undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnjharman3y ago0 comments

Say you read a bunch of code, say over years of developer career. What you write is influenced by all that. Will include similar patterns, similar code and identical snippets, knowingly or not. How large does snippet have to be before it's copyright? "x"? "x==1"? "if x==1\n print('x is one')"? [obviously, replace with actual common code like if not found return 404].

Do you want to be vulnerable to copyright litigation for code you write? Can you afford to respond to every lawsuit filed by disgruntled wingbat, large corp wanting to shut down open source / competing project?

0 comments

devmor3y ago

This is a logical fallacy. A human is not an algorithm. We do not have to extend rights regarding novel invention to an algorithm to protect them for people.

robbrown4513y ago

Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were true, people would very easily game it, by using algorithms to automate the most trivial parts of copying someone's work.

Ultimately the algorithm is automating something a human could do. There is a lot of gray area to copyright law, but you can't get around that simply by offloading to an algorithm.

bombolo3y ago

> Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Uh? So if I design a self driving car which kills someone, it's the car that goes to jail?

Legal precedent seems to indicate this is not the case at all. Because humans and machines are different, simply because humans aren't machines and viceversa.

2 more replies

nchi33y ago

>by using algorithms to automate the most trivial parts of copying someone's work

That's basically what copilot is...?

1 more reply

ranguna3y ago

> you can't get around that simply by offloading to an algorithm.

You can ...?

By simply saying existing fair usage rights are limited to be used by humans and not for-profit companies building for-profit products.

1 more reply

ImPostingOnHN3y ago

> Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense.

it makes a lot of sense, for that reason and a lot of others

people can create algorithms that do whatever they want, including copyright infringement and outright criminality, but algorithms can't create people or want anything for themselves

kmeisthax3y ago

Copyright already worries about this sort of thing a great deal, and it's actually a lot more well thought-out than your average hacker is aware of. There are no hard and fast rules; but generally... the thing being sued over has to be creative enough to be copyrightable in the first place. Small snippets do not qualify for copyright protection alone.

still_grokking3y ago

I'm not sure this is true. At least for copyright in the common law meaning.

Oracle got copyright on API signatures…

In civil law there is a bar to protection if the work lacks "substantial" creativity. But even this bar is extremely low. More or less everything besides maybe simple math formulas is protected.

kmeisthax3y ago

Oracle got a very thin copyright on API signatures. The "programmer convenience" ruling in Google v. Oracle basically precludes almost all copyright action on APIs alone.

1 more reply

jacobjjacob3y ago

I am vulnerable to copyright litigation for code I write, if I copied it. This is already true of anyone who is writing code.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

devmor3y ago

This is a logical fallacy. A human is not an algorithm. We do not have to extend rights regarding novel invention to an algorithm to protect them for people.

robbrown4513y ago

Ultimately the algorithm is automating something a human could do. There is a lot of gray area to copyright law, but you can't get around that simply by offloading to an algorithm.

bombolo3y ago

> Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense.

Uh? So if I design a self driving car which kills someone, it's the car that goes to jail?

Legal precedent seems to indicate this is not the case at all. Because humans and machines are different, simply because humans aren't machines and viceversa.

2 more replies

nchi33y ago

>by using algorithms to automate the most trivial parts of copying someone's work

That's basically what copilot is...?

1 more reply

ranguna3y ago

> you can't get around that simply by offloading to an algorithm.

You can ...?

By simply saying existing fair usage rights are limited to be used by humans and not for-profit companies building for-profit products.

1 more reply

ImPostingOnHN3y ago

> Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense.

it makes a lot of sense, for that reason and a lot of others

people can create algorithms that do whatever they want, including copyright infringement and outright criminality, but algorithms can't create people or want anything for themselves

kmeisthax3y ago

still_grokking3y ago

I'm not sure this is true. At least for copyright in the common law meaning.

Oracle got copyright on API signatures…

In civil law there is a bar to protection if the work lacks "substantial" creativity. But even this bar is extremely low. More or less everything besides maybe simple math formulas is protected.

kmeisthax3y ago

Oracle got a very thin copyright on API signatures. The "programmer convenience" ruling in Google v. Oracle basically precludes almost all copyright action on APIs alone.

1 more reply

jacobjjacob3y ago

I am vulnerable to copyright litigation for code I write, if I copied it. This is already true of anyone who is writing code.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse