Hacker News Reader

Comment by zarzavat | Hacker News Reader

If the argument is that the tool is facilitating copyright infringement by users then it matters whether or not the users actually keep the supposedly infringing code, yes. If the code gets deleted immediately afterwards by the user then the claim of infringement by the user is farcical.

If the argument is that copilot is infringing because it merely displays an allegedly copyrighted snippet for a few moments, even if the user does not accept the completion, or accepts it but then deletes it, then that is a completely different argument because there is very little identifiable damage to the authors, which bolsters an argument of fair use.

View on HN

The tool itself is infringing copyright. It possesses and reproduces copyrighted code without it's attribution. Full stop.

If I steal your television, it doesn't matter how much I get for it at the pawn shop.

You can Google and find GPL'ed code. That doesn't mean Google is facilitating license violation even though the Google search index posses and reproduces GPL'ed code.

> It possesses and reproduces copyrighted code without it's attribution.

To be clear - attribution does not fix GPL license violation.

You can Google and find GPL'ed code.

Emphasis mine.

This is different from asking Google and getting code directly from Google without the license - that is, without any indication that this code was taken from somewhere that has a license on all parts of it, not just the parts that Google didn't bother to show you.

Copyright doesn’t go away simply because you edit what was copied, deleting it may work assuming you don’t recreate to much of the original work.

There is a concept in copyright law of derivative work which means simply editing Harry Potter isn’t enough to publish it without paying for the rights to do so. Even highly transformative fanficfion can run into this issue when much of the original work’s characters and setting remain.

Disney gets away with this stuff by copying public domain works, copilot and it’s users don’t have that defense.

The key word is fan fiction. Almost every single word in fiction is a creative expression and thus copyrightable.

But works of non-fictional literature (of which source code is an example) have to work harder to justify their copyright.

Many of the snippets of code generated by copilot contain zero creative expression. They are just mechanical implementations of an algorithm.

You mentioned setting and plot. The source code equivalent is architecture. Copilot generated snippets are usually too short and too algorithmic to have their own architecture.

What makes a derivative work derivative is that it copies creative expressions from the parent work. If you edit them out, then it’s not a derivative work anymore.

But what if not has the algorithm be designed for to extract that creative expression from the original work.

The use is only helping developing the algorithm by adding more value to the product in improving extracting the creative expression.

Copilot is a loose/loose game for developers, regardless on which end they are.

Variable names are just as subject to copyright as character names, and specific implications of algorithms can vary quite a bit. Just look at the homework assignments of any introductory programming course.

Which is why even very short snippets of code have been an issue.

> it matters whether or not the users actually keep the supposedly infringing code

That's not how this works.

If I give you a blob of uniformly random bits and then give you a passphrase you can use with a tool to turn that into a Hollywood movie, and you do so, and then you delete it, that isn't not copyright infringement.

> If I give you a ... Hollywood movie, ... that isn't not copyright infringement.

It is.

I'm no lawyer, but judging how people reacted to DeCSS (09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0, anyone?)… why do you say this isn't copyright infringement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com