You also deal with the real world and real people, neither of which operate in binary.
Plenty of people over the years have attempted to skirt the law by putting a proxy in the middle and as such, plenty of clarifications have happened that it doesn't matter.
MS's stance here is specifically that it's the responsibility of the person/company using copilot to ensure the code isn't infringing, it is NOT their stance that the code itself is not infringing.
Their stance is that using it as TRAINING DATA is fair use, so they themselves hold no liability, only their users.
---
It's similar to chicken factories claiming they hold no liability for employing illegal immigrants because those illegal immigrants are the ones who chose to work there. And that they also hold no liability if they go through a 3rd party that exclusively hires illegal immigrants. The law very clearly refutes both stances.
Plenty of people over the years have attempted to skirt the law by putting a proxy in the middle and as such, plenty of clarifications have happened that it doesn't matter.
MS's stance here is specifically that it's the responsibility of the person/company using copilot to ensure the code isn't infringing, it is NOT their stance that the code itself is not infringing.
Their stance is that using it as TRAINING DATA is fair use, so they themselves hold no liability, only their users.
---
It's similar to chicken factories claiming they hold no liability for employing illegal immigrants because those illegal immigrants are the ones who chose to work there. And that they also hold no liability if they go through a 3rd party that exclusively hires illegal immigrants. The law very clearly refutes both stances.