Re:I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as t...
by BlueTemplar on Saturday July 03, 2021 @09:14PM
(#27726530)
> I am capable of summarizing the thoughts of lawyers
Then, I'm sorry, but you seem to have done a pretty bad job of summarizing that paper ?
My own take on summarizing it's conclusion would be :
"If the program can pass the Turing Test, then it should be legally liable, just like a human would."
(Yes, emphasis on the should here, but the way that you're presenting that quote might make readers think that that paper's conclusion is the opposite one !)
----
> Nobody is really being hurt when a new tool makes it easier to copy little bits of code from the internet.
Some of the examples from that paper are A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster (no comment) and White Smith Music Publ’g Co. v. Apollo Co. (piano rolls), and in that latter case we pretty much (?) got the whole Copyright Act of 1909 the very next year, where these “mechanical reproductions” were subjected to a statutory compulsory license.
So at the very least there should be concern about how Copilot might be eventually considered by the courts to facilitate copyright infringement and at the very least have to provide the source of its "insights" ?
(Attribution being the bare minimum that most of the software licenses require.)
Then, I'm sorry, but you seem to have done a pretty bad job of summarizing that paper ?
My own take on summarizing it's conclusion would be :
"If the program can pass the Turing Test, then it should be legally liable, just like a human would."
(Yes, emphasis on the should here, but the way that you're presenting that quote might make readers think that that paper's conclusion is the opposite one !)
----
> Nobody is really being hurt when a new tool makes it easier to copy little bits of code from the internet.
Some of the examples from that paper are A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster (no comment) and White Smith Music Publ’g Co. v. Apollo Co. (piano rolls), and in that latter case we pretty much (?) got the whole Copyright Act of 1909 the very next year, where these “mechanical reproductions” were subjected to a statutory compulsory license.
So at the very least there should be concern about how Copilot might be eventually considered by the courts to facilitate copyright infringement and at the very least have to provide the source of its "insights" ?
(Attribution being the bare minimum that most of the software licenses require.)