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

731–740 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#731

Post by nickelpro »

fsflover wrote: post #671
nickelpro wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) No it doesn't, there's nothing in the Copilot model or the plugin that represents or constitutes a reproduction of copyright code being distributed by GH/MS. The allegation is it generates code that constitutes a copyright violation. This distinction is not academic, it's significant, and represents an unexplored area of copyright law. B) "parts of" copyright works are not themselves sufficient to constitute a cop…

> The allegation is it generates code that constitutes a copyright violation. The weights of the Copilot very likely contain verbatim parts of the copyrighted code, just like in a zip archive. It chooses semi-randomly which parts to show and sometimes breaks copyright by displaying large enough pieces. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33458603

Speculation, and furthermore the model itself isn't distributed to consumers.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#732

Post by [deleted] »

nickelpro wrote: post #731
fsflover wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The allegation is it generates code that constitutes a copyright violation. The weights of the Copilot very likely contain verbatim parts of the copyrighted code, just like in a zip archive. It chooses semi-randomly which parts to show and sometimes breaks copyright by displaying large enough pieces. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33458603

Speculation, and furthermore the model itself isn't distributed to consumers.

[deleted]

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#733

Post by nickelpro »

couchand wrote: post #611
nickelpro wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attribution is irrelevant in Authors Guild, the books were not released under open source licenses where attribution is sufficient to meeting the licensing terms. Google never sought or obtained licenses from any of the publishers, and the court ruled such a license was not needed as Google's usage of the contents of the books (scanning them to build a product) did not represent a copyright infringement. Attribution…

Attribution goes directly to factors 1, 3, and 4 of the fair use test.

In some contexts it's used to characterize the purpose of the copying, but it's not a consideration that was made in Authors Guild.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#734

Post by nickelpro »

klabb3 wrote: post #627
nickelpro wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not something to dismiss but it is something that has already been addressed. Authors Guild v Google. Google Books is built upon scanning millions of books from libraries without first gaining permission from copyright holders, this was found to not be a violation of copyright. Building a product on top of copyright works that does not directly distribute those works is legal. More specifically, a computer consu…

> Authors Guild v Google. Google Books is built upon scanning millions of books from libraries I agree it's relevant precedent, but not exactly the same. Libraries are a public good and more importantly Google books references the original works. In short, I don't think that's the final word in all seemingly related cases. > More specifically, a computer consuming a copyright work is not a violation of copyright. I d…

Your disagreement and feelings about how copyright and the law should work are valid, they have very little to do with how copyright is addressed judicially in the United States

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#735

Post by BenjiWiebe »

heavyset_go wrote: post #338
smoldesu wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program” Not really? It's less about arithmetic and more about inferencing data in higher dimensions than we can understand. Comparing it to traditional computation is a trap, same as treating it like a human mind. They've very different, under the surface. IMO, if this is a data problem then we should treat it like one. Simple fix - find a legal basis for which licenses a…

I've been saying AI is computational statistics on steroids for a while, and I think that's an apt generalization of what ML is.

If it's just statistics, wouldn't that mean you wouldn't get verbatim output? i.e. you'd throw away all high frequency content?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#736

Post by pjfin123 »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #469

I am sorry for not bringing any kind of legal perspective here, but: *Jesus Christ*, I hope I live long enough to see copyright die. Here we are at the cusp of a new paradigm of commanding computers to do stuff for us, right at the beginning of the first AI development which actually impresses me. And we are fucking bickering about how we were cheated out of $0.00034 because our repo from 2015 might have been used fo…

Copyright needs to be largely abolished.

This is ridiculous; we created A is that can program themselves and people are worried about incidental copyright infringement.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#737

Post by bkuhn »

In case folks here were curious, we at the Software Freedom Conservancy have asked the Plaintiffs to endorse the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL enforcement: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/nov/04/class-action-laws...

… & of course we again ask Microsoft's GitHub to start respecting FOSS licenses, cooperate with the community, & retract their incorrect claim that their behavior is “fair use”.

A few more links to our work on this issue:

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/feb/03/github-copilot-co... https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/feb/23/committee-ai-assi...

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#738

Post by BenjiWiebe »

8note wrote: post #516
eropple wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It still has attribution.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#739

Post by BenjiWiebe »

franciscop wrote: post #487
blackbrokkoli wrote: post #469

I am sorry for not bringing any kind of legal perspective here, but: *Jesus Christ*, I hope I live long enough to see copyright die. Here we are at the cusp of a new paradigm of commanding computers to do stuff for us, right at the beginning of the first AI development which actually impresses me. And we are fucking bickering about how we were cheated out of $0.00034 because our repo from 2015 might have been used fo…

I am only slightly hopeful for a lawsuit so that it loses spectacularly and sets a precedent that this is legal; however I don't trust the legal system enough to think they'll logically reach that conclusion. My code is 100% in Github Pilot, is there any way to publicly say that I'm against the lawsuit even if they pretend to represent me?

If you'd license or relicense all your code to explicitly allow AI training without attribution on it, I would see that as you saying you're in favor of copilot here.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#740

Post by BenjiWiebe »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #10

As a non-lawyer, I am very suspicious of the claim that "Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct." Flagrant disregard for copyright? Sure, maybe. The output of the model is subject to copyright? Who knows! But the copyright holders being damaged in some what? Seems doubtful. The best argument I could think of would be "GitHub would have had to pay us for this, and th…

Well, the code I write is under GPL, at least it is when I remember to put an explicit license to it or if anyone asks be for permission to use it.

If someone wants to use it commercially without complying with the GPL, I have no problem with allowing that, for a price.

Either use the code freely and openly, or pay me so you can make money on my code.

Copilot could conceivably allow someone to use my code commercially (and in a closed manner) without negotiating with me, the copyright holder.

Post reply on HN