The Copilot Lawsuit Just Got More Interesting

Copilot raises some interesting questions about copyright. But a lot of these questions have existed for awhile. I'm curious to see how the case ends up going, but thusfar, it seems like Copilot is set to win

SOURCES

S/O Ph4se0n3 for the awesome edit 🙏

[andreaszuber]

The wine project who re-implements the Windows API for Linux, for example use clean room reverse engineering. No one who ever had a look at Windows source code is allowed to contribute to avoid Microsoft suing them for intellectual property infringement, which would probably happen the second they suspect that someone with access to their sources contributed. I find it absolutely hilarious that it's now Microsoft that is completely ignoring this principal and either gets sued to hell or abolishes the strict requirements for reverse engineering they rely on to protect their intellectual property.

[haraldbackfisch]

Look over there son, witness the enshittification of everything

[diablo.the.cheater]

As sad as it is, the judge is right, those do not violate copyright, in fact we should just eliminate copyright, if we can't have copyright, the mouse shouldn't either.

[Username]

Did you use rounded rectangles? Didn't apple copyright that?

[lunchboxUFX]

man the creator of the ToDo app is about to get paaaaiiiid

[danvictorlofranco]

The suck part is, when your copilot 'accidentally' generate unauthorized person api/token on autocomplete, is clear proof of violation by github privacy on using data from repos (some report even private ones) to train their AI.

[johnblomberg]

Copyright has always, and will always be, a tool for the one who wields the most power/money to enforce their own claims. It's designed in such a way so that big corporations can use it when it suits them (they are stealing from small businesses or individuals) while at the same time crush anyone trying to do the same to them. Imagine if I trained an AI on Disney characters and then asked it to produce a "mouse looking cartoon character"... I would get destroyed the moment I try to use that commercially.

[autohmae]

1:22 no, strictly speaking it does not, you need to share the code with anyone who send the program to.
But in this context more importantly, supposedly it's viral: if you take GPL code and base something else of it, your code also will be GPL.

[kittenhero]

Copywritten refers to content that has been written by a copywriter. These are professionals who write for advertising or marketing purposes. On the other hand, copyrighted means that a work, such as a book, music, or art, is legally protected.
🤓

[hungrymusicwolf]

How can this not be a violation of copyright? I don't think the judge would say this is ok if it was done to the entirety of microsofts source code, so why is it ok for smaller developers?

Edit: 8:05 You take the words right out of my mouth. There's too much focus on the AI and too little on the similarity of the output and input themselves.

[rikschaaf]

16:30 bad take, because this doesn't take into account the "independent creation" defense, that can be used when two works are substantially similar
"independent creation is a complete defense to copyright infringement" - RentMeester v. Nike

[JaysonMinard]

Another error, is that patents do not required you to know about a patent to violate it. If you did, it is more willfull and increases damage, but you are in violation either way.

[Zed_Oud]

16:30 you’ve switched how patents and copyright works. That’s kind of incredible.

Copyright violations must be derived from, copied.

Patents, well it doesn’t matter if you’ve never seen the patent before, that’s why you need to file patents asap. I thought Bell patenting the telephone was famous enough?

Software patents is where it gets weird, as mathematics is not patentable, but applications can be. It’s a real grey area.

[jeffreyblack]

I see 3 main purposes for open source licenses:
1 - To make it clear that it is without warranties so if you use the code/program it is on you, and you can't sue for damages.
2 - To make it clear that you are able to reuse the code in other projects.
3 - Only applicable to some, like the GPL, to require you to release the code for any project using this code under the same license so it can be distributed for free and built upon.

[bradweir]

At least when AI can decompile, these companies won't mind if we open source their proprietary source code.

[lunalangton]

So, if I push an AI into emitting all of Windows' source code, is it blessed by AI as distinct from the original material that probably found its way into the training material now? Even if it's bit-perfect identical?
What exactly does Microsoft want, say, ReactOS to do wrt generated code?

[LifeYourGames]

I like the implications here:
Before I can write any code, I must first know the entire worlds vault of proprietary code just because the code might be too similar.

[schtormm]

portfolio so diverse you have to start every video with a investment disclosure now 😂

[JaysonMinard]

Bad description of copyright law in music. There has to be a likelihood that you were influenced by the original work. Some obscure work you likely never would have heard cannot sue you, yet a common song that is well listened to, even in the background, could sue.

[prosto]

One important thing that also was ignored: if a repo has LICENSE file with open source in it - it doesn't mean that this code has this license. The author could write their code with violation of licenses of thirt party code, and so theirs license is legally void. Or they could copy-paste a code with different license with its own linense file. There are a lot of nuances