Poor wording on my part, I'm not wanting or eagerly waiting for that to happen but know that it will(and it did, like clockwork as I noted below) and as expected it was just as stupid as ever. If the Trump cult went silent overnight I'd be perfectly thrilled to have the world that little bit less stupid as nothing of value was lost.
If code is released public domain without restriction, then it will be quickly taken and locked up by proprietary corporate giants who have no incentive to collaborate or give back to the project, With the current licences, they have to do such things.
Anyone could already use code that is already in the public domain to make free software or proprietary software, so it's no issue if Copilot spits out public domain code. If the code turns out to be copylefted rather than in the public domain, then Copilot would allow people to lock up copylefted code as if it were public domain code.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public
I don’t see how code completely in the public domain can ever be “locked up”. It’s public domain.
That's not the issue here. The issue here is Copilot occasionally spitting out copylefted code. If a court were to decide that that code should be public domain because it is the output of an AI, then that copyleft license would be nullified. Putting copylefted code in the public domain would weaken the license obligations which are supposed to keep the code free no matter who modifies it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
I should have been clearer in my initial comment. What I'm worried about is that people who release their not-Copilot-assisted software under a copyleft license such as a GNU GPL and expect that the license will protect the freedoms of users and developers all the way down through the modified versions of that software. Copilot puts the copyleft requirements in jeopardy because it doesn't know when it is copying code and it can't tell the user about the licenses of any code it happens to copy.
As Bradley Kuhn writes in the article I meant to link to in my initial comment (emphasis mine):
Consider GitHub’s claim that “training ML systems on public data is fair use”. We have not found any case of note — at least in the USA — that truly contemplates that question. The only legal case in the USA to look near this question is Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court denied certiorari on this case; it is not legal precedent in all jurisdictions where Microsoft and GitHub operate.
Even more, that case considered a fact pattern centered around search, not authorship of new/derived works. Google had made copies of entire copyrighted books, not for the purpose of displaying them, but so users could (1) run search queries, and (2) see a “snippet” of the search hits (i.e., to see the search hit in context). The Second Circuit held Google’s copying of the books was “fair use” because searching and providing context added value exceeding what a user could obtain from their own copies, and Google’s product did not substitute the market for the books.
The analogous fact pattern for code is obvious: GitHub could offer a search tool that assists users in finding key public repositories (and specific lines of code within those repositories) that seemed to solve tasks of interest. Developers could then easily utilitize those codebases in the usual, license-compliant ways. The actual Copilot fact pattern is not this one.
Are your worried about of doing assignment as having part job, studying time, unable to do assignment, and many more. So, it is the time to ping us and get your assignments done.
Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public domain.
If code is generated by AI, it should be public domain, and should not be eligible for a copyleft license.
I'd agree with you, if not for the fact that copylefted software was a massive part of the training data for Copilot. Copilot supposedly is tuned to minimize accidental copying, but it has copied chunks of popular software and non-software works. A very widely used library is at a much greater risk of being copied from than an obscure one. If one such library were to turn out to be GPL'ed, then someone would have to find that out first, and then people would have to tackle the hard issue of what the person who used Copilot should do about it.
Boudin? You need to sit in the criminal courts on and off for a decade, or at least watch 'Roman J. Israel, Esq'. 2017. The new SF County, and the new LA County DA are nothing but little trim tabs on the rudder of injustice in these two counties. For perspective, the economy of California is larger than the economy of Putin's Russia, with a similar level of "let's make a deal" justice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public
If the latter, why do you believe the copyright is in jeopardy? Has such a copyright been challenged or voided?
Only the courts can give the final answer, but I find it hard to imagine that judges would understand the importance of copyleft in keeping software free for anyone to modify and share in a way that the public domain can't. Actually, I find it hard to imagine that most judges would see the goals of the free software movement as important because in some sense free software goes against everything modern copyright law (not to be confused with the copyright clause in the constitution) stands for.
Of course, I know that designating AI-generated works public domain is far better than granting the AI or the author of the AI the copyright to those works, but if Copilot were to produce verbatim a substantial chunk of GPL'ed code then the person using Copilot wouldn't know that 1. the code is actually copied from somewhere and 2. the license of the code is a copyleft license. Copilot enables accidental (or even wilfully blind, if big companies like Microsoft itself plan to use it) bypassing of copyleft obligations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generate
…and you see the issue…
Maybe. You’re more cryptic than direct.
So, their concern is someone may develop something beyond the base and not also open source it?
I can not say I agree or even understand the logic of such a stance on something you put out for free, but since that control-the-derivative mentality is baked into so many “free” open source licensors I don’t deny it is a large population.
Guess I just call the claim of ‘free as in freedom’ as bull. Freedom is public domain, at worst. IDGAF at best.
It’s my mindset. I don’t care what you do.
This lazy label he got when he decided that he doesn't need to create anything of his own, simply because blender already exists.
They never said that. I have no idea where you got that idea from. You simply decided that on your own.
I’d also argue that that doesn’t prove laziness even if true. One can be a hard-worker without creating something completely unique and original of their own on their own.
Bastard label is just obvious to everyone who isn't blind.
Then I guess I’m blind. That’s also an ad hominem, BTW, and not actually relevant.
This conclusion comes from the fact that when he does not create anything of his own, his work effort that he uses to advance the society is at lower level than any ordinary person who have decided to help government keep their society up and running.
An assertion made without evidence, especially one based upon an unsupported premise, can be dismissed without evidence. And even if true, that still wouldn’t support your conclusion. It’s a non sequitur.
This deceit and misinformation you'll get when he subscribes to his salaru and demands compensation level that isn't grounded by the work amount that he's doing.
Again, that doesn’t follow. You don’t know what knowledge their employer has. Maybe their employer knows the amount of work their doing and feels that they’re still worth their salary.
I.e. the key issue is that other people are working harder and still he thinks he's entitled to higher salary simply for his beautyful face.
If you point a camera at something and photograph or record it, it's copyrightable. The copyright applies to the fixed form of the recording, over which you had full creative control when capturing it. It doesn't need to be 'artistic' as such.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated wo
OK, so what part of this is not clear?
"If code is released public domain without restriction, then it will be quickly taken and locked up by proprietary corporate giants who have no incentive to collaborate or give back to the project."
This doesn't affect the original source, but combine that with my description of the mission of (some) open source projects, and you see the issue, yes?
When this was first reported, I assumed that the DA absolutely knew about this practice, and probably even came up with the idea. So I had to know a little more about this scumbag, and it turns out that he's not entirely a scumbag, and probably didn't actually know. Turns out the cops all have hurt feewings because he's prosecuting a couple of violent cops, and they don't like it.
And then I came across this: https:// www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6854467001
Wow, sounds about as disgusting as it gets, and that's not the DA I'm referring to
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Re: Re: Re:
Poor wording on my part, I'm not wanting or eagerly waiting for that to happen but know that it will(and it did, like clockwork as I noted below) and as expected it was just as stupid as ever. If the Trump cult went silent overnight I'd be perfectly thrilled to have the world that little bit less stupid as nothing of value was lost.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
Adding on to my previous comment because I always leave out the most important point and because I can't be bothered to make a Techdirt account :/
As PaulT said:
Anyone could already use code that is already in the public domain to make free software or proprietary software, so it's no issue if Copilot spits out public domain code. If the code turns out to be copylefted rather than in the public domain, then Copilot would allow people to lock up copylefted code as if it were public domain code.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public
That's not the issue here. The issue here is Copilot occasionally spitting out copylefted code. If a court were to decide that that code should be public domain because it is the output of an AI, then that copyleft license would be nullified. Putting copylefted code in the public domain would weaken the license obligations which are supposed to keep the code free no matter who modifies it.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
I should have been clearer in my initial comment. What I'm worried about is that people who release their not-Copilot-assisted software under a copyleft license such as a GNU GPL and expect that the license will protect the freedoms of users and developers all the way down through the modified versions of that software. Copilot puts the copyleft requirements in jeopardy because it doesn't know when it is copying code and it can't tell the user about the licenses of any code it happens to copy.
As Bradley Kuhn writes in the article I meant to link to in my initial comment (emphasis mine):
On the post: 'Peaky Blinders' Production Company Working With Bushmills On A Themed Whiskey
Assignment Solution
Are your worried about of doing assignment as having part job, studying time, unable to do assignment, and many more. So, it is the time to ping us and get your assignments done.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public domain.
I'd agree with you, if not for the fact that copylefted software was a massive part of the training data for Copilot. Copilot supposedly is tuned to minimize accidental copying, but it has copied chunks of popular software and non-software works. A very widely used library is at a much greater risk of being copied from than an obscure one. If one such library were to turn out to be GPL'ed, then someone would have to find that out first, and then people would have to tackle the hard issue of what the person who used Copilot should do about it.
On the post: San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck
Re: Omission found between the ears
Boudin? You need to sit in the criminal courts on and off for a decade, or at least watch 'Roman J. Israel, Esq'. 2017. The new SF County, and the new LA County DA are nothing but little trim tabs on the rudder of injustice in these two counties. For perspective, the economy of California is larger than the economy of Putin's Russia, with a similar level of "let's make a deal" justice.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public
Only the courts can give the final answer, but I find it hard to imagine that judges would understand the importance of copyleft in keeping software free for anyone to modify and share in a way that the public domain can't. Actually, I find it hard to imagine that most judges would see the goals of the free software movement as important because in some sense free software goes against everything modern copyright law (not to be confused with the copyright clause in the constitution) stands for.
Of course, I know that designating AI-generated works public domain is far better than granting the AI or the author of the AI the copyright to those works, but if Copilot were to produce verbatim a substantial chunk of GPL'ed code then the person using Copilot wouldn't know that 1. the code is actually copied from somewhere and 2. the license of the code is a copyleft license. Copilot enables accidental (or even wilfully blind, if big companies like Microsoft itself plan to use it) bypassing of copyleft obligations.
On the post: San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck
Re: If they were smarter Slave patrols
I rented an office here to Margaret Prescod & the Global Women's Strike for 15 years, for the cost of their electricity.
For 20 years, women died near this street, LAPD would write "NHI" on the death reports.. No Human Involved.
See http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/08/grim.sleeper.profile/index.html In the top video Margaret (with years of testimony at the UN, et. al.) rips the mike away from the Chief of Police.
https://laist.com/news/criminal-justice/lapd-zero-in-on-final-48-potential victims:
On December 16, 2010, the LAPD released 180 photos of women, found in Franklin's home
On the post: 'Peaky Blinders' Production Company Working With Bushmills On A Themed Whiskey
And it shall be called...
Pissed Blinkers.
On the post: The GOP Knows That The Dem's Antitrust Efforts Have A Content Moderation Trojan Horse; Why Don't The Dems?
Re: Re:
It sounds very similar to what Project Veritas tried to pull, claiming "Google/twitter insider" authority to pure lies.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generate
Maybe. You’re more cryptic than direct.
So, their concern is someone may develop something beyond the base and not also open source it?
I can not say I agree or even understand the logic of such a stance on something you put out for free, but since that control-the-derivative mentality is baked into so many “free” open source licensors I don’t deny it is a large population.
Guess I just call the claim of ‘free as in freedom’ as bull. Freedom is public domain, at worst. IDGAF at best.
It’s my mindset. I don’t care what you do.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They never said that. I have no idea where you got that idea from. You simply decided that on your own.
I’d also argue that that doesn’t prove laziness even if true. One can be a hard-worker without creating something completely unique and original of their own on their own.
Then I guess I’m blind. That’s also an ad hominem, BTW, and not actually relevant.
An assertion made without evidence, especially one based upon an unsupported premise, can be dismissed without evidence. And even if true, that still wouldn’t support your conclusion. It’s a non sequitur.
Again, that doesn’t follow. You don’t know what knowledge their employer has. Maybe their employer knows the amount of work their doing and feels that they’re still worth their salary.
[citation needed] Again.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Sure seems to get them out of lawsuits pretty well from what I can tell… More importantly, that is not an argument against Fair Use existing.
On the post: ACLU & EFF Step Up To Tell Court You Don't Get To Expose An Anonymous Tweeter With A Sketchy Copyright Claim
It now sounds even sketchier than it ever had done previously.
Achievement unlocked.
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
The question is...
How do we get rid of the internet?
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
Re:
If you point a camera at something and photograph or record it, it's copyrightable. The copyright applies to the fixed form of the recording, over which you had full creative control when capturing it. It doesn't need to be 'artistic' as such.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated wo
OK, so what part of this is not clear?
"If code is released public domain without restriction, then it will be quickly taken and locked up by proprietary corporate giants who have no incentive to collaborate or give back to the project."
This doesn't affect the original source, but combine that with my description of the mission of (some) open source projects, and you see the issue, yes?
On the post: San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck
Re:
See the USA Today article I linked below.
On the post: San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck
When this was first reported, I assumed that the DA absolutely knew about this practice, and probably even came up with the idea. So I had to know a little more about this scumbag, and it turns out that he's not entirely a scumbag, and probably didn't actually know. Turns out the cops all have hurt feewings because he's prosecuting a couple of violent cops, and they don't like it.
And then I came across this: https://
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6854467001
Wow, sounds about as disgusting as it gets, and that's not the DA I'm referring to
Next >>