451–460 of 570 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free water but not electricity? I'll just hook up a generator to the shower... These sorts of simplistic loopholes rarely work. Imagine if you could get copyright for the linux kernel by just rearranging it and renaming a few variables.
I wonder how much of linux and *BSD is in the windows kernel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I do understand it - laws are contradictory and can do whatever people shout out the most that they should do (but they don't always work that way). I just think that it is extremely bad when laws work this way. Technically when you select "copy image" instead of "copy image url" and paste that to a friend you're often committing copyright infringement. Do I think this is reasonable? Absolutely not. The same goes…
> Oh, I do understand it - laws are contradictory and can do whatever people shout out the most that they should do (but they don't always work that way). I just think that it is extremely bad when laws work this way. You are completely misunderstanding GP's distinction between ownership and liability. In short, if you use someone else's car to kill someone, you are still liable for killing that person even though yo…
In your analogy: He was driving the car, he is liable for the death. He is the author of the work of driving the car.
You are kinda unnecessarily introducing the creation of an object used for the work. Whoever did create the car/boulder is not liable for what happened.
So whoever made the LLM is not the author but the one who used it to create the code.
Claude don't write code? The LLM writes code. Claude loops the LLM into writing consistent code. Humans loop Claude into consistently looping the LLM. Who own's the code? Who owns a potato? If the code is the produce of the LLM and that costs tokens, the owner of the code is the one who paid for the tokens. Money, time or attention, someone pays for the tokens, owns the code.
I don't get what this analogy is trying to tell me but I know nothing about potato law. Is this about the Belgian potato surplus?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you hover over a line of code in your application, coding assistance services will display code strings of supported function calls available through the coding assistance service that are also present in your current code file. Coding assistive services will retrieve snippets from publicly available open source code showing how others are using those same functions. 3. THIRD PARTY COMPONENTS. The software may i…
I've read that paragraph multiple times (both in the original and in your post) and I don't see anything that says who owns the resulting text. Just where it comes from. Am I missing something obvious?
Pretty sure it depends on the license the open source project uses. I dont think it's too troublesome if the autocomplete was truly only taken from open source projects, but it wouldn't surprise me if most closed source projects are also weighted into these models...
That's not at all like checking the dependency chain of a dependency or anything as you can just read the licence of anything you're choosing to use. Surely the precedent would have to be that a model trained on GPL code has itself been infected by GPL, and therefore must have all source/weights released too if the assumption here is that it can have embedded the code well enough to be able to reproduce it?
Claude don't write code? The LLM writes code. Claude loops the LLM into writing consistent code. Humans loop Claude into consistently looping the LLM. Who own's the code? Who owns a potato? If the code is the produce of the LLM and that costs tokens, the owner of the code is the one who paid for the tokens. Money, time or attention, someone pays for the tokens, owns the code.
>Who owns a potato? I don't get what this analogy is trying to tell me but I know nothing about potato law. Is this about the Belgian potato surplus?
Claude don't write code? The LLM writes code. Claude loops the LLM into writing consistent code. Humans loop Claude into consistently looping the LLM. Who own's the code? Who owns a potato? If the code is the produce of the LLM and that costs tokens, the owner of the code is the one who paid for the tokens. Money, time or attention, someone pays for the tokens, owns the code.
My opinion, copyright has mattered very little in the corporate world. Copyright is effectively meaningless with SaaS, and the compiled software ran on your machine is protected more by technical controls and EULAs. A world where copyright didn't exist for software would look nearly the same for the commercial world. Trade secrets, NDAs, and employment contracts bind workers more than copyright. The only thing that t…
What is being licensed by the End User License Agreement (EULA) is the copyright on the code and its artefacts (executable bytes, etc.) - you can't have an EULA without having the copyright to license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Although this decision is not binding in other circuit courts, this decision still is something that you can bring to a judge in other courts. They are not required to follow this ruling because they are not in that circuit. However, they still will consider what other courts have said and that will be incentive to think hard before they do something different. A judge who does something different is generally expect…
Claude don't write code? The LLM writes code. Claude loops the LLM into writing consistent code. Humans loop Claude into consistently looping the LLM. Who own's the code? Who owns a potato? If the code is the produce of the LLM and that costs tokens, the owner of the code is the one who paid for the tokens. Money, time or attention, someone pays for the tokens, owns the code.
I pay to listen to songs. Do I own them?
Even consumption is usually limited to private usage: in my country, a consumer subscription is not enough to broadcast in a cafe or even a waiting room.