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

461–470 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#461

Post by civilized »

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…

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

Completely incorrect. False dichotomy. It's widely known that AI can and does memorize things just like humans do. Memorization isn't a defense to violating copyright, and calling memorization "adjusting a generative model" doesn't make it stop being memorization.

If you memorized Microsoft's code in your brain while working there and exfiltrated it, the fact that it passed through your brain wouldn't be a defense. Substituting "generative model" for "brain" and the fact that it's a tool used by third parties doesn't change this.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#462

Post by throwaway675309 »

How much code is necessary to be considered a copyright infringement from an existing code base?

For example let's say I'll take a single frame of animation from a cartoon, The frame contains a mountain, house, and a couple characters although those characters are not integral to the actual cartoon maybe they're extras (villagers and not named characters something like Mickey Mouse for example)

I draw a picture of a lake with a cabin next to it, then start to draw a frontiersman but I trace one of his arms from a villager of that previous frame of animation... Number one am I in danger of copyright infringement (have I hit some arbitrary threshold), and number two: am I causing monetary losses for the cartoon?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#463

Post by thomastjeffery »

xigoi wrote: post #430
thomastjeffery wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And then if we can close that loop by taking their proprietary software From where? They aren't publishing it. That's literally the meaning of proprietary.

That's not the meaning of proprietary, but otherwise you're right.

The definition gets a bit blurry around software, just like the definition of "ownership" does.

Colloquially, "proprietary software" means closed-source. You can definitely put it in context where it means "copyright without license"; but outside that context, the colloquial meaning is enough.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#464

Post by atum47 »

gpm wrote: post #370
atum47 wrote: post #186

Forgive my ignorance, but who is going to benefit from this lawsuit? I have a lot of code on GitHub, can I, for instance, expect a check in the mail in case of a win?

(Not a lawyer, so this is really definitely absolutely not legal advice and if you're looking to profit you should speak to a lawyer... for instance the lawyers who just filed the lawsuit) They're asking for two things, injunctive relief (ordering github/openai/microsoft to stop doing this) and damages. I suppose the injunctive relief really benefits anyone who doesn't want AI models to exist, because that's what it'…

> if you're looking to profit you should speak to a lawyer

No, I'm just teasing... If a neural network learns how to program by reading my code, it will generate a mess with tabs and spaces mixed together.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#465

Post by D13Fd »

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…

Correct legally, morally, or both?

Legally a copyright claim seems weak, but they didn't assert one. Some of their claims look stronger than others. The DMCA claim in particular strikes me as strong-ish at first glance, though.

Morally I think this class action is dead wrong. This is how innovation dies. Many of the class members likely do not want to kill Copilot and every future service that operates similarly. Beyond that, the class members aren't likely to get much if any money. The only party here who stands to clearly benefit is the attorneys.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#467

Post by williamcotton »

BizarroLand wrote: post #444
Aeolun wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are actually giving people is a set of chords that happen to show up in your song, the machine can suggest an appropriate next chord. It’s also smart enough to rebuild your song from the chords _if you ask it to_.

With the exception that there are infinite types of chords in this case, and even though many musicians follow familiar chord structures the underlying melodies and rhythms are unique enough for any familiar person to be able to differentiate "Red Hot Chill Peppers" from "All-American Rejects", and now there is a system where All-American Rejects hit a few buttons and a song is generated (using audio samples of "Unde…

Actually the real issue is if Copilot can stand up to these legal doctrines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#468

Post by layer8 »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #321
Taniwha wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably not and likely open to similar law suits - this is not really a bad thing

It seems like the ideal way to proceed is to make the AI output unique and creative. Perhaps that requires AGI because currently the model has no understanding of art.

Maybe more importantly, the AI needs the ability to judge when its output amounts to plagiarism, like humans generally are able to. The AI needs to feel bad about ripping off someone else’s work. ;)

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#469

Post by blackbrokkoli »

I am sorry for not bringing any kind of legal perspective here, but:

*Jesus Christ*, I hope I live long enough to see copyright die. Here we are at the cusp of a new paradigm of commanding computers to do stuff for us, right at the beginning of the first AI development which actually impresses me.

And we are fucking bickering about how we were cheated out of $0.00034 because our repo from 2015 might have been used for training.

I am also deeply disappointed in HackerNews; where is that deep hatred of patent trolls and smug satisfaction whenever something gets cracked or pirated now?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#470

Post by puffoflogic »

xigoi wrote: post #425
deanjones wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Git…

> You grant them a separate licence when you start using their service. And that license explicitly states that it doesn't give them the right to sell your code.

And it explicitly states that it does give them the right to share your code. Copilot isn't selling code; if it were, then GitHub wouldn't let you share the output of Copilot; that would destroy their market. That they allow you to share the output of Copilot with others proves that what they are selling is the service, not the output. The output is, at worst, "shared" code from Github's licensors.
Post reply on HN