I am 100% on the side of content creators. Regardless of who they are .
The courts tend to take a dim view of theft. Which is what this is.
The article clearly lays out that multiple requests for sound legal basis have gone unanswered . It simply doesn’t exist and Microsoft is operating on a forgiveness vs permission model.
Licensing is 100% about permissions. Clear and explicit enumeration of the permissions (or lack thereof ) for a work.
This class action lawsuit should surprise nobody. It’s a class that is sick and tired of being exploited.
Do not take my work that I contributed with explicit permissions and use it in a way I didn’t grant permission for. Full stop. It isn’t complicated.
If my code is licensed under terms , that’s the permission .
If you use my licensed work then yes, you do need to follow the terms of the license .
The issue of license / contract / copyright is messy. It doesn’t ever seem (in the USA anyway ) to be definitively answered / “solved.”
I chose AGPL v3 only on purpose.
Co pilot and users thereof (so now two levels removed ) utilizing code in whatever work are stealing my work (unless it’s AGPL v3 licensed ). The adding of intermediaries (and the most likely unknown and with no way to know) infringing is going to be very difficult to mitigate. It’s like truly unknowingly buying stolen property,
If I use it under fair use, there is nothing you can do about it.
The fourth factor of fair use is the effect on the value of your work. If I'm not affecting the works value because there is no market for it, because it has no commercial value, you are going to have a very hard time defeating this argument in court.
so much animosity over rights you gave GitHub when you put your code there. "Theft" gimme a break. you license your code to GitHub so they can show it to others. This is separate to the stated license in your code. Nowhere in that terms of service document are the means that the code is shown to users specified.
Give me a break. Did you even read the license? You read that it is restricted to "the service". That service cannot be copilot, because it didn't even exist when most people agreed to the license. Moreover the license explicitly states they cannot use the code to distribute in any other way or sell it. So if anything they are violating their own agreement.
Also MS themselves don't even claim that training is covered by their terms of service, they claim it is fair use.
? Did you read what I wrote, MS doesn't even claim copilot is covered by their terms.
They claim it is covered by fair use (some people also claimed there is code not hosted by GitHub in copilot, which would further confirm that they believe they are covered by something else)
Moreover terms have been largely unchanged for years AFAIK. If someone agreed to the license years ago, they can't have agreed to copilot use. Also copilot is not a service on their website, it is a separate service and they charge for it, also contradicting the terms.
If you think I'm mistaken I will gladly reevaluate what I said if you could kindly restate your position, by answering a few questions
What does separate service mean? What would Copilot look like if it was not separate?
Elaborate on "not a service on their website", as it is available and listed as a feature "Github Copilot" on their website.
Is the contradiction related to payment for the service, or just because you think it is separate?
Since I thought you were arguing that Githubs own terms prevent them from using the public repositories in Copilot, this is what I argued against.
If you think fair use is involved, then that's the end of the line. If MS claims fair use, then until a court says otherwise, it is. Anyone who thinks their copyright is being violated can get an injunction tomorrow.
they claim the training of their model is covered by fair use, but they did not say that was the justification they were using. They don't need to claim fair use.
It's pretty clear from the Terms of Use that they can use code hosted on github.com to provide any service they like, so long as it is a GitHub service. They don't need fair use, they already have the rights to do what they are doing.
I am 100% on the side of content creators. Regardless of who they are .
The courts tend to take a dim view of theft. Which is what this is.
The article clearly lays out that multiple requests for sound legal basis have gone unanswered . It simply doesn’t exist and Microsoft is operating on a forgiveness vs permission model.
Licensing is 100% about permissions. Clear and explicit enumeration of the permissions (or lack thereof ) for a work.
This class action lawsuit should surprise nobody. It’s a class that is sick and tired of being exploited.
Do not take my work that I contributed with explicit permissions and use it in a way I didn’t grant permission for. Full stop. It isn’t complicated.
You wouldn’t download a car and all that jazz….