> "it is ok to strip out my copyright string from my code"? How did they end up on that side?
The answer is, they didn't end up on that side. Copyright infringement does not involve merely using a copyrighted work. Copyright infringement involves copying part of a work's copyrightable expression into another Thing (for lack of a better word).
In the US, if no part of the Thing is substantially similar [1] to any part of the original work's expression, then the Thing does not infringe on the original work's copyright. The EFF's "side" is that in such cases, there is no categorical obligation to add/include copyright management information (CMI) of the original work to the Thing, and it makes no legal sense to argue that the CMI was "removed" from the Thing. Not every LLM output contains expression substantially similar to any particular copyrightable expression in the training set. Whether LLM output infringes copyright can be different on a case-by-case basis.
> "it is ok to strip out my copyright string from my code"?
No, if part of the output (whether human output or LLM output) is substantially similar to (even an obfuscated or mangled version of) the copyrightable expression in your code.
> Copyright law still protects programmers when their work is unlawfully copied. They can still bring copyright infringement claims if someone uses a model to reproduce their code. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ contract claims against the AI companies are still in play. The specific holding here was narrow but important: that the absence of copyright information from a new work does not mean, by itself, that someone illegally removed it.
I’m not sure I fully understand their argument. If you reproduce the copyrighted work, minus the copyright information, the result is exactly the same as just… removing the copyright information. At least in the case of something digital.
Anyone can help clarify why it is seen as a win? I don't really buy the “small developers will be sued by large corporation for years and forced to settle”
Wait a second...EFF is on the side of: "it is ok to strip out my copyright string from my code"? How did they end up on that side?
> "it is ok to strip out my copyright string from my code"? How did they end up on that side?
The answer is, they didn't end up on that side. Copyright infringement does not involve merely using a copyrighted work. Copyright infringement involves copying part of a work's copyrightable expression into another Thing (for lack of a better word).
In the US, if no part of the Thing is substantially similar [1] to any part of the original work's expression, then the Thing does not infringe on the original work's copyright. The EFF's "side" is that in such cases, there is no categorical obligation to add/include copyright management information (CMI) of the original work to the Thing, and it makes no legal sense to argue that the CMI was "removed" from the Thing. Not every LLM output contains expression substantially similar to any particular copyrightable expression in the training set. Whether LLM output infringes copyright can be different on a case-by-case basis.
> "it is ok to strip out my copyright string from my code"?
No, if part of the output (whether human output or LLM output) is substantially similar to (even an obfuscated or mangled version of) the copyrightable expression in your code.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity
> Copyright law still protects programmers when their work is unlawfully copied. They can still bring copyright infringement claims if someone uses a model to reproduce their code. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ contract claims against the AI companies are still in play. The specific holding here was narrow but important: that the absence of copyright information from a new work does not mean, by itself, that someone illegally removed it.
I’m not sure I fully understand their argument. If you reproduce the copyrighted work, minus the copyright information, the result is exactly the same as just… removing the copyright information. At least in the case of something digital.
Anyone can help clarify why it is seen as a win? I don't really buy the “small developers will be sued by large corporation for years and forced to settle”
> Anyone can help clarify why it is seen as a win?
Because the EFF is generally not very pro-copyright and certainly, at a minimum, hates the DMCA.
>I don't really buy the “small developers will be sued by large corporation for years and forced to settle”
I (a copyright litigator) don't buy it either.
> EFF is generally not very pro-copyright
Did they forget that the entirely of GPL is built on the foundation of copyright?
Wouldn't surprise me, seems to be the case for many of the users here as well.
Because the EFF is no longer the organization that may have represented your values in 2000. Foundations go evil, co-opted and bought out.
The entire article is a pro-AI shill piece from start to finish. The EFF now sells out open source.
Victory for the industry shills at the EFF. It is absolutely shameless that they spin this as a victory for programmers:
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed internet users and programmers a big win today ..."
I am a programmer and I am not represented by the devious EFF liars. You support stealing my code.