> It doesn't seem to me as though the distinction between "Copilot reproduced the code and the engineer copy/pasted/saved it" versus "Copilot inserted the code" is crucial.
I think that could be crucial.
If I read a computer science book, and from that produce a unique piece of code which was not present in the book, I have created a new work which I hold copyright over.
If I train a machine learning algorithm on a computer science book, and that ML algorithm produces some output, that output does not have a new copyright.
Similarly, if copilot synthesizes a bunch of MIT code and produces a suggestion, that may be MIT still, while if a human does the exact same reading and writing, if it is an original enough derivative, it may be free of the original MIT license.
The way I'm reading your reply seems like sophistry, so I expect I'm misunderstanding you.
Scenario 1: Copilot, operating as an IDE plugin, placed the suggestion directly into the text. To accept the suggestion, the engineer hit save.
Scenario 2: Copilot, placed its suggestion in an external file. The engineer copy/pasted the suggestion verbatim into their IDE, then hit save.
These don't seem as though they materially affect the situation. Regardless, the downstream user who somehow brought the copyrighted code into their codebase (which they subsequently redistribute) is infringing.
This theoretical case where Copilot is not involved and the user synthesizes something on their own is not germane. Copilot is involved.
What are you folks getting at? That Microsoft is in the clear? That the end user is in the clear? That "I'm just making suggestions" is akin to "I'm just asking questions" and absolves the suggester of liability? I don't get it.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I do not deserve it in this case. I misread what I was responding to and my response was off the mark.
You're right to be confused, and my reply can be ignored as off-topic for the thread i'm in.
That's generous of you, since you were not alone. It seems as though I could have done a better job of emphasizing from the get-go that I thought infringement by the end user was the key point, rather than infringement by Microsoft.
I think that could be crucial.
If I read a computer science book, and from that produce a unique piece of code which was not present in the book, I have created a new work which I hold copyright over.
If I train a machine learning algorithm on a computer science book, and that ML algorithm produces some output, that output does not have a new copyright.
In essence, there must be originality for a work to be under a new copyright, and that is likely a requirement that it must be a human author. See this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Mecha...
Similarly, if copilot synthesizes a bunch of MIT code and produces a suggestion, that may be MIT still, while if a human does the exact same reading and writing, if it is an original enough derivative, it may be free of the original MIT license.