Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub-Next

githubnext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: GitHub-Next

#51

Post by searchableguy »

jacquesm wrote: post #48
voxic11 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but then every large AI project is also committing copyright violations because as Microsoft notes this is currently a common practice in the AI research community.

Other parties doing is no excuse imo. Microsoft has been super litigious in the past when it came to copyright violation starting all the way back with Bill Gates' letter in Byte magazine about those pesky pirates. To see them do this makes pirating MS software fair game from here on. They could have asked nicely, instead they just took.

> Other parties doing is no excuse imo

It is. Laws are adapted based on widespread technological capabilities and progress.

As an example, if it is easy to create real voice or signature using AI models - they should no longer be considered effective evidence for contractual reason instead of enforcing that it is illegal to forge it. That is not going to work.

Past shouldn't dictate what we allow tomorrow.

Re: GitHub-Next

#52

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

jacquesm wrote: post #27
voxic11 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things were ultimately ruled as fair use though which is what Microsoft is claiming here as well.

Those things were fair use, what Microsoft is doing is copyright violation pure and simple.

This should absolutely be litigated to stop the blatant laundering of copyright under the guise of fair use.

Copilot's API is surfacing snippets of work without licensing information attached alongside. It can be shown in discovery that Copilot does access the origin work.

The sooner this is slapped down, the sooner we can avoid addressing the even more troubling question that exists today: is someone who used Copilot to throw together a bunch of code infringing copyright of works where those portions originate?

This is a complex problem with no satisfying conclusions... how could one be violating copyright if they never accessed the 'copied' work to copy? Copyrights aren't patents. Infringement requires copying.

Using Copilot launders the user's awareness of the origin works, yet making the Copilot users liable for widespread "accidental" copying would be troubling.

Re: GitHub-Next

#53

Post by geoffeg »

jayroh wrote: post #16

If anyone on the team at GitHub who built this site sees this -- Heads up, that page has no ` ` tag so the browser tab is `githubnext.com/`. That is a _VERY_ minor nit, but still an SEO ding (you're github, that doesn't matter much), and a rough edge that could be buffed out. Bonus points for adding a favicon too. :)

I noticed that twitter.com also has no tag, the title gets set once the JS loads. Kinda surprising to me that such a popular site like Twitter doesn't have such a basic HTML tag.

Re: GitHub-Next

#55

Post by Aeolun »

chrismorgan wrote: post #45
capableweb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long time ago I read/skimmed the specification, but I think the DOCTYPE preamble is the only _required_ element in a HTML5 document. The specification allows you to omit if it's empty, and if that's allowed, then it should be allowed to not having any elements as well. Edit with details from https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/document-metad... > Note: The title element is a required child in most situation…

It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. Same with the html and body elements. (These remarks apply to HTML syntax only; in XML syntax, which is certainly still a thing, you can (if you care not for validity) omit whatever elements you choose to, only needing some root element.) As far as sources are concerned, the HTML spec is ma…

> It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional.

That’s like calling a cheese sandwich without any cheese a cheese sandwich.

Re: GitHub-Next

#57

Post by jacquesm »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #52
jacquesm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things were fair use, what Microsoft is doing is copyright violation pure and simple.

This should absolutely be litigated to stop the blatant laundering of copyright under the guise of fair use. Copilot's API is surfacing snippets of work without licensing information attached alongside. It can be shown in discovery that Copilot does access the origin work. The sooner this is slapped down, the sooner we can avoid addressing the even more troubling question that exists today: is someone who used Copilo…

It's not complex at all: if you use Copilot to generate code for you you are engaging in copyright infringement.

That you got the code from and entity that stole it somewhere else doesn't really matter. Generative models should respect copyright for their sources, and using a generative model to create new works that you intend to claim copyright on is stupid: someone may well show up one day with ironclad proof that you used their code without permission.

Re: GitHub-Next

#58

Post by jacquesm »

searchableguy wrote: post #51
jacquesm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other parties doing is no excuse imo. Microsoft has been super litigious in the past when it came to copyright violation starting all the way back with Bill Gates' letter in Byte magazine about those pesky pirates. To see them do this makes pirating MS software fair game from here on. They could have asked nicely, instead they just took.

> Other parties doing is no excuse imo It is. Laws are adapted based on widespread technological capabilities and progress. As an example, if it is easy to create real voice or signature using AI models - they should no longer be considered effective evidence for contractual reason instead of enforcing that it is illegal to forge it. That is not going to work. Past shouldn't dictate what we allow tomorrow.

Sorry, but that's not how the law works. Try that excuse the next time you're stopped for speeding and see how well it works.

Re: GitHub-Next

#59

Post by mooktakim »

jayroh wrote: post #16

If anyone on the team at GitHub who built this site sees this -- Heads up, that page has no ` ` tag so the browser tab is `githubnext.com/`. That is a _VERY_ minor nit, but still an SEO ding (you're github, that doesn't matter much), and a rough edge that could be buffed out. Bonus points for adding a favicon too. :)

This is minor compared to all the new websites that use div's for link and button tags.

Re: GitHub-Next

#60

Post by ectopod »

Aeolun wrote: post #55
chrismorgan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. Same with the html and body elements. (These remarks apply to HTML syntax only; in XML syntax, which is certainly still a thing, you can (if you care not for validity) omit whatever elements you choose to, only needing some root element.) As far as sources are concerned, the HTML spec is ma…

> It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. That’s like calling a cheese sandwich without any cheese a cheese sandwich.

It's not a sandwich recipe. The bread doesn't matter. The cheese does.
Post reply on HN