One doesn't have to disclaim anything that they had the good sense not to assert in the first place.
That's your opinion on how people should speak, not most people's, so feel free to disclaim when you yourself talk, but don't deem what other people should or should not say.
I’m afraid you didn’t understand what I just said. I was politely trying to say “if you wisely abstain from talking about things you don’t know about, you won’t need to disclaim that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Are there any actual details on this? I get that this is a blog post, but the only links I see on the page are to other blog posts. It leaves a lot of questions. Is this blog post a legally enforceable contract? Is Microsoft specifically indemnifying all users of Copilot against claims of copyright infringement that arise from use of Copilot? The blog post says that "there are important conditions to this program", a…
I am a lawyer and tried to find this new language but none of the legal documents I looked at appear to be updated to reflect any of this. Microsoft has a lot of different docs and it's a little confusing but the ones for Copilot are straightforward and none of those have changed any indemnity-related provisions since the spring.
The new terms will be available in early October, I believe.
Every kind of web crawler has to copy data. If that part of the AI training is illegal for that reason then every web crawler ever is suddenly declared automatically illegal.
Web crawlers generally allow sites to remove them from the index. Are there any crawlers used for commercial purposes which refuse to remove sites from an index if they ask? The distinction from OpenAI is that there is no way to be removed from openai's training set. You can remove yourself from the crawler not but not from what they previously crawled.
BIf a copy of the downloaded file is redistributed or used in possibly other ways that infringe on copyrights, THAT I could understand, but suddenly making the act of just downloading the file (assuming it is made legally available to the public). But if the downloaded file is analyzed by some software and then thrown away, I don't see how that is infringing copyrights, more than say downloading an image to decompress it and scale it to display on a screen (then throw it away once it is no longer needed).
Microsoft has lost legal battles against non-megacorps in the past. I remember some guy representing himself and winning some dispute over shrink wrap licenses and student discounts.
That's badass. Where can I read about that court case?
That's your opinion on how people should speak, not most people's, so feel free to disclaim when you yourself talk, but don't deem what other people should or should not say.
I’m afraid you didn’t understand what I just said. I was politely trying to say “if you wisely abstain from talking about things you don’t know about, you won’t need to disclaim that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Or I can just say whatever I want, as can anyone. You can only contain your own words, if you would like to "wisely abstain," then do so.
You guys aren't really getting my question. Duh, of course Microsoft makes revenue when they have more Copilot customers. But taking on such a huge external liability for a $30 subscription product just doesn't make sense. Even if it gets 1 million subscribers, it would represent 0.1% of Microsoft's overall revenue. Software lawsuits can become multi-billion dollar expenses, and targeting Microsoft instead of random…
>> Even if it gets 1 million subscribers, it would represent 0.1% of Microsoft's overall revenue. Microsoft is going all in. They want to have hundreds of millions of subscribers. They want everyone who is using Visual Studio Code for a business to use Copilot. With enough uptake, it could be a billion dollar business. >> Software lawsuits can become multi-billion dollar expenses Microsoft has teams of top lawyers an…