| ▲ | handoflixue 9 hours ago |
| Regardless of what you do now, I think you should be prepared for the upcoming reality that LLMs are going to be able to reproduce software, feature-perfect, in a way that does not currently violate copyright law. Right now, the settled law is that such an LLM reproduction is 100% legal. If you really want to protect your software in the years to come, you might have to seriously consider starting some sort of popular political movement to address this issue in copyright law. Current models can already do a full reproduction of anything with source code available (e.g. JavaScript...), and there's already been some poor-quality Photoshop knockoffs. |
|
| ▲ | kube-system 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Right now, the settled law is that such an LLM reproduction is 100% legal. Where did you hear that? Because it is 100% untrue and is the opposite of current legal guidance from reputable legal expert |
|
| ▲ | 14u2c 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Right now, the settled law is that such an LLM reproduction is 100% legal. How so? Interfaces are not copyrightable, but that it not the same as dissecting a js bundle and copying the implementations. Are we sure these LLM are keeping sanitary habits there? |
| |
| ▲ | verdverm 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | if you've used any Ai in your own code authoring, copyrights may be completely out the window several courts have ruled Ai output is not copyrightable, I am unaware of any co-authored cases | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you only used the output of an LLM, then you don’t qualify. But, the use of LLMs is not disqualifying. To qualify for copyright protection your work simply must have a sufficient degree of human authorship. However this is just about protection, not infringement. If you use an LLM to generate something and that LLM just happens to output something that another human wrote, you may be liable for copyright infringement. | |
| ▲ | abrookewood 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That doesn't top people producing copies though, just trying to copyright the copies. | | |
| ▲ | verdverm 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | it also means that you cannot claim copyright against copiers, the context here being the original has had Ai involvement in the development process |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tgma 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > popular political movement to address this issue in copyright law. Or perhaps the people should admit that copyright, an artificial construct which is not rooted in natural property, was inherently broken and is not (or at least no longer is) a net benefit to the society and simply adapt around it. |
| |
| ▲ | account42 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Only if I as a human being get the same rights to e.g. Microsofts code as they get to mine via legal trickery in your world. | |
| ▲ | theturtletalks 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was watching a video talking about how a world before copyright allowed innovation to spread quickly and allowed people miles away to iterate faster. Even if LLMs reproducing feature perfect software is deemed a copyright violation, people will just do it privately and use the software themselves. I’m personally waiting for LLMs to get so good that I can make music and movies based on my favorite ones. I probably could never release it to the public, but being able to make it and enjoy it myself would be amazing. | | |
| ▲ | tgma 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Another thing that can help contextualize this phenomenon is mix tapes, which are fair use in the US. Modifying/modding/remixing software was simply not as feasible as music, but LLMs made it possible. | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That world worked because the ones doing the research were either self-sufficient hermits (often self-sufficient by necessity as they were outcast for "being mad"), financed by the Church or financed by a rich person (usually the fiefdom's ruler, sometimes independent wealth). Copyright, patents and IP are the evolution of our (Western) way of converting research into a form of financial investment. | | |
| ▲ | ButlerianJihad 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Patronage and support of the arts (and sciences) was a great value proposition for Churchmen in old times. You could commission works of music or sculpture or stained glass or what have you, and these were of course well-fitted to be installed or performed in the confines of your church and serve the liturgy. So they were collective goods that were enjoyed by many; they attracted locals and they beautified their surroundings, and they encouraged pilgrimages and stimulated income if you could become particularly distinguished and attractive, based on the beauty lent by your artisans and artists. And a big church could employ lots of them, and thereby stimulate the economy. It seems that the Baroque Era and churches crammed to the rafters with art, may be an artifact of a very good job market for those architects, craftsmen and artists! Yeah... you could copy some sheet music and share it around, but it still required skilled musicians to perform, play and sing it. And nobody was taking photos or uploading JPEGs of your art and sculpture, so it was fairly locked-in that people needed to visit, and see it in context. So it stood to reason that you could probably reconstruct Noah's Ark from the fragments of True Cross that were circulating around Europe... and how many fingers did your favorite saint really have? Copyright-free church economics have sort of fallen apart since then. However, museums, arena concerts, theaters and the rest, they have all taken pages from the Church playbooks. The fact that a church can still draw in hundreds for a show with great production values, every week or daily, seems dull and unremarkable now, but a good rock concert or museum collection can evoke the same "goin' to church" fervor in people who like that kind of stuff. |
| |
| ▲ | verdverm 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is something similar happening in the game modding communities. One of my favorite streamers had claude write a little mod to change the UI of KSP so it kept with the larger fanciful theme of the game, over being so sci-fi-ish. He didn't like, he changed it, he's probably not going to release it because of sensitivity in the broader gaming ecosystem. I have agents maintaining several patches to my main tools, not forking, not sharing (some have no interest), personal adjustments | | |
| ▲ | tancop 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > he's probably not going to release it because of sensitivity in the broader gaming ecosystem There is basically zero pushback to generated code. All the crazy Minecraft in GTA type mods that came out in the last couple weeks are obviously vibe coded but no one cares because they play good and surprisingly bug free. If he put in AI visuals as in generated textures then it's different, because that's way more visible and gets labeled as slop immediately. There's also the (accurate imo) perception that AI is taking artists jobs against their will but coders adopted it on their own and benefit from it, so using it for code is ethical from a labor rights POV. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nathanlied 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I feel like I need to nitpick a little:
Models don't need source code available to reproduce software. See all the "full decompilation" projects cropping up. There's no putting this genie back in the box, because LLMs can also "refurbish" a project enough that it ceases to look like the original. People don't bother now because they don't have to, but in a world where they'd get hit with copyright notices, they would. |