GitHub 與 OpenAI 合作推出的 GitHub Copilot

Hacker News 首頁上的第一名看到 GitHubOpenAI 合作推出了 GitHub Copilot,對應的討論可以在「GitHub Copilot: your AI pair programmer (copilot.github.com)」這邊看到。

GitHub Copilot 會猜測你接下來會想要寫的「完整片段」,像是這樣:

不過 Hacker News 上面的討論有參與 alpha 測試的人的評價,大概 1/10 機率會猜對,即使如此,他還是給了很多有用的資訊 (像是函式與變數的名稱):

fzaninotto

I've been using the alpha for the past 2 weeks, and I'm blown away. Copilot guesses the exact code I want to write about one in ten times, and the rest of the time it suggests something rather good, or completely off. But when it guesses right, it feels like it's reading my mind.

It's really like pair programming, even though I'm coding alone. I have a better understanding of my own code, and I tend to give better names and descriptions to my methods. I write better code, documentation, and tests.

Copilot has made me a better programmer. No kidding. This is a huge achievement. Kudos to the GitHub Copilot team!

然後也有人笑稱總算找到理由寫 comment 了:

pfraze

They finally did it. They finally found a way to make me write comments

反過來的另外一個大問題就是 copyright,這點在目前的問答集沒看到... 在 Hacker News 裡面的討論有提到這點,但目前沒有完整的定論。

目前只支援 VSCode,以後也許會有機會透過 LSP 支援其他的編輯器?

另外我想到 Kite 這個 machine learning 的 auto complete 工具,沒有那麼強大但也還不錯?

Google 與 Oracle 對 Java API 爭議的案子

前幾天應該很多媒體都有報導了,這邊算是整理一下看到的資料。

美國最高法院公佈的全文在「18-956_d18f.pdf」這邊可以看到,算是最重要的資料。

另外很多地方也有更新,像是維基百科上面的條目「Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.」。

這次的案件在軟體產業也很關注,難得可以在 Hacker News 上看到 upvote 超過四千的新聞:「Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf] (supremecourt.gov)」,不過裡面的討論我覺得就是鄉民拿著爆米花的感覺...

第一個重要的消息當然是 6-2 認定 fair use,並且讓聯邦法院重審 (但最高法院已經把最重要的部份拍板定案了),不過要注意的是,對於更基本的問題「API 是否有著作權」並沒有定案:

In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The decision reversed the Federal Circuit ruling and remanded the case for further review.

判決全文 PDF 的前面三頁多算是簡介說明這次的重點,Page 44 到 Page 62 則是反對的兩位大法官 (Clarence ThomasSamuel Alito) 所提出的異議,可以看到兩位大法官批評了 copyrightability 與 fair-use analysis 的問題。

這次的結果對軟體與網路產業影響超級大,舉個例子來說,一堆公司都有推出與 Amazon S3 相容 API 的產品 (這邊是 Network-based API)。另外 Firefox 直接拿 Chromium 的 Manifest 格式來相容降低開發者開發 extension 的成本。

之後應該可以看到大家用的更爽了...

youtube-dl 被 RIAA 用 DMCA 打下來的事件

youtube-dl 的這件事情的後續影響意外的大 (引發了 Streisand effect),除了這算是 RIAA 的最新力作以外,還發生了好幾個首次出現的過程 (而且有些事情還在進行),值得花一些時間挑出幾個比較有趣的地方記錄。

在英文版維基百科的「youtube-dl」與中文版維基百科的「youtube-dl」上面也陸陸續續把發生的經過都記錄起來了,有興趣的人也可以去看看。

RIAA 的動作不算太意外,比較特別的是這次的 takedown notice 不是常見的 DMCA 512 侵權宣告,而是宣稱 youtube-dl 故意繞過 YouTube 的「保護機制」的工具:「The RIAA’s fraudulent attack on youtube-dl is not a DMCA §512 infringement/safe-harbour, and the reality is weird」,除了本身的文件以外,大家發現在 test case 裡面試著下載 YouTube 上的版權影片也可能是個明顯的問題。

另外是 GitHub 現在的 CEO,Nat Friedman,親自跑到 youtube-dl 的 IRC 上面「討論」後續可能的作法,這點也是讓大家愣住的地方:「RIAA’s YouTube-DL Takedown Ticks Off Developers and GitHub’s CEO」。

不過最近 GitHub 又警告了使用者不要重新上傳 youtube-dl 的程式碼,這有可能會被 ban XDDD:「GitHub Warns Users Reposting YouTube-DL They Could Be Banned」,對應的修改在「add statement about reposting and tos violating content」這邊。

這齣戲還在演...

加拿大禁止透過 ISP 發送版權侵害通知

因為被濫用的關係,加拿大決定禁止版權擁有人透過 ISP 發送版權侵害通知:「Canada Prohibits Piracy Settlement Demands in ISP Copyright Notices」。

不過這個限制是有條件的,只有當通知裡面有包括任何形式的協議時才會被禁止:

Moving forward, rightsholders will not be allowed to send copyright infringement notices for ISPs to pass onto their customers, if they contain a direct or indirect offer to settle.

TorrentFreak 的文章裡也提到了,就是要阻止這樣的行為變成「產業」:

The development effectively ends Rightscorp-style business models in Canada.

這是條文:

Bill C-86, the Budget Implementation Act, has now received royal assent, so there will be some big changes in the Great White North. Section 41.‍25 of the Copyright Act is now amended with the addition of the following;

(3) A notice of claimed infringement shall not contain:

(a) an offer to settle the claimed infringement;
(b) a request or demand, made in relation to the claimed infringement, for payment or for personal information;
(c) a reference, including by way of hyperlink, to such an offer, request or demand; and
(d) any other information that may be prescribed by regulation.

歐盟對於盜版是否帶來傷害的研究

歐盟在 2014 年做了關於盜版與銷量的研究,結果一直被壓到最近才發表出來 (於是就大概可以猜到結論了...):「EU Piracy Report Suppression Raises Questions Over Transparency」。

“In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements,” the study notes.

甚至:

The study found that piracy had a slightly positive effect on the videogames industry, suggesting that those who play pirate games eventually become buyers of official content.

另外也描述了現有電影與 TV-series 定價策略偏高:

“Overall, the analysis indicates that for films and TV-series current prices are higher than 80 per cent of the illegal downloaders and streamers are willing to pay,” the study notes.

難怪被壓著...

最近最歡樂 (?) 的 DMCA Takedown...

最近最歡樂的 DMCA Takedown 消息,FoxFamily Guy (蓋酷家庭) 的劇情裡引用了一段從 YouTube 上的遊戲影片 (Double Dribble - NES - Automatic Shot),然後節目播出後 Fox 發 DMCA Takedown 下架掉這個影片:「Fox 'Stole' a Game Clip, Used it in Family Guy & DMCA'd the Original」。

Family Guy 那段片段在「Family Guy Double Dribble」這邊可以看到。

只要在沒有嚴格的懲罰機制 (懲罰「偽造版權擁有人」的行為),這種大公司侵犯小市民權利的現象只會愈來愈嚴重...

音樂著作的授權架構

TorrentFreak 上看到「YouTube Copyright Complaint Kills Harvard Professor's Copyright Lecture (Update)」這篇文章提到了 YouTube 下架了「William Fisher, CopyrightX: Lecture 3.3, The Subject Matter of Copyright: Music」這部影片。

有兩件事情吸引我,第一件是,這是哈佛法學院的教授 William Fisher 的課程在說明音樂產業的著作權以及授權架構的線上影片,被 SME (i.e. Sony) 透過 YouTube 的 ContentID 以侵犯版權給下架了... XDDD (瞬間把板凳給拉出來坐著等)

第二件事情是在這個影片恢復後跑去看而發現的,發現描述音樂產業的授權模式講的相當清楚 (以美國的觀點),尤其當你身在這個產業裡 (yeah yeah),要因為這些授權架構不斷的改變,去修改現有的資料庫設計以配合授權架構,就會更有感覺了。

這個影片另外一個值得讀的地方在於他有手工翻譯的英文字幕可以看,有興趣看這個產業裡的各種複雜的授權架構的人,絕對值得觀看這 24 分鐘的影片:

Love your country, but never trust its government

Hacker News Daily 上看到的,在 Sun-2 的 bootloader 裡可以看到「Love your country, but never trust its government」這樣的字串:「Why the Sun 2 has the message "Love your country, but never trust its government"」。

這段字串是由 John Gilmore 當時在 Sun 開發時所放入的,John Gilmore 同時也是後來 EFF 創辦人之一,不過當初放入這段字串的目的是為了抓到盜版:

Yes. Vinod Khosla, first President of Sun, came to me at one point and said to put something hidden, triggered in an unexpected way, into the ROM Monitor, so that if somebody cloned the Sun Workstation (violating our software’s copyright), we could do that unexpected thing to the competitor’s demo workstation at a trade show and thereby prove that they had cloned it.

過了三十年後 John Gilmore 被挖出來問的回應也是蠻有趣的... (可以參考原文附上的信件)

而這句話現在回頭看也很經典,尤其是最近各國政府想要在 crypto system 裡面放後門的各種反應。

Google 的書本掃描服務被認定為「合理使用」

Google 的書本掃描服務被認定為合理使用:「Google's Book-Scanning Project Ruled to Be Legal `Fair Use'」。

“Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses,” U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote on behalf of the court. “The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.”

看起來是一路打到第二巡迴上訴法院了?(負責紐約地區)

第九巡迴上訴法院:DMCA takedown notification 必須先確認是否為合理使用 (Fair Use)

出自 EFF 的「Takedown Senders Must Consider Fair Use, Ninth Circuit Rules」這篇,案件可以參考「Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.」這篇,或是 EFF 整理的「Lenz v. Universal」這篇,由 EFF 發起訴訟控告環球侵犯合理使用權:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) asking a federal court to protect the fair use and free speech rights of a mother who posted a short video of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song on the Internet.

起因在於 Stephanie Lenz 上傳了一段 29 秒的影片,背景有 Let's Go Crazy 這首歌的音樂,而被環球發 DMCA takedown notification 下架:

Stephanie Lenz's 29-second recording shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy " which is heard playing in the background. Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February to share it with her family and friends.

後來 Stephanie Lenz 發出 counter notification 並且控告環球濫用 DMCA notification:

In late June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.

而環球直接挑明不在意 fair use:

In September 2007, Prince released statements that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet." In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principle.

於是雙方就從 2007 年開始一路打官司,首先的判決是地方法院認為 DMCA takedown 必須確認侵權事實才能發,這包括了要確認 fair use:

The district court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, and declined to dismiss Lenz's misrepresentation claim as a matter of law.

同時認為環球濫用 DMCA takedown notification:

The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in an important part of the balance in the DMCA.

然後就是一路往上打,打到前幾天第九巡迴上訴法院宣佈維持原來判決定案。這是官方放出的 PDF:「UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (PDF)」。Summary 的部份提到這次判決的結論:

The panel held that the DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.

這個判決使得目前使用機器自動無條件送 takedown notification 的程式也會受到規範,後續看 EFF 怎麼出招了...