81–90 of 824 posts
In this case, wouldn’t the users of copilot be the ones responsible for any copyrighted code they may have accessed using copilot?
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…
Say I produce a licensed library. Someone can pay me $5/year per license. I keep the code private and compile the code before sending it to customers. If you have co-pilot trained on my code base (which was private), that then reproduces near replica's of my code then they sell it for $5/year... Well, I'm eligible for damages.
(If it was, please tell me how, since that would save me $5/year across multiple libraries..!)
Seems to me the underlying data should be opt-in from creators and licenses should be developed that take AI into consideratiin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A programmer can read available but not oss licensed code and learn from it Actually, we were forbidden to look at open source code at Microsoft (circa 2009) because it might influence our coding and violate licenses.
That demonstrates that copyright laws are already stifling innovation.
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…
Say I produce a licensed library. Someone can pay me $5/year per license. I keep the code private and compile the code before sending it to customers. If you have co-pilot trained on my code base (which was private), that then reproduces near replica's of my code then they sell it for $5/year... Well, I'm eligible for damages.
Copying a few lines is not the same as copying the whole thing. Sharing quotes from a book is not copyright infringement.
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…
They did not actually calculate damages in terms of lost movie tickets or estimates vs actually sales number of sold game copies. When it came to pre-releases where such product wouldn't have been sold legally in the first place, they simply added a multiplier to indicate that the copyright owner wouldn't have been willing to sell.
For software code, an other practice I have read is to use the man-hours that rewriting copyrighted code would cost. Using such calculations they would likely estimate the man hours based on number of lines of code and multiply that with the average salary of a programmer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A programmer can read available but not oss licensed code and learn from it Actually, we were forbidden to look at open source code at Microsoft (circa 2009) because it might influence our coding and violate licenses.
That demonstrates that copyright laws are already stifling innovation.
Like, copyright laws are also stifling my innovative business creating BluRays of Disney films and selling them on Amazon.
I am not against this lawsuit but I'm against the implications of this because it can lead to disastrous laws. A programmer can read available but not oss licensed code and learn from it. Thats fair use. If a machine does it, is it wrong ? What is the line between copying and machine learning ? Where does overfitting come in ? Today they're filing a lawsuit against copilot. Tomorrow it will be against stable diffusio…
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…
Say I produce a licensed library. Someone can pay me $5/year per license. I keep the code private and compile the code before sending it to customers. If you have co-pilot trained on my code base (which was private), that then reproduces near replica's of my code then they sell it for $5/year... Well, I'm eligible for damages.
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…