper »

rowanG077 wrote: post #297
Cort3z wrote: post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.

Somewhere in the complex math is the origin of whatever it is in intellectual property that we deem worthy of protection. Because we are humans, we take the complex math done by human brains as worthy of protection by fiat. When a painter paints a tree, we assign the property interest in the painting to the human painter, not the tree, notwithstanding that the tree made an essential contribution to the content. The whole point is to protect the interests of humans (to give them an incentive to work). There is no other reason to even entertain the concept of "property".

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#305

Post by leni536 »

foooobaba wrote: post #81

If github or google indexes source code using a neural net to help you find it, given a query, is that also illegal? If you think of copilot as something that helps you find code you’re looking for, is it all that different, and if so, why? In this case, wouldn’t the users of copilot be the ones responsible for any copyrighted code they may have accessed using copilot?

Both services already accept DMCA notices to take content down.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#306

Post by ugh123 »

Cort3z wrote: post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

Attributions are fundamental to open source? I thought having source openly available was fundamental to open source (and allowed use without liability/warranty) as per apache, mit, and other licenses.

If they just stick to using permissive-licensed source code then i'm not sure what the actual 'harm' is with co-pilot.

If they auto-generate an acknowledgement file for all source repos used in co-pilot, and then asked clients of co-pilot to ship that file with their product, would that be enough? Call it "The Extended Github Co-Pilot Derivative Use License" or something.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#307

Post by varispeed »

celestialcheese wrote: post #133

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…

> rather than an aggrieved individual looking for justice.

How an aggravated individual can seek justice from a big multinational corporation? That's not possible unless that individual is a retired billionaire wanting to become a millionaire.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#308

Post by drvortex »

Cort3z wrote: post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

Your code is not in that thing. That thing has merely read your code and adjusted its own generative code.

It is not directly using your code any more than programmers are using print statements. A book can be copyrighted, the vocabulary of language cannot. A particular program can be copyrighted, but snippets of it cannot, especially when they are used in a different context.

And that is why this lawsuit is dead on arrival.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#310

Post by kadoban »

rowanG077 wrote: post #297
Cort3z wrote: post #270

I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…

The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.

The legal world tends to be less interested in these kind of logical gotchas than engineering types would like. I don't see a judge caring about that brain framing at all.

Not to mention, if your brain starts outputting Microsoft copyright code, they're going to sue the shit out of you and win, so I'm not sure how that would help even so.

Post reply on HN