GitHub is my copilot

Posted Jul 18, 2021 9:50 UTC (Sun) by smcv (subscriber, #53363)
In reply to: GitHub is my copilot by ldearquer
Parent article: GitHub is my copilot

> See e.g. how game modders work, where everyone has their own copy of the game

I suspect most game mods have to contain enough copied or modified from the original game that the copyright holder of the original game could shut them down as copyright-infringing, if they wanted to. In my experience, game modders usually rely on exemptions that don't actually exist either in law or in the game's EULA (for example "it's non-commercial, so it's fine"), and the game's copyright holder turns a blind eye to it because they recognise the value of mods in popularizing their games.

Perhaps copyright law should behave more like game modders think it does, and less like the overreaching reality, but that seems unlikely to happen while changes to it are primarily driven by the same few entertainment cartels.

GitHub is my copilot

Posted Jul 19, 2021 0:03 UTC (Mon) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (5 responses)

> In my experience, game modders usually rely on exemptions that don't actually exist either in law or in the game's EULA (for example "it's non-commercial, so it's fine"), and the game's copyright holder turns a blind eye to it because they recognise the value of mods in popularizing their games.

This greatly depends on the game. Skyrim, for example, is explicitly designed to encourage modding, with an EULA that specifically permits it. In recent years, Bethesda has even been selling mods for real money (with the modder taking a cut).

> Perhaps copyright law should behave more like game modders think it does, and less like the overreaching reality, but that seems unlikely to happen while changes to it are primarily driven by the same few entertainment cartels.

And... that's where the analogy falls apart. In my experience, Skyrim modders are some of the most unreasonable people on the internet. Behaviors I have seen:

* Uploading a mod, free for anyone to download, and then characterizing mirrors of that mod as "piracy."
* Characterizing attempts to fix or improve another mod as "piracy," even when the original mod is obviously broken. In one case, I believe a user threatened to contact law enforcement over this sort of thing.
* Requiring logins to download an otherwise free mod. Using this to try and prevent specific individuals from downloading specific mods (which are otherwise free for everyone).
* A modding tool that checks to see if you have installed certain applications which the author disapproves of. This check is not disclosed anywhere in the documentation, and the software refuses to run with a mysterious error message if it finds those applications.
* Characterizing direct downloads (where you don't look at their fancy web page first) as "piracy" or otherwise problematic.
* Removing mods for petty or ridiculous reasons.
* Insisting that people who are good at modding are always right, and anyone who disagrees with them, about anything, must be wrong.
* Miscellaneous internet toxicity.

Technically, most of these things are (to some extent) supported by existing copyright law. But IMHO that's because copyright law is ridiculous, not because the modders are right. If you suffer no economic harm from someone's "infringement," then you should not have a claim against them, plain and simple. Or at most, you should have a claim to nominal damages and equitable enforcement of the license (i.e. an injunction), not statutory damages of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

GitHub is my copilot

Posted Jul 19, 2021 2:08 UTC (Mon) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (1 responses)

> If you suffer no economic harm from someone's "infringement," then you should not have a claim against them, plain and simple.

There is usually zero economic harm from GPL violations (at least easily demonstrable to the copyright holder), so I think I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

> Or at most, you should have a claim to nominal damages and equitable enforcement of the license (i.e. an injunction), not statutory damages of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

An injunction against GPL violations seems good but I don't think nominal damages are appropriate based on what I read on WikiPedia, instead it should be restitutionary/disgorgement damages (where they pay back their ill-gotten gains), or possibly punitive damages or both, or something like paying for consultancy to help them come back into GPL compliance, or paying legal costs for bringing a suit against whoever they received the violating software from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages#Nominal_damages

GitHub is my copilot

Posted Jul 19, 2021 14:55 UTC (Mon) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

The thing you have to bear in mind is that courts tend to focus on money damages as the default means of making someone whole. Injunctions are dispreferred unless they are the only way to protect the plaintiff from some "irreparable harm." So under the current system, it's easy to sue for statutory damages, but hard to sue for GPL compliance. The most straightforward way to force GPL compliance is to essentially threaten the defendant with money damages and demand that they comply in a settlement agreement. But plenty of defendants will just blow you off and assume that you won't actually litigate.

OTOH, money damages are perfect for the proprietary software crowd because they become the profit that the company was trying to make in the first place.

Side note:

> WikiPedia

They stopped using CamelCase links in 2002. Why do people still write their name like this?

GitHub is my copilot

Posted Jul 19, 2021 16:50 UTC (Mon) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (1 responses)

If you suffer no economic harm from someone's "infringement," then you should not have a claim against them, plain and simple.

I strongly disagree. There should be a moral presumption against people taking others work, even if they aren't trying to exploit it commercially. As an example, I am an amateur photographer. I like to share my photographs with friends and family and sometimes the whole world, but I have never tried to sell my photos. That shouldn't mean that anyone who sees them should be able to use them however they like without asking my permission. If copyright law is limited to economic losses, it means amateurs like me have no right to prevent others from using our work in ways we don't approve of.

GitHub is my copilot

Posted Jul 19, 2021 20:48 UTC (Mon) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

Well, it depends on how you look at copyright.

As it is described in the US Constitution, for example, copyright is a subsidy ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"). It has nothing to do with morality and is purely an economic scheme to incentivize people to create more stuff. This is why copyright originally had a relatively short term of 14 years with an optional 14 year extension. This is also why copyright explicitly does not protect ideas, concepts, etc. Countries other than the US have a separate scheme of "moral rights" which vest permanently in the author, cannot be sold, transferred, or renounced, and are more limited in scope than standard copyright (generally having to do with attribution, mutilation of the work, etc.). Perhaps the US should borrow this idea.

Corporate interests have, in recent years, found it more useful to characterize copyright as a form of property, giving us laws like the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. Perhaps you agree with that characterization, but it is instructive to look at the consequences which it has wrought before you assume that your characterization is the only correct one.

GitHub is my copilot

Posted Jul 30, 2021 1:19 UTC (Fri) by mrugiero (guest, #153040) [Link]

You can go a lot further back even, Doom had a similar story, besides the fact much later the engine became open source. Final Doom is made up of mods id commercialized, if memory serves.