If running the data through a ML model, removes the copyright. Then we could always train models with specific input to remove copyright on that data, and we follow through on that. We could easily remove copyright on anything, and that would, if the courts upheld that. Be the death kneel for copyright. Can't really see that happening. But maybe that is just my limited imagination.
Maybe I can't read, but it's just not there. This ruling giving precedent to train generative ML systems with any source material seems to be nothing more than a shared fiction entertained by the ML industry.
This.
Ianal but I feel pretty sure that the content of the work is what is in question, not how it was created with regards to copyright. I think wikipedia more or less says this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Limitat...
If you have a piece of code that would be infringing if you wrote it in Emacs. How can it not be infringing if it was written by VSCode and Copilot? I just don't see how any court would hand down such a judgment.
What I do think that Github could get away with, is not being liable for copyright infringement in my code if I used Copilot and it gave me some code that infringed. But that would just move that liability to me. Good for Github, not so good for me.