News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion. Parent comment

Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by johnfn on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @12:54AM (#33243116)
> Also I would argue if Google would randomly display content of full websites and never post links to the original content

Google does do this though. Just Google for an easy to answer question, like “when was George Washington born”

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by kvdveer on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @01:37AM (#33243353)
The answer to a factual question is not copyrightable, so while you may have moral problems with that, there is no legal argument.

The same applies to all realistic use-cases for copilot by the way. Whatever is produces is not copyrightable.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by cycomanic on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @02:08AM (#33243535)
> The answer to a factual question is not copyrightable, so while you may have moral problems with that, there is no legal argument.

Correct.

>The same applies to all realistic use-cases for copilot by the way. Whatever is produces is not copyrightable.

That's a pretty bold statement to make. How do you know how people use copilot? Also IIRC Oracle vs Google essentially determined 3 lines of code can be copyrightable. So I think you statement fails on two points, you can't really predict how people use copilot and you cannot predict what a court would decide is copyrightable (this is much less straight forward than statement of facts).

[ Parent | on HN ]