[alexcosan]

I believe that's a bit of a strawman comparison. Not taking any sides, but in your example, the resulting system would be the same - artwork aside - you would end up with the same set of algorithms put together to create the exact same game.

Copilot, as far as I know, tend to be used to generate snippets and small algorithms that, by themselves, are not a full system/product/game.

There still may be some merit to your argument, but I believe the opposite side should be a bit steelman'ed beforehand.

[xbfjvusb6]

My license isn't "you can take a bit but not the whole bit".

[alexcosan]

I did not argue against that, I was talking about the argument. I don't think it's a straight comparison or even one that holds water. I don't think the parent comment mentioned licenses at all. I clearly mentioned that you can make an argument claiming that it's not ok to copy a snippet - I just don't think the argument to absurdity I replied to, in this case, is the best or most appropriate one.

[xbfjvusb6]

You're right. It's a few orders of magnitude worse than that.

It's not just one snippet, it's thousands of them, every day being slurped up and copied across code bases everywhere license free.

If the pirate bay can get jail time for facilitating mass copyright infringement, maybe Microsoft needs a little jail time too.

It's been said in this thread already:

Either licenses matter or they don't. Pick one.

[alexcosan]

For some reason, you keep presenting arguments as if I have taken any sides. I don't agree with arguments even if I would agree with the end result.

I disagree that comparing Copilot with Pirate Bay is a good argument to make your case (maybe Dall-e is a closer comparison if resulting artwork could contain licensed artwork from the training set). You'd probably have other fronts to use and present a stronger argument.

And let me remind you that I have not argumented on behalf of any side, so I do not think this thread requires arguments against arguments I have never brought forward (it feels a bit more emotional than constructive).

[xbfjvusb6]

> I disagree

This is an argument. A bad one, but an argument none the less.

Copilot seems to be copying code snippets from the internet wholesale. It's not using AI to generate snippets which would possibly be ok.

Copyright doesn't care about the size of the abuse or the size of the works involved.

Microsoft is creating these copies and even facilitates their redistribution on GitHub.

I know legally it's more likely the users of copilot that are at risk here but we said the same thing about torrenting.

Look at Napster, LimeWire or the pirate bay. The outcomes Microsoft deserves here is pretty cut and dry.

[jimbokun]

There are a lot of existing legal precedents about what constitutes fair use vs infringement. This isn’t a new question.

[chii]

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/copyright-and-the-digita...

so if your work is transformative, it can be exempt as fair use. But i'm not sure what degree counts as transformative - i do think that training an AI model with millions of repos worth of code is transformative.