Live data from Hacker News

We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

githubcopilotlitigation.com

811–820 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were true, people would very easily game it, by using algorithms to automate the most trivial parts of copying someone's work. Ultimately the algorithm is automating something a human could do. There is a lot of gray area to copyright law, but you can't get around that simply by offloading to an a…

> you can't get around that simply by offloading to an algorithm. You can ...? By simply saying existing fair usage rights are limited to be used by humans and not for-profit companies building for-profit products.

First of all, that isn't simple. How do you determine what is done by humans? If the human is using a computer and using copy and paste does that still qualify?

No matter where you draw the line between "done by computers" and "done by a human simply using a computer as a tool," there will always be a lot of gray area.

Also, if I spend a year creating my masterpiece, and some kid releases a copy of it for free and claims that that's ok just because it's "not for profit," there is still a problem.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The magic-constant is not optimal there exist better alternatives. It is not necessary to implement this function and should be copyrightable. It is also not a trivial part. On the other hand, Microsoft may only need to show "Hey, we got this code from FooBar under this license and this license and ..."

Why should it be copyrightable. It's just a way to calculte inverse square root. This falls under the public, in my non lawyer opinion. Such small snippets do not qualify, usually, for copyright.

It's not just the constant but it was easiest to identify for me in the last post. And due to it's popularity the size of the snippet doesn't matter, it stands on its own as a significant work.

The essence of the algorithm takes 4 lines: function declaration, declaration of 'y', one line for calculating the exponent in log-space, one line for returning the root finding.

The rest is fluff. Every line of the snippet has creative input with the chosen names ('threehalfs' for 1.5F), the order of declarations and instructions, the redundancy. There have been internet-wars around indentations and newlines, these are style choices.

((And it is public -- GPL more specifically, which is a restrictive license that should be respected. I think this snippets makes a perfect example of the dangers of copilot. But not one to litigate details with.))

(((Thinking back, I'm not sure anymore how the license laundering argument works if they got the code from a fair-use MIT-licensed hobby project. Can one person claim fair-use and include it under an MIT-license and have somebody else say 'oh this free code I'm going to use it commercially'?)))

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is the core point of the lawsuit - is Copilot really creating code from what it learned (which happens to, by some weird glitch, mimic the source code) or is it just a big overfitting model that learned to encode and memorize a large number of answers and spit them out verbatim when prompted? I think that losing this lawsuit has much more serious consequences for Copilot than just having to connect to…

I don't think that anybody will try to answer the philosophical question in what regard what this machine does has anything to do with human reasoning. In the end it's just a machine. It's not a person. So trying to anthropomorphize this case makes no sense from the get go. Looking at it this way (and I guess this is the right way to look at it from the law standpoint) Copilot is just a fancy database . It's a databa…

Holy cow you are right.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are just compression with extra steps by that logic. There's a fairly simple technical fix for codex/copilot anyway; stick a search engine on the back end and index the training data and don't output things found in the search engine.

That feature already exists, you can turn it on here: https://github.com/settings/copilot More info: We built a filter to help detect and suppress the rare instances where a GitHub Copilot suggestion contains code that resembles public code on GitHub. You have the choice to turn that filter on or off during setup. With the filter on, GitHub Copilot checks code suggestions with its surrounding code for matches or near…

Until this is turned on by default it's not sufficient.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#815
post #634

This is why we can't have nice things. Copilot is the best thing that happened in developper tools since a long time, it increased a lot my productivity. Please don't ruin it.

Write a whole bunch of code and permit copilot learning on it! Then it would be great even without violating others' copyrights.

How would you "permit copilot learning on it"? Say, what if you could upload that code to a certain website and grant the website owner the necessary license to share your work with others (via copilot)? It sounds like that would work!

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your comment a bit perplexing, perhaps you can help me understand. Why do you want to release code on GitHub with an oppressive license? What's the motivation for you, and what's the benefit for anyone else in it being released? The size of code fragments being generated with these AI tools is, as far as I can tell, extremely small. Do you think you could even notice if your own implementation of sqrt, comment…

The point of copyleft licenses (which I assume are what you mean with "opressive") is to subvert copyright in order to incentivize others to share their code by providing them with something to build on if they return the favor. You cannot possibly call these licenses opressive since the default state with copyright is that you are not allowed to do much at all (at least when it comes to copying). In fact copyleft li…

How does one make the leap from "a source available but otherwise proprietary license" to a copyleft license? As I understand the terms, perhaps in too limited a way, a proprietary license is never one in which others are free to build on the code or incorporate any part of it into their own works, and a source available proprietary license is just publishing source that no-one can use.

As for whether Copilot's morally wrong or not - I don't think copyright as a concept makes any sense at the level of the trivial, where Copilot _should_ be acting. If Copilot regularly reproduces sizeable portions of code from a single origin _without_ careful and deliberate guidance, I'd agree that there's a problem here. As I understand it though, that's not happening.

By its very nature of being published, code from OSS is funnelled into proprietary codebases by humans performing a similar task to Copilot - reading available code and using that to evolve an understanding of how to produce software. I like to think we do it at a deeper level than Copilot, but the general effect is the same: the code I write, like the words I write, are heavily influenced by all the code I've read over the years.

If I wind up using a few words from your comment, down the line, because some turn of phrase you used struck me as a good way to say something, do you think I've morally wronged you?

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle got a very thin copyright on API signatures. The "programmer convenience" ruling in Google v. Oracle basically precludes almost all copyright action on APIs alone.

No, they got absolute copyright on the API signatures. The court did not even question any copyright, it just assumed the APIs are copyrighted by Oracle. Than it looked for reasons why copying the APIs could possibly be fair use… By the skin of their teeth they found some very involved and case specific reasons why Google's use of the copyrighted APIs was, after all, fair use. https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-art…

The reason why SCOTUS bent over backwards to not talk about copyrightability was not because they assumed it was true for APIs, but because they didn't feel like they had all the facts. They basically said "we don't know if it's copyrightable, but if it is, here's a ruling that makes this case and anything similar to it go away".

Oracle only has copyright over APIs in the Federal Circuit, because they were able to hoodwink the judge into applying patent logic[0] to a copyright case. In other circuits it's still up in the air. And in the Ninth Circuit[1] there's already loads of controlling precedent that would have resulted in Oracle's case being summarily dismissed, API copyright or no.

The term "thin copyright" is a term of art. It refers to the kind of copyright protection you get from combining uncopyrightable elements in a creative way. For example, you can't own a particular chord progression. But, if you combine that with, say, a particular instrument, some audio engineering techniques, the subject matter of the lyrics, and so on... then you start getting something that requires creative effort and thus is copyrightable. Courts still have to take this into account when ruling on copyright claims as they do not want to give people a monopoly over just the chord, or just that instrument, etc.

In the case of APIs, we're talking about a series of names, plus an arrangement of type signatures that go with them. Very much a thin copyright, as the legal profession in the US calls it.

And when you have thin copyright, courts are going to be more liberal with handing out fair use exceptions. The "programmer convenience" argument that SCOTUS adopted means that copying an API to put in a different platform is OK. The Ninth Circuit says that copying an API to reimplement a platform that other people's code relies upon is also OK. There's very little room left to actually make a copyright claim on an API alone.

In the case of Copilot, it's not merely copying APIs and filling them out with novel details. It is either generating wholly novel code, or regurgitating training data, the latter of which is just a regular 'ol infringement claim with no difficult legal questions to worry about.

[0] The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the only court with subject-matter jurisdiction over patent claims. When you're the only person who can make hammers, everything looks like a nail.

[1] The Ninth Circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction over California, which means it takes on the brunt of copyright cases.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone with more money and more resources than you profiting off your work.

Fair theoretical point. Please do name one industry, niche or platform where copyright does actually prevent this from happening in any meaningful way today.

No. I’m not the one arguing for the system to change. It’s up to you to explain how my hypothetical scenario wouldn’t exist in a copyright-free world.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's selfish to want people to abide by the license I released my project under? That's pure nonsense.

Well yeah, it is. Some function that you wrote years ago in an hour having one line taken out of it to be used in a project that wouldn't have made money anyways doesn't hurt you at all regardless of what license is on your project. Getting upset because "that was MINE!" does come off as very selfish.

It's not being upset over money, the point is not wanting proprietary code to include my code or code derived from mine.

I don't care if people make money using GPL'd code, but I do care if they take the code and strip the license so they can use it in non-free projects.

Post reply on HN