681–690 of 806 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not rarer than bankrupcy.
Are you sure? According to Statistica there were over 700k bankruptcies in the US from 2000-2020 [0]. How many bailouts have there been? [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/817918/number-of-busines...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Courts have not held that this is illegal. Laws are just codified version of ethics. Just because it's not codified in law, it doesn't mean it's ethically correct, and I hold ethics over laws. Some people call this conscience, others call this honor. Just because it's not deemed illegal, it's not deemed ethical. These are different things. The world has worked under honor and ethical codes for a very long time, and…
> Laws are just codified version of ethics. And a quite reasonable code of ethics is thst people do not have absolute, complete control over their intellectual property, and instead only have the ability to control it in certain circumstances. Things like fair use, which makes this legal, exists for many very good reasons. So yes, the code of ethics that society has decided on, includes perfectly reasonable exception…
What I say with the GPL license is clear:
If you derive anything from this code base, you're agreeing and obliged to carry this license to the target code base (The logical unit in this case is a function in most cases).
So the case is clear. AI is a derivation engine. What you obtain is a derivation of my GPL licensed code. Carry the license, or don't use that snippet, or in AI's case, do not emit GPL derived code for non-GPL code bases.
This is all within the accepted ethics & law. Moreover, it's court tested too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone uploads something and says 'hey, this is some code, this is the appropriate licence for it', it is their mistake, it is in violation of Github's terms of service, and may even be fraudulent. [0]. I'm also not sure that Copilot is just reproducing code, but that's a separate discussion. > If I reproduced part of a book from a source that claimed incorrectly it was released under a permissive license, I woul…
> From a civil perspective, likely the copyright owner could still claim damages from you if you were unable to reach a settlement. A court would probably determine the damages to award based on real damages (including loss of earnings for the content creator), rather than anything punitive if it's found that There are statutory damages on top of your actual damages. $50k per act of infringement. No reason for the co…
As I understand it, the complainant may CHOOSE to request the court to levy statutory damages rather than actual damages at any point, but is not entitled to both actual AND statutory (17 U.S. Code § 504)
It also seems to be absolutely capped at 30K per infringement, not 50, and ranges up from $750. It also seems that if the "court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
I think you are probably right that this specific function is copyrightable though, but taken overall, I think Microsoft's lawyers have probably concluded that they would win any challenge on this. Microsoft have lost court battles before though, so who knows?
Howdy, folks. Ryan here from the GitHub Copilot product team. I don’t know how the original poster’s machine was set-up, but I’m gonna throw out a few theories about what could be happening. If similar code is open in your VS Code project, Copilot can draw context from those adjacent files. This can make it appear that the public model was trained on your private code, when in fact the context is drawn from local fil…
Copilot is the largest disrespect to open source software I have ever seen. It is a derivative work of open source code and it is not released under the same license. It is also capable of laundering open source code. Congratulations for working on the "extinguish" phase of embrace, extend, extinguish for open source.
But they ain't some kind of special villains, its today's monopoly market kicked in. Selling startuprs to Yahoo comes with consequences.
> capable of laundering open source code That's an exaggeration. Copilot is still a dumb machine which accidentally learned to mimic the practice of borrowing intellectual property from human coders.
I just tested it myself on a random c file I created in the middle of a rust project I'm working on, it reproduced his full code verbatim from just the function header so clearly it does regurgitate proprietary code unlike some people have said, I do not have his source so co-pilot isn't just using existing context. I've been finding co-pilot really useful but I'll be pausing it for now, and I'm glad I have only been…
Searching for the function names in his libraries, I'm seeing some 32,000 hits. I suspect he has a different problem which (thanks to Microsoft) is now a problem he has to care about: his code probably shows up in one or more repos copy-pasted with improper LGPL attribution. There'd be no way for Copilot to know that had happened, and it would have mixed in the code. (As a side note: understanding why an ML engine ou…
That is why Copilot should have always been opt-in (explicitly ask original authors to provide their code to copilot training). Instead, they are simply stealing the code of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Laws are just codified version of ethics. And a quite reasonable code of ethics is thst people do not have absolute, complete control over their intellectual property, and instead only have the ability to control it in certain circumstances. Things like fair use, which makes this legal, exists for many very good reasons. So yes, the code of ethics that society has decided on, includes perfectly reasonable exception…
You're completely right. My premise is not extending the (court tested, honored) license I attach to my code. What I say with the GPL license is clear: If you derive anything from this code base, you're agreeing and obliged to carry this license to the target code base (The logical unit in this case is a function in most cases). So the case is clear. AI is a derivation engine. What you obtain is a derivation of my GP…
People are not agreeing though.
They are not agreeing, because there is a perfectly reasonable ethical and legal principle called fair use, which society has determined allows people to engage in limited use of other people's IP, no matter what the license says.
> Carry the license, or don't use
Or, instead of that, people could reasonably use fair use, and ignore the license, as fair use exists for many good legal and ethical reasons.
And no, you do not get to extend that out, to doing anything you want to do, just because there is a reasonable exception called fair use.
> do not emit GPL derived code for non-GPL code bases
Or, actually, yes do this. This is allowed because of the reasonable ethical and moral principle called fair use, which allows people to ignore your license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But - the only reason anyone makes money (other than tax money) is because they're useful to someone else. Almost all of the clothing industry companies make money from large numbers of people buying their clothes. So they are useful to us. Similarly, the reason Europe put 30% of its populace "out of work" by industrialising agriculture is why we don't have to all go work in fields all day. It is a massive net positi…
> the only reason anyone makes money (other than tax money) is because they're useful to someone else. Stealing, scamming, gambling, inheriting, collecting interest, price gouging, slavery, underpaying workers, supporting laws to undermine competitors… Plenty of ways to make money without being useful—or by being actively harmful—to someone else. > Almost all of the clothing industry companies make money from large n…
I don't equate, say, "making money" with "stealing money". I mean the way people do things within the law. Inheriting is different; the money is already made. Interest is being useful to someone else, via the loan of capital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's the responsibility of the person using the tool to generate that image not to violate copyright by redistributing it.
The tool is already redistributing it. A broadcaster of copyrighted works is not protected against infringement just because they expect viewers to only watch programming they own.
On the subject of trademarks the issue is as far as I know even more on the end user because the protections on them is around use in commerce and consumer confusion not about just recreating them like copyright protections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those details have never, ever been published in a public repository. The most simple answer would be that this is false, it was published somewhere but you are not aware of it.
An equally simple answer is that copilot is pulling code (or at least analyzing) from repositories that are not public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the only reason anyone makes money (other than tax money) is because they're useful to someone else. Stealing, scamming, gambling, inheriting, collecting interest, price gouging, slavery, underpaying workers, supporting laws to undermine competitors… Plenty of ways to make money without being useful—or by being actively harmful—to someone else. > Almost all of the clothing industry companies make money from large n…
>sold by emotionally exploiting people in rich countries under the guise of “fashion”. only emotionally crippled people like fashion, if they were healthy they would all dress in gray unitards and march in formation towards the glorious future! hey I too have often been carried away by my own rhetoric but come on!