News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion. Parent comment

Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by dgellow on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @03:35AM (#33244142)
> It seems clear enough to me that training AIs on copyrighted works is typically or commonly a fair use under existing law

Which laws are considered in this case? I understand that fair use is a US concept. For example how does that apply to my projects, published and licensed by a European living in a European country? I would expect the majority of GitHub contributors to not be based in the US, so what laws should be considered?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by dkyc on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @03:54AM (#33244273)
From GitHub’s Terms of Service [0]:

> Except to the extent applicable law provides otherwise, this Agreement between you and GitHub and any access to or use of the Website or the Service are governed by the federal laws of the United States of America and the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of law provisions. You and GitHub agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the City and County of San Francisco, California.

[0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by undefinedzero on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @04:05AM (#33244347)
Anyone can say that, but that doesn’t make it real, especially with regards to European consumer protection.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by abigail95 on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @04:40AM (#33244560)
Is there some EU-USA treaty that would prevent jurisdiction clauses in a normal contract between an EU resident and a California company?

The mechanisms limiting this are mostly about privacy. Not whether you can agree to adjudicate copyright or TOU in California

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by dkyc on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @05:24AM (#33244833)
It's real because our laws (including those of European countries) make it real.

Some seem to assume there's some general "If it's American it's invalid" law in Europe. This is not the case. With the exception of specific laws, such as GDPR regarding privacy, this is a perfectly valid clause.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by jeltz on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @08:12AM (#33246041)
Copyright law can be a criminal matter in my country and then it will be handled by a Swedish court. You cannot just write a contract which makes you immune to criminal prosecution.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by abigail95 on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @01:13PM (#33250711)
In Sweden you can set the jurisdiction for civil disputes in a contract.

Which is what everyone is talking about here.

For criminal, there is only jurisdiction in Sweden if the crime happened in Sweden. I would need you to link me a case where Sweden criminally convicted someone for copyright infringement who wasn't Swedish and wasn't in Sweden.

For example, I am not Swedish and do not travel there. Sweden has no power to enforce its laws against me. No matter what I do, I shouldn't be able to be convicted of criminal copyright infringent in Sweden.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by jeltz on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @08:07AM (#33246000)
I have code of mine which has been uploaded to GitHub without my permission (other than it being licensed under GPL or MIT, no contributor agreement). I cannot see how that would be covered.

Additionally copyright infringement can be a criminal matter in my country and the Swedish prosecutors have certainly not signed these agreements.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion by justinclift on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @08:23AM (#33246134)
The way GitHub is acting here, it seems to be a case of "if no-one takes us to court and sticks through to the end, then we can do whatever the hell we want". aka "Most people complaining are just making noise".

CoPilot doesn't seem to be a terrible implementation, instead it seems to be relying on it operating in a grey area. So they're going for broke, to try and get wide enough adoption that it becomes a fait accompli.

[ Parent | on HN ]