News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub Copilot is not infringing copyright by moralestapia on Monday July 05, 2021 @06:33PM (#27742435)
>I think the original question is legitimate and relevant

You didn't see the original question, it was edited, so we cannot discuss that further.

"[...] which means “distribute” under copyright law" <-- Citation needed please, because I don't think that's correct.

From the site you linked:

"Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending."

What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive.

The moment you create a new thing and start distributing it (even if you do not modify it), you become the de facto owner of that new product, and copyright law is trying to limit the extent of the rights that apply there. So, in the case of music, it's different thing to play (reproduce) a song than to create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution).

Re:GitHub Copilot is not infringing copyright by dahart on Monday July 05, 2021 @06:37PM (#27742467)
> "Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending."

> What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive.

What you've misunderstood is it is the copies that are sold, not the copyrights.

* edit

> create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution).

This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word.

Re:GitHub Copilot is not infringing copyright by moralestapia on Monday July 05, 2021 @06:44PM (#27742533)
>What you've misunderstood is it is the copies that are sold, not the copyrights.

Sorry, I'm not following you anymore. I don't even know what you mean by that sentence.

Edit:

>This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word.

But, that's exactly what redistribution entails ...

Re:GitHub Copilot is not infringing copyright by dahart on Monday July 05, 2021 @06:50PM (#27742562)
> Sorry, I'm not following you anymore. I don't even know what you mean by that sentence.

The transfer of ownership you referred to is a transfer of ownership of a copy, it is not a transfer of ownership of the original work itself. You misunderstood the passage you quoted to mean that redistribution is transferring ownership of the work itself, as in copyright ownership of the work. But the text you quoted is only talking about transferring ownership of the copies. The text you chose makes more sense in the context of physical copies of books or "phonorecords".

Re:GitHub Copilot is not infringing copyright by moralestapia on Monday July 05, 2021 @07:20PM (#27742758)
I'm not following your logic, really.

Copyright is meant to protect original/authentic/unprecedented expressions, disregarding the medium where they may exist. So I don't really get your point in trying to make distinction between a copy or a "master"(?) or whatever.

What's at stake is the originality of the expression and what kind of rights does somebody else (i.e. everyone but the creator) have (or not!) over it.

Can I make copies of this original expression? (y/n)

Can I use this into a new product of my own? (y/n)

Whether something is already a copy or not does not really change the extent of the rights that you have (unless it's explicitly stated in the license, of course).

Re:GitHub Copilot is not infringing copyright by dahart on Monday July 05, 2021 @07:32PM (#27742826)
> I’m not following your logic, really

I can see that, and I mean no disrespect, but you shouldn’t have attempted to comment on this topic authoritatively and police what others say without understanding it.

> I don’t really get your point in trying to make distinction between a copy or a “master”(?) or whatever.

You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t understand what “distribute” and “redistribution” means to copyright law. You claimed others were confused about it and that using the word “redistribute” was incorrect, when in fact it was fine and correct.

I’m trying to help you understand that redistribution is a term that is talking about what happens to copies of a work. The sentence you quoted, and the “transfer of ownership” that you said you grasp only have to do with transferring copies, and nothing else.

The main point here is that when GitHub shows you code, it is transferring a copy to you. That is what GitHub calls “publish” and what copyright law calls “publication”, and by publishing they mean redistribution (because the copyright legal code says so).

Re:GitHub Copilot is not infringing copyright by dahart on Monday July 05, 2021 @07:07PM (#27742682)
> that's ("create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution)." exactly what redistribution entails

No, it isn't. You're wrong. Redistribution, or just distribution, in copyright law is plainly and simply making copies of a work available to other people. It does not mean anything more than that, and it does not transfer ownership of anything other than the copy you distribute.