DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering [LWN.net]

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 24, 2022 11:52 UTC (Fri) by Vipketsh (guest, #134480)
In reply to: DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering by bluca
Parent article: DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

It's the same thing, just you changed the question to "what is an AI model?" and what constitutes "training". If it is allowed to produce a black box where you feed in some code and then get part of that code out the other end verbatim what limits are placed on the inside of that black box ? Can I call an HDD an "AI model" and "train" it by storing some code on it ?

The major considering factor in this case for me (IANAL) is that if "AI models" are allowed to reproduce code verbatim then there is a legally sound method to de-license any and all code: Take something similar to copilot train it with the code you would like to de-license and then get your device to reproduce it. That is clearly not acceptable, yet it is what copilot does in some cases.

In the end this is a new situation which touches on various concepts and courts and/or law makers need to figure out where this and similar situations stand.

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 24, 2022 18:37 UTC (Fri) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

IMHO we don't need to figure this out, unless somebody wants to allege that GitHub is violating the AGPL by not providing the model's source code, parameters, etc. Such a lawsuit would be complicated, messy, and bring in all sorts of difficult legal issues.

For literally any other legal claim under the sun, you can just point directly at the output and say "Regardless of how it was created, that output is substantially similar to some portion of the XYZ codebase, and therefore it is a derivative work of XYZ and is in violation of [whatever license applies]." Judges have been dealing with the "we can't directly prove that the defendant copied the plaintiff's work" problem for a very long time, and are perfectly capable of finding for the plaintiff anyway.

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 24, 2022 19:05 UTC (Fri) by samth (guest, #1290) [Link] (2 responses)

No, you can't "trick" copyright law. A judge would say "obviously those are different". The fact that from a computing perspective, there is a sense in which they're the same thing, or that there is not way to draw a bright line distinction between a hard drive and Copilot, doesn't matter at all. The law does not work the way computers do.

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 24, 2022 21:16 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> The law does not work the way computers do.

The problem is when the law says "black is white", or "true is false". What was that about the ?Pennsylvania legislature trying to define "pi = 3"?

Lawyers are supposed to understand logic. Maths is a subset of logic. Yet how many legal screw-ups do we have because lawyers want to legislate maths out of existence?

And then we get people here who think law is "black and white". PJ was quite clear - "law is squishy". BECAUSE lawyers don't understand black and white! Or because life mostly ISN'T black and white!

It would be lovely if things were that simple. But what answer do you get when you ask the question "what's 6 times 9?". When you ask the question "What is reality?" Because even a Physicist will turn round and say "the Universe doesn't know"!. YOUR reality is different from MINE, and we have no way of telling if there even IS a correct version of events.

For the most part, law tends to fix (or forget) its worst mistakes, but isn't that true of Computer Scientists too?

You need to try and twist reality to your view, or you'll find other people WILL twist it to theirs. Quite possibly without even trying or intending to ...

Cheers,
Wol

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 24, 2022 22:52 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

> What was that about the ?Pennsylvania legislature trying to define "pi = 3"?

Hey, PA has its problems. But this one came from Indiana. Luckily there was a school teacher that was there to help teach some math.

https://www.straightdope.com/21341975/did-a-state-legisla...

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 24, 2022 21:12 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (1 responses)

The major considering factor in this case for me (IANAL) is that if "AI models" are allowed to reproduce code verbatim then there is a legally sound method to de-license any and all code: Take something similar to copilot train it with the code you would like to de-license and then get your device to reproduce it. That is clearly not acceptable, yet it is what copilot does in some cases.

No, because copyright is fundamentally path independent. All that is needed is to show that an identifiable part of copyrighted work A shows up in work B. Once the author of work A has shown that, a copyright violation is assumed, and it's up to the author of B to provide a specific defense for why it isn't a copyright violation. There are valid defenses, but laundering the code through an AI is not one of them.

DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

Posted Jun 25, 2022 6:00 UTC (Sat) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

Clarification: Copyright is path-independent, provided that a path actually exists. In theory, you do have to show that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work, and that this somehow affected the contents of the allegedly infringing work. But in practice, this is a very weak requirement. You don't have to make specific claims about exactly what the defendant did or the path they took from A to B. You just have to show that the path probably exists. OTOH, if the defendant can plausibly argue lack of access (e.g. "Your code was proprietary, and I couldn't read it even if I wanted to"), then that is a valid defense to copyright infringement (provided, of course, that the finder of fact believes this argument).