>We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
>This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use
I would say they would have a pretty hard time to justify using the content for AI training (and selling) based on that license. Copilot didn't exist at the time when many agreed to that license, so an argument saying Copilot is part of the service would be difficult to pull off. Moreover they don't even provide copilot to people hosting on GitHub.
Note that MS themselves are not claiming that they are allowed to use the code due to their terms of service. They claim they can do it due to fair use.
I would say they've used code they host to train an AI and they charge for a fraction the GPU time required to train and customize their model. they're selling you their model, not the code it produces.
if this is indeed how they charge for Copilot, and I don't know if it is or is not, then they will need to show that they have done their due diligence in making sure that code is not reproduced verbatim when a user requests that it not reproduce code verbatim.
I'm quite sure that GitHub can defend Copilot in court. That's part of the process of offering a new feature to customers; making sure that it is legal and defensible to do so.
All of the armchair attorneys here who think they know better than GitHub's attorneys when operation of the service puts GitHub's ass on the line is ... I wish I had 1 percent of that confidence. I would be a thousand times more confident than I am now.
users of github.com are responsible for their own use of any code they find, however they find it.
GitHub shows code to those who wish to see it. it is up to the person using that code to use it according to the license. when I buy a car, it is up to me to use that car according to the law. when I buy a gun, it is up to me to use that gun according to the law. etc.
> when I buy a car, it is up to me to use that car according to the law.
And yet we (modified) the law to mandate speedometers and seatbelts to make you more aware of the speed and more secure against failure. We require car companies to perform thousands of crash tests to validate that the tool the give you is safe for when you inevitably push “according to the law” a little too far.
We mandate mirrors and backup cameras because we know that those who intend to follow the law closely still have blind spots and it’s in everyone’s best interest to mitigate and increase awareness.
> when I buy a gun, it is up to me to use that gun according to the law. etc.
And yet few laws have caused the US (and other nations) to question this principle quite like gun laws.
Gun laws are really both a perfect example and the worst example of why we’re having a debate around CodePilot. We both expect people to be responsible for their decisions (you need to verify legality of that code snippet before using) while also giving them the notion that they can toe the line as much as possible (why regulate the availability of dangerous tools, crime is illegal, users won’t make a mistake).
Guns are used to kill people despite it being illegal. That’s why people want gun control laws. And in a comparison I never expected I would make, perhaps people want AI to be regulated because it will be (is?) used to circumvent copyright.
Edit: I don’t know if I really have a side I stand on in this debate overall, but I think the argument for why it’s copyright violation today is pretty compelling. We wouldn’t make the progress we’ve made without this violation and perhaps the loss of copyright is a worthy sacrifice?
> I think the argument for why it’s copyright violation today is pretty compelling.
I still don't see how there is any footing for a copyright infringement claim here, given that users who put public code on github.com explicitly grant GitHub a license to use that code to provide services to other GitHub users.
that license grant is above and beyond what any specified license terms the repo itself grants to users of the code.
you literally grant GitHub the right to do this when you put your code on github.com.
Actually no you don’t. The ToS is obviously long, but it’s surprisingly human readable and tech friendly (eg they have verbiage on reproduction of your content for search indexing).
Relevant snippet:
> you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license.
They key parts are the “through GitHub” portion. GitHub is being careful to not give people rights to your content beyond the right to view it through GitHub. Performance refers to multimedia like music and video assets (according to others parts I didn’t reproduce).
No one is gaining a license to use your code through the inclusion on GitHub.
It's not designed for commercial air travel. Satellites, astronauts have a slightly higher risk threshold that exponentially reduces the provability factor.
Short term may be. Long term companies like Google will be forced to expand where high skill talent is, so you loose jobs and slightly long term, you run the risk of loosing the entire silicon valley. Have you seen Detroit ? Imagine San Francisco like that.
That would be great, but companies would figure out ways around it. Company would pay 2X and ask employee to pay X to some random/affiliated company for training etc. They would even do this handoff in India to stay out of radar and tell you what many indians would take the deal.
The solution is "EXTREMELY" strict penalties including prison time for board of companies who indulge in it willingly.
It's easy to exploit immigrants though. Cultural differences (less likely to speak out), as well as lack of knowledge and experience of local laws, make the likelihood of legal action very low indeed.
Revcontent is world's fastest growing content recommendation network. We have a small team working out of Mumbai. You will work on cutting edge of Machine Learning and build things that instantly gets billions of pageviews in traffic.
I guess you have no idea what this is really about.
All we are asking our Govt. is to adopt same Net Neutrality standards that exist in US and other EU countries.
Companies like Uber/Amazon are already pumping huge money in India because they need us, not vice-versa. Just because we are open, unlike China, doesn't mean you can play unfair.
> All we are asking our Govt. is to adopt same Net Neutrality standards that exist in US and other EU countries.
I understand that, and support it 100%. I am 100% pro-net neutrality.
> Just because we are open, unlike China, doesn't mean you can play unfair.
My issue is that India will play unfair. They have a history of it.
Say what you will about all the people who have their own anecdotal bad experiences with Indian companies & professionals over the last 5-10 years (dozens of accounts that I've read here, on our very own hackernews), but the simple fact of the matter is that even India's government has a track record of reneging on deals. And these weren't small deals, these were deals years in the making.
That's not good for India. Investors will (and are) balking at the idea of entering the Indian market because who knows when India will pull the rug out from under them when the mood strikes. There's also very little legal recourse when that does happen. It doesn't help when your country is among the most corrupt countries on the planet; they ranked 94th in Transparency International's corruption index. There are 93 countries less corrupt than India. Source: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results
> India has a long history of reneging on deals. Once a deal is struck with most nations, that's it. Done deal. With India, they don't care - they'll do whatever is convenient for them.
Most nations will do whatever is convenient for them. ex: If you are from US, GOP says they will cancel the Iran nuclear deal
> Hell, even Russia and China won't back out of deals once struck. They'll piss and moan if it turns out they got the short end of the stick, but they'll still honor the deal.
Not tue, ex: Hong Kong democracy
> I tell my clients to steer clear of India for this very reason - it's nearly impossible to know when a deal is "solid".
You just described all the other countries apart from developed countries where there are no severe penalties for walking out of a deal
> My issue is that India will play unfair. They have a history of it.
Every country does it. ex: Union carbide CEO lived happily in US till he died
> That's not good for India. Investors will (and are) balking at the idea of entering the Indian market because who knows when India will pull the rug out from under them when the mood strikes.
Investors know the risks, Equity Risk Premiums are higher for India (& other developing countries). If investors don't invest in India or China due to inherent risks then they might loose out in the long run given that the future returns from developed world will not be great
> Most nations will do whatever is convenient for them.
Most nations do not renege on trade agreements made with other nations.
> GOP says they will cancel the Iran nuclear deal
"Says" and "do" are two different things, they won't because it's unprecedented. The U.S doesn't renege on massive trade agreements, or with the WTO.
> Not tue, ex: Hong Kong democracy
Ignoring the fact that I have no idea what you mean by this, I do know that it is not a trade agreement, nor is it a financial agreement with another nation. You're comparing apples and oranges.
> You just described all the other countries apart from developed countries
That was kind of my point?
> Every country does it.
Apples and oranges - no "big" country reneges on trade agreements, or reneges on deals with the WTO that were years in the making. Those things are completely unprecedented. I think you, and those who agree with you, fail to grasp the scope and what those deals meant. They literally ripped off the U.S. The U.S delivered on its end, then when it was time for India to live up to its end of the bargain, they ran off. Literally. (See here: http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/us-launches-ne...)
> If investors don't invest in India or China due to inherent risks then they might loose out in the long run
Speculation. China's economy is slowing down and India's is pretty stagnant (relatively speaking). Other than having a lot of people (over a billion each), neither country has much going for it. There is no innovation coming out of either country. Look up any "most innovative countries" on google and see if you can find China or India among them. Those countries investors may risk losing out on - countries like South Korea.
> from developed world will not be great
Just having a lot of people (big population) doesn't mean there is money to be made. Especially when the government in question (China, for example) is about as authoritative as it gets. They can literally take your business away from you and kick you out of the country and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it. That's not opportunity, that's a minefield. And it's why foreign investors are staying away anb/or pulling their funds out.
Edit: I just noticed in a prior comment you said you were from India, a farming village. Don't you think you're a little biased on the matter?
Yes. A lot of things are fked up in India. That's not an argument to mess up one more. Internet is one thing we got right. Freedom of Speech, Online Censorship, Running an Internet Startup are no different than in US, even better. For starters, Our government doesn't spy. We don't get trolled for stupid patents. ETC
There are thousands of excellent Indian professionals, leading some of the top companies in the world. It's your loss if you make your opinion from the bad ones. We just have too many people.
Also, 2015 was the biggest ever in terms of VC deals 10+ Billion USD, Foreign Investments, etc.
