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

511–520 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#511

Post by blackbrokkoli »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #254

If Microsoft is so confident in the legality and ethics of Copilot, and that it doesn't leak or steal proprietary IP... they should go train it on the MS Word and Windows and Excel source trees. What's that? They don't want to do that? Why not?

Did they make a statement that they did not want to do that?

Because if not I would offer the very mundane explanation that the Copilot team probably just couldn't be bothered hitting up the other software teams and jumping through 3,046 internal red tape compliance steps to make their product 0.001% better (I am pretty sure the code base of all of GH dwarfs MS code base quite a lot)

I can't believe I am actually defending fucking Microsoft, but just want to say there isn't a conspiracy everwhere...

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#512

Post by [deleted] »

albertzeyer wrote: post #407

I really don't understand how there can be a problem with how Copilot works. Any human just works in the same way. A human is trained on lots and lots of of copyrighted material. Still, what a human produces in the end is not automatically derived work from all the human has seen in his life before. So, why should an AI be treated different here? I don't understand the argument for this. I actually see quite some dan…

[deleted]

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#513

Post by 0x_rs »

schleck8 wrote: post #135
Imnimo wrote: post #47

On page 18, they show Copilot produces the following code: >function isEven(n) { > return n % 2 === 0; >} They then say, "Copilot’s Output, like Codex’s, is derived from existing code. Namely, sample code that appears in the online book Mastering JS, written by Valeri Karpov." Surely everyone reading this has written that code verbatim at some point in their lives. How can they assert that this code is derived specif…

> Surely everyone reading this has written that code verbatim at some point in their lives Ironically their Twitter account uses a screenshot from a TV series as profile picture. I wonder how legal that is, even if meant as a joke. https://twitter.com/saverlawfirm Edit: It's been changed 2 minutes after I wrote this comment

>their

"Joined November 2022", following one account and no followers. It's generous to consider it a genuine account, no?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#514

Post by bawolff »

squokko wrote: post #171
bawolff wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any function devoid of "creativity" is. No choices equal no creativity. As a note the same applies to logos. Very simple logos that are only some lines and shapes, do not have copyright (in usa)

Logos can still have trademark without having copyright as creativity is not a requirement of trademarks.

True, but trademark and copyright are pretty different on a fundamental level both in the purpose behind the law and how its implemented. I suspect if it weren't for the term "intellectual property" tying trademark, copyright and patents together, we wouldn't really think of them in such a unified way since they are all really different from each other.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#515

Post by heavyset_go »

D13Fd wrote: post #465
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. Bey…

Innovation dies when creators can't create without someone ripping off their work against the terms they release it under.

I am more hesitant to release code on GitHub under any licenses now. Even outside of GPL-esque terms, I've considered open sourcing some of my product's components under a source available but otherwise proprietary license, but if Microsoft won't adhere to popular licenses like the GPL, why would they adhere my own licensing terms?

If my licenses mean nothing, why would I release my work in a form that will be ripped off by a trillion dollar company without any attribution, compensation or even a license to do so? The incentives to create and share are diminished by companies that won't respect the terms you've released your creations under.

That's just me as an individual. Thinking in terms of for-profit companies, many of them would choose not to share their source code if they know their competitors can ignore their licenses, slurp it up and regurgitate it at an incomprehensible scale.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#516

Post by 8note »

eropple wrote: post #376
naikrovek wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which Copilot doesn't have a license to distribute when you upload code to a public repository on github.com, you necessarily grant GitHub the right to host that code and serve it to other users. the methods used for serving are not specified. This is above and beyond the license specified by the license you choose for your own code. you also necessarily grant other GitHub users the right to view this code, if the…

Host that code. Serve that code to other users. It does not grant the right to create derivative works of that code outside the purview of the code's license. That would be a non-starter in practice; see every repository with GPL code not written by the repository creator. Whether the results of these programs is somehow Not A Derivative Work is the question at hand here, not "sharing". I think (and I hope) that the…

The page surrounding the code in the GitHub UI is a derivative work, isn't it?

It's an html file containing both the licensed code and some other html

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#517

Post by D13Fd »

kelnos wrote: post #506
D13Fd wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Bey…

I'm fine with Copilot, but I think all rightsholders should be allowed to decide if they want their code training it or not. And that should be opt-in, not opt-out. (And refusing to opt in shouldn't have to mean switching to a new hosting platform.) > 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. That's the case in pretty muc…

>I look at class actions as having two purposes . . . to require that the defendant stops doing something

That's my point. Many of the class members don't want the company to stop doing this.

I have code on GitHub, and Copilot is a useful tool. I don't care if my code was used to train the model. Sure, I personally could opt out of the suit, but that would be utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The bottom line is, if I'm a coder with code on Github and I like Copilot, this suit is a huge net negative.

Even more importantly, I want to see the next version of Copilot that will be created by some other company, and then the next version after that. I want development to continue in this area at a high velocity. This suit does nothing but put giant screeching brakes on that development, and that is just a shame.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#518

Post by Ptchd »

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…

I agree with you, buy what if you share 1% of a copyright binary file that is completely useless when shared partially, is that infringement?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#519

Post by rolenthedeep »

Consider each repo on github to be a movie. What copilot does is to search for sequences of frames from any movie which line up to create a new coherent movie.

Individually, each frame is protected by the copyright of the movie it belongs to. But what happens if you take a million frames from a million different movies and just arrange them in a new way?

That's the core question here. Is the new movie a new copyrightable work, or is it plagiarizing a million other works at once? Is it legal to use copyrighted works in this way?

The other question is if it is right to use copyrighted works this way. Is this within the spirit of open source software? Or is this just a bad corporation taking advantage of your good will?

I'm not sure where I stand on this, it's a complicated problem for sure. Definitely interested to see how this plays out in court.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#520

Post by heavyset_go »

D13Fd wrote: post #517
kelnos wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with Copilot, but I think all rightsholders should be allowed to decide if they want their code training it or not. And that should be opt-in, not opt-out. (And refusing to opt in shouldn't have to mean switching to a new hosting platform.) > 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. That's the case in pretty muc…

>I look at class actions as having two purposes . . . to require that the defendant stops doing something That's my point. Many of the class members don't want the company to stop doing this. I have code on GitHub, and Copilot is a useful tool. I don't care if my code was used to train the model. Sure, I personally could opt out of the suit, but that would be utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The bot…

If you don't feel like you're being represented, you're free to choose not to be a member of class in the lawsuit.
Post reply on HN