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

An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

katedowninglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#51

Post by robinsonb5 »

rlpb wrote: post #19
steve_gh wrote: post #10

Hmmm. I'm interested in the GitHub ToS, which (if I understand correctly) basically says that GitHub and it's affiliates (MS) can use anything you post on GitHub to improve their service. What if I build an AGPL licenced service, using GitHub to coordinate development. According to the ToS MS could offer a version my service because I posted the code on GitHub, and they are using it to improve their service to me. Ac…

Consider that you can post somebody else's code to GitHub, and that may be licensed AGPL (or anything else). In that case, somebody else is the copyright holder so clearly the ToS doesn't magically give GitHub any additional rights and the licence applies. The most they could do is transfer any liability back to you for posting it in breach of some term in their ToS. But that would be absurd since posting someone els…

The ToS do give GitHub an indemnity against the consequences of that scenario - so if the actual copyright holder complains about copilot spitting out their code without proper attribution and license, they could indeed transfer to the liability to the uploader. (That scenario could apply to GPL and MIT code, too, not just AGPL.)

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#52

Post by jackdaniel »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #47

A hypothetical question: imagine a filmmaker, who had studied a lot of obviously copyrighted movies by famous renowned directors. This means he has trained his neural network using their copyrighted licensed content. Does he breach copyright when he composes and films a scene? Are visual quotes copyright theft? Homages? Did George Lucas infringe copyright when he was borrowing compositions from "Triumph of the will"?

I see this argument over and over again, and it is so flawed that it is hard to bear.

There is no equal sign between a person and a program.

There is also that thing called "scale" that is critical to the interpretation of the action.

Is eating meat fine? - maybe. Is eating all animals OK? - Hmm...

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#53

Post by NavinF »

throwaway290 wrote: post #28
guhayun wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>networks get trained on own output And sometimes the network improves,depending on the quality or direction of the output,the client can a valuable critic even without being an expert in the field

Excellent, let's see how your client critiques and improves on a song, an artwork or some source code suggested by Copilot. (By the way, do you have an objection to my point? I must have missed it.)

You didn't make a point. Training generative models on their own output after filtering for quality is a well known technique for improving image quality for a single mode. This can happen automatically when generated images become popular on the internet.

"Excellent, let's see how your car goes faster when you push the gas pedal"

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#54

Post by classified »

izacus wrote: post #45
visarga wrote: post #2

I think copyright itself might be on its way out. What meaning does a copyright have when I can click "Variations" on anything and get 4 suggestions in 10 seconds? Imagine how good they will be by 2030.

There has never been more support for tightening and enforcing copyright than there is today. This is very unlikely to change due to megacorps like Microsoft, Disney, Apple et.al. having a massive vested interest to use it to extract maximum profits.

Copyright protection for the rich and powerful, while those who cannot afford armies of lawyers get their stuff stolen by machine learning models. Sounds credible to me.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#55

Post by jansommer »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #40
steve_gh wrote: post #10

Hmmm. I'm interested in the GitHub ToS, which (if I understand correctly) basically says that GitHub and it's affiliates (MS) can use anything you post on GitHub to improve their service. What if I build an AGPL licenced service, using GitHub to coordinate development. According to the ToS MS could offer a version my service because I posted the code on GitHub, and they are using it to improve their service to me. Ac…

An interesting though experiment is how keen Microsoft would be to allow Copilot to be trained on the Office or Windows source code. If the output is truly free of copyright from its training materials then if not, why not?

It's likely already trained on Windows source code unless they have specifically excluded the repositories of the leaked Win 2000 code. Perhaps someone who's never going to contribute to ReactOS and Wine can verify?

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#56

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

jackdaniel wrote: post #52
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #47

A hypothetical question: imagine a filmmaker, who had studied a lot of obviously copyrighted movies by famous renowned directors. This means he has trained his neural network using their copyrighted licensed content. Does he breach copyright when he composes and films a scene? Are visual quotes copyright theft? Homages? Did George Lucas infringe copyright when he was borrowing compositions from "Triumph of the will"?

I see this argument over and over again, and it is so flawed that it is hard to bear. There is no equal sign between a person and a program. There is also that thing called "scale" that is critical to the interpretation of the action. Is eating meat fine? - maybe. Is eating all animals OK? - Hmm...

> Is eating meat fine? - maybe. Is eating all animals OK? - Hmm...

This argument is hardly less flawed than the one you are criticizing. And you statement that 'there is no equal sign ...' is also unconvincing, as we're not equating these two, but the process of learning, which is quite similar.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#57

Post by uklgrant »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #47

A hypothetical question: imagine a filmmaker, who had studied a lot of obviously copyrighted movies by famous renowned directors. This means he has trained his neural network using their copyrighted licensed content. Does he breach copyright when he composes and films a scene? Are visual quotes copyright theft? Homages? Did George Lucas infringe copyright when he was borrowing compositions from "Triumph of the will"?

Humans are not neural networks, that's just a thesis.

Even novelists do not sit all day long in a closed room reading other people's work and then do a collage of what they've read. Otherwise no books would have been written in the first place.

Cut the AI off humans' work, let it interact with the real world and see what it produces. It will be nothing.

Once (if ever?) an AI is capable of producing an actual original work, I'm fine with other AIs stealing from the first one. Please leave humans alone.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#58

Post by nomilk »

uklgrant wrote: post #57
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #47

A hypothetical question: imagine a filmmaker, who had studied a lot of obviously copyrighted movies by famous renowned directors. This means he has trained his neural network using their copyrighted licensed content. Does he breach copyright when he composes and films a scene? Are visual quotes copyright theft? Homages? Did George Lucas infringe copyright when he was borrowing compositions from "Triumph of the will"?

Humans are not neural networks, that's just a thesis. Even novelists do not sit all day long in a closed room reading other people's work and then do a collage of what they've read. Otherwise no books would have been written in the first place. Cut the AI off humans' work, let it interact with the real world and see what it produces. It will be nothing. Once (if ever?) an AI is capable of producing an actual original…

> Humans are not neural networks

That's correct, but it misses the point.

This is about reconciling 1. being allowed but 2. not being allowed:

1. The human uses a machine, where the machine is an organic one it grew itself.

2. The human uses a machine, where the machine is one it made or acquired.

To a lot of us, there's no difference.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#59

Post by jimktrains2 »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #56
jackdaniel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this argument over and over again, and it is so flawed that it is hard to bear. There is no equal sign between a person and a program. There is also that thing called "scale" that is critical to the interpretation of the action. Is eating meat fine? - maybe. Is eating all animals OK? - Hmm...

> Is eating meat fine? - maybe. Is eating all animals OK? - Hmm... This argument is hardly less flawed than the one you are criticizing. And you statement that 'there is no equal sign ...' is also unconvincing, as we're not equating these two, but the process of learning, which is quite similar.

> but the process of learning, which is quite similar.

Thats the thing, there is no reason to think that they are similar.

Re: An open source lawyer’s view on the copilot class action lawsuit

#60

Post by 6stringmerc »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #47

A hypothetical question: imagine a filmmaker, who had studied a lot of obviously copyrighted movies by famous renowned directors. This means he has trained his neural network using their copyrighted licensed content. Does he breach copyright when he composes and films a scene? Are visual quotes copyright theft? Homages? Did George Lucas infringe copyright when he was borrowing compositions from "Triumph of the will"?

No.

Next hypothetical.

Post reply on HN