Rita
Ariadne Conill 🐰
so anthropic's coding thing leaked, and they are using DMCA to get it taken down.
but if it is all vibecoded and everything generated by LLM is not copyrightable...
Toasterson (Till Wegmüller)@ariadne I know right! /me grabs popcorn for the return of the appeals.
Not a Spring OnionAnthropic lawyer: "Similar to murder vs. accidental death, 'stealing' assumes intent, which our AI doesn't have, or... maybe has, we aren't sure about that... so... I think we have to postpone the verdict until a time where Anthropic has successfully and beyond all doubt created an AGI and contained it."
princess pancake 
@[email protected] Couldn't they technically say it's a trade secret?
🆘Bill Cole 🇺🇦
tj usiyan
⠠⠵ avuko
mx alex tax1a - 2020 (6)
LisPi
prozacchiwawa"a manager received orders from a corporate board to get someone to vibe code this, which is creative work."
Dan Lyke
ǝʌɐp
Nicolas Dufour@ariadne a bit like saying that LLMs is the best opensource source of code ever created :D a copyright laundromat ^^
@nrdufour i mean someone made that argument on openbsd-tech recently
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@atax1a/116307867227671298
@ariadne i think we called this 4 days ago
Ayush Agarwal (आयुष अग्रवाल)@atax1a I mean, I fail to see how it wasn't obvious to anyone who has a shred of curiosity and understanding about how copyright works. The fact that we were able to predict it doesn't really feel all that good to me and I don't feel like saying "I told you so" to people who gleefully argued that the existence of LLMs means "knowledge is liberated" or "copyright is dead" or "individuals can reverse engineer proprietary code using LLMs". Yeah, good luck with that.
Ayush Agarwal (आयुष अग्रवाल) (@[email protected])
Sensitive content: rambling about LLMs
@ayushnix no, the vindication never feels good.
cmw
Nuclear OatmealWas only with phone when I heard. So I just downloaded the zip file from GitHub since I figured its half life wouldn't be too long.
Vincent Sparks 🔜 Furlingame@ariadne can't wait for the courts to decide that it only counts as copyright infringement if someone with less than a billion dollars is doing it
eh, maybe it won't even get as far as the courts. maybe GitHub will just comply with the takedown requests because they don't want to be in Anthropic's bad graces and that will be that, no option for appeal, just like on YouTube
then again they did put yt-dlp back up after a stern talking-to from the EFF, so who knows
Luna / Miika ☭ 
(need more cuddles)@ariadne @AVincentInSpace I dont understand why anyone would put DMCA content on GitHub...
Semitones
SierraKomodo 
@ariadne Feels like these days dmca only exists to be abused by the rich and powerful
js@ariadne Even better: Prompt Claude to rewrite it all and tell it to make it clean room, just like has been done with OSS software before :). It’s a win-win: Either copyright does not apply, and their own code is now open source, even if it contained some non-AI-generated code. Or copyright does apply and OSS can no longer be license washed using LLMs.
@ariadne it's not *all* vibecoded. And DMCA requires honoring the takedown request. Of course, the request can be disputed, and the whole thing can go to court, and Anthropic can produce evidence about which parts of the code were human produced.
But the answer isn't as simple as "it's all GenAI so none of it is copyrightable".
It would be more fun if it were, though.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Two things:
As I recall, from the recent ruling, if you do not clearly identify which bits of a work you wish to assert copyright on are generated mechanically, you cannot claim copyright on the whole. I was surprised by that bit.
You are almost correct on the DMCA. When you receive a DMCA takedown notice, you must take down the work, but when you receive a counter notice you may restore it. At this point, you are no longer liable for infringement. Unfortunately, that asymmetry means that most companies interpret it as taking down the work with a DMCA notice and then ignoring the counter notice.
But this is where it get’s fun. The only barrier to abuse of DMCA notices is that they include a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that you own the copyrighted work (and clearly identify the work). This leads to a lot of spurious notices because you don’t need to swear that you have any kind of good-faith evidence that it constitutes infringement, so it’s fine to send DMCA notices for things that are clearly fair use. What should happen then is that the person who posted it says ‘nope, fair use’, you restore it and then they have to take the uploaded to court. But see the aforementioned asymmetry. In this case, it’s likely that Anthropic is claiming, under penalty of perjury, that they own the copyright on work that is not eligible for copyright. If you receive one of these notices, please keep and share it, it may be the evidence that leads to jail time for some Anthropic folks.
gunstick