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

GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

felixreda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#61

Post by nhinck3 »

I don't think the interpretation of the 2019 Directive is correct.

There is definitely arguments to be made that Copilot contravenes this:

> they can be applied only in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.

and the only other exception is:

> ... (a lawful use) ... of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

By laundering licensing restrictions copilot definitely has the ability to conflict with the normal exploitation of works and also doesn't have independent economic significance because it competes with programmers.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#63

Post by JW_00000 »

carom wrote: post #20

This is missing the largest argument in my opinion. The weights are the derivative work of the GPL licensed code and should therefore be released under the GPL. I would say these companies release their weights or simply not train on copyleft code. It is truly amazing how many people will shill for these massive corporations that claim they love open source or that their AI is open while they profit off of the violat…

> The weights are the derivative work of the [GPL licensed] code

This is not immediately obvious to me.

A small though experiment: the Harry Potter books are clearly copyrighted works. If I generate a frequency list of all words in these books, i.e. a list of all words and how often they appear, that frequency list is derived from the original work, in the normal way we would use the word "derived". But is it a "derivative work", under the strict legal definition of this term?

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#64

Post by lukan »

lelanthran wrote: post #56
lukan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The core is always the user and what they need." Which is why gnu/linux without a terminal is totally usable and therefore accesible to the non programmer. /s I agree that user centric developement should be the goal, but I hardly see it implemented. Free software programmers almost allways solved their own needs first, which is alright, because usually no one paid them to serve other peoples needs, but I seldom see…

You are confusing "software UX" with "software freedom". The primary consideration is freedom for the user. Ease-of-use for the user is a different consideration.

"The core is always the user and what they need."

I was referring to this and the main thing users need, is software they can use to solve their problems. If they have to study IT to do so, or hire programmers first, then this would be primarily a new (and big) problem to them, before they even can start working on their problem.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#65

Post by actionfromafar »

elpocko wrote: post #55
jeroenhd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your creative work (the novel algorithms) are protected under normal copyright. Depending on where you live, you may even be able to patent those algorithms. The output of those algorithms isn't a creative work (as you're running a creative work to generate them, not applying any kind of creativity once the program is finished), so it's not protected. Same with generated code. The lines get a bit blurry when you star…

I have an unreleased game that contains thousands of procedurally generated 3d models, textures and sounds. I've worked for years on those algorithms; they are my brushes and my paint. So when (if) I release that game, anyone can just rip the assets, not even apply any transformation, and put them in their own product. I would have to let them do it with no legal recourse. That doesn't seem right.

The reasoning indeed seems a bit simplistic. As if a C file werena creative work but the resulting EXE file would not be.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#66

Post by dtech »

lifeformed wrote: post #51
dtech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The machine argument also rings hollow to me. This same argument could be made for a scanner + printer that does some transformation - changes colors a bit randomly or something - I'd be having a hard time convincing a court the resulting image is now copyright free. Obviously LLMs are much more advanced than this, but in the basis it's still a machine that takes its input data and applies specified transformations w…

The machine argument makes sense to me. It shifts the blame from the machine creators to the machine users. A copying machine creator is not responsible for misuse of the machine, nor is it illegal to simply Xerox a copyrighted work. Distributing the copy is where the law comes into play, and it targets the person distributing it, not the machine or the manufacturer. Obviously, it seems impossible for an LLM user to…

The difference here is that Xerox isn't trying to handwave away copyright, while OpenAI et al. are explicitly defending the position in court that LLM output doesn't violate copyright, not that the LLM user is responsible for copyright violations. (I'd be hilarious for them to try to take this stance thought)

I.i.r.c. they even "give you a license" to use LLM output, implying that they own the copyright. Too lazy to look this up so I might be wrong there though.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#68

Post by haksz »

pornel wrote: post #46
carom wrote: post #20

This is missing the largest argument in my opinion. The weights are the derivative work of the GPL licensed code and should therefore be released under the GPL. I would say these companies release their weights or simply not train on copyleft code. It is truly amazing how many people will shill for these massive corporations that claim they love open source or that their AI is open while they profit off of the violat…

GPL doesn't apply/doesn't have to be agreed to when the usage is allowed by the copyright law in another way. GPL can't override copyright exceptions like fair use (details vary by jurisdiction, but the principle is the same everywhere). Even the license itself states it's optional, and you don't have to agree it (if you don't, you get the copyright law's default). Author of the article is a former member of the Pira…

I would say that the Pirate Party has expertise in nothing apart from perhaps protecting Internet freedoms.

So the same persons that supported Napster and the Pirate Bay now want to circumvent copyright for open source software.

An unholy alliance, but the recent comments from some Microsoft brass about everything on the Web being freeware seems to indicate that these are the talking points that Microsoft and its new allies will put out.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#69

Post by Havoc »

Feels like a bit of an over correction.

LLMs seem to - with the right prompt- be able to reproduce copyrighted work. So it is “in there” in some abstract baked in sense.

We really need some sort of legal middle ground to reflect reality on the ground. It’s not quite straight stealing but it’s also not entirely not copied.

Re: GitHub Copilot is not infringing your copyright (2021)

#70

Post by londons_explore »

kimixa wrote: post #52
zarzavat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the output is substantially similar to GPL’d training data it may be infringing. Nobody disputes this. However, copyright isn’t cooties. If the output is not similar, then it is not infringing regardless of how much GPL’d training data was used to generate it.

Indeed, that's why I said >"How much change is enough" has always been a gray area for courts and humans to decide. But copilot has been shown to generate chunks of sufficient size and specificity that as a layman it very much feels like "copied GPL code". And my boss agrees too - we have a blanket ban on generative AI tools in our work because it's not considered worth the risk.

> has been shown to generate chunks of sufficient size and specificity

Only when given chinks of copyrighted code as input. I don't think anyone has demonstrated big chunks of copyrighted code in the output when copyrighted code isn't present in the query/context.

In fact, I suspect microsoft specifically filters the output for that.

Post reply on HN