311–320 of 570 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s so much FOMO right now around AI that no one is thinking clearly. I wouldn’t be so confident in your company.
I would bet you any amount of money that metas ownership over CC-generated code is never challenged or threatened
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "learning" isn't learning really. I mean it might be, but if you define learning to be a human endeavor than AI can't learn. It's perfectly reasonable to say it's okay for humans to do something but not okay for a computer program to do the same thing. We don't have to equate AI to humans, that's a choice and usually a bad one.
If one defines 'flying' to be a bird's endeavor, then humans can't fly. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to catch a metal shuttle that chucks itself through the air on wings.
The relevant extension of your analogy is should birds be required to obey FAA rules? Or should plane factories be protected as nesting sites?
Zarya of the Dawn already settled it for Midjourney output: human-written elements were protected, AI-generated images were not. The character design didn't get copyright even though the human picked, prompted, and curated. Code isn't different. Prompting Claude to produce a function is closer to prompting Midjourney to produce a frame than to writing the function yourself.
The reason it feels different to engineers is that we're used to thinking of the compiler as the analogy. But a compiler is deterministic — same input, same output. An LLM isn't. That's the line the Copyright Office is drawing, and image cases got there first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny how the copyright industry was able to spin copyright infringment into the pejorative "stealing". If you still have the item, what was stolen? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the National Stolen Property Act
I still find the idea that "learning" from code is "stealing" kind of ridiculous.
I mean I don't think think I could find a better description for following the derivatives of error in reproducing a set of works as creating a "derivative work".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it means that the appellate decision will retain precedence, no? Wouldn’t losing precedence be the primary legal effect of overturning that decision? All case law that hasn’t touched the Supreme Court could theoretically be challenged, but most of it isn’t, and it’s considered the law until it isn’t anymore, right? How would this be any different?
The decision is binding only within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So it’s not correct to say “because SCOTUS denied cert, Thaler is now binding national copyright law.” Practically speaking, it is binding on the US Copyright office (one of the parties in the case) in CADC. And that’s important. But copyright litigation happens all across the country, while this ruling only directly co…
That's quite impressive approach from the companies' perspective. Let's first use claude code and then we'll think who the code belongs to. I think that the gold rush approach happening right now around me (my company EMs forcing me to work with claude as fast as possible) show really short-sight of all the management people. First - I lose my understanding of the code base by relying too much on claude code. Second…
This is the same shape as the image cases. Zarya of the Dawn already settled it for Midjourney output: human-written elements were protected, AI-generated images were not. The character design didn't get copyright even though the human picked, prompted, and curated. Code isn't different. Prompting Claude to produce a function is closer to prompting Midjourney to produce a frame than to writing the function yourself.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prove I did not write my code if I do not tell you which tools I used. =}
That's not how that works. You warrant you wrote the code yourself, then it is found your code infringes on code owned by other entities. Now you have a tough choice: admit you lied about writing your code yourself tainting all of the code you claim you wrote since these tools became available or stand and take the infringement penalty which could be very substantial. Judges and courts don't like playing silly games…
This doesn't really make sense; in no way can an "expert" interview definitively assert someone wrote a piece of code or not, especially if the person has access to the code beforehand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one defines 'flying' to be a bird's endeavor, then humans can't fly. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to catch a metal shuttle that chucks itself through the air on wings.
Sure as a word it can be broad, as a concept in our legal system that should be much more nuanced. The relevant extension of your analogy is should birds be required to obey FAA rules? Or should plane factories be protected as nesting sites?