We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot • Hacker News Board

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#381

Post by iampuero » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #330

bombolo wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The brain is also just a "complex math program" Source?

The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately.

I feel like this is a massive oversimplification...

In this answer, you're completely ignoring the massive fact that we cannot create a human brain. Having mathematical models about particles does not mean we have "solved" the brain. Unless you're also believe that these LLMs are actually behaving just like human brains, in that have consciousness, they have logic, they dream, they have nightmares, they produce emotions such as fear, love, anger, that they grow and change over time, that they controls body, your lungs, heart, etc...

You see my point, right? Surely you see that the statement 'The brain is also just a "complex math program"' is at best extremely over-simplistic.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#382

Post by lovich » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #302

lovich wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I perhaps wasn’t clear, I meant that I am not sure I want copilot constrained in this way. If I solidify that belief into definitely not wanting copilot constrained, then this would be a negative suit for me

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#383

Post by bqmjjx0kac » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #330

bombolo wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The brain is also just a "complex math program" Source?

The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately.

> The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known

There is a gaping chasm between observing known physics, and saying it is the cause of consciousness.

You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

[ Edit: better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness ]

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#384

Post by heavyset_go » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:30 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #222

belorn wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The common practice in copyright cases is to calculate damages based on the theoretical cost that the infringer would have paid if they have bought the rights in the first place. This method was used during the piratebay case to calculate damages caused by the sites founders. They did not actually calculate damages in terms of lost movie tickets or estimates vs actually sales number of sold game copies. When it came…

The one thing we can say with complete certainty is that most programmers who had their code used without permission will not receive very much money at all if this class action lawsuit is decided in their favor.

I don't want money, I want the terms of my licenses to be adhered to.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#385

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

bpicolo wrote: post #318

bogwog wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I hope comes out of the lawsuit. If a company wants to sell an AI model, they need to own all of the training data. It can't be "fair use" to take other peoples' works at zero cost, and use it to build a commercial product without compensation. And maybe models trained on public data should be in the public domain, so that AI research can happen without requiring massive investments to obtain the trainin…

> It can't be "fair use" to take other peoples' works at zero cost, and use it to build a commercial product without compensation. You just described open source software. That's the whole heart of this lawsuit, and equally Copilot. It was trained on OSS which is explicitly licensed for free use.

[deleted]

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#386

Post by lamontcg » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

drvortex wrote: post #308

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…

> but snippets of it cannot

Yeah they can, and the whole functions that Copilot spits out are quite obviously covered by copyright.

> especially when they are used in a different context.

That doesn't matter.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#387

Post by naikrovek » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #376

naikrovek wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which Copilot doesn't have a license to distribute when you upload code to a public repository on github.com, you necessarily grant GitHub the right to host that code and serve it to other users. the methods used for serving are not specified. This is above and beyond the license specified by the license you choose for your own code. you also necessarily grant other GitHub users the right to view this code, if the…

Host that code. Serve that code to other users. It does not grant the right to create derivative works of that code outside the purview of the code's license. That would be a non-starter in practice; see every repository with GPL code not written by the repository creator. Whether the results of these programs is somehow Not A Derivative Work is the question at hand here, not "sharing". I think (and I hope) that the…

copilot isn't creating derivative works: copilot users are.

the human at the keyboard is responsible for what goes into the source code being written.

to aid copilot users here, they are creating tools to give users more info about the code they are seeing: https://github.blog/2022-11-01-preview-referencing-public-co...

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#388

Post by adriand » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #328

drvortex wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is demonstrably false. It is a system outputting character-for-character repository code.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33457517

If I use Photoshop to create an image that is identical to a registered trademark, is the rights violation my fault or Adobe’s fault?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#389

Post by deanjones » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

mldq wrote: post #373

deanjones wrote: post #322

This will fail very quickly. The licence that project owners publish with their code on Github applies to third parties who wish to use the code, but does not apply to Github. Authors who publish their code on Github grant Github a licence under the Github Terms: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... Specifically, sections D.4 to D.7 grant Github the right to "to store, archive, parse, and d…

This is the standard content display license that everyone uses. Even in your quoted text I don't see any hint that snippets can be shown without attribution or the code license. It also says they can't sell the code, which CoPilot is doing. Also, in a very high number of cases it isn't the author who uploads. Repeating your line of argumentation (which occurs in every CoPilot thread) does not make it true.

It's irrelevant whether it's standard or not. Again, the terms in the code licence (including attribution) do not apply to Github, because that is not the licence under which they are using the code. You grant them a separate licence when you start using their service.

If someone who isn't the author has uploaded code which they do not have a right to copy, they are liable, not Github. This is also clear from the Github Terms: "If you're posting anything you did not create yourself or do not own the rights to, you agree that you are responsible for any Content you post"

It's almost as if these highly paid lawyers know what they're doing.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#390

Post by HWR_14 » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

elil17 wrote: post #369

HWR_14 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the goal. To stifle using someone else's work. Like, copyright laws are also stifling my innovative business creating BluRays of Disney films and selling them on Amazon.

That sucks for little snippets of software though, doesn’t it? It’s like copyrighting individual dance moves (not allowed under the current system) and forcing dancers to never watch each other to make sure they’re never stealing.

I mean, it's not like the copyrights are keeping you from doing things. It's stopping you from looking at someone else's source. And it's not like source is easy to accidentally see like dance moves are.