i think the copyright question is still unanswered: it could turn out that any LLM-generated code is a copyright violation by definition unless trained exclusively on a clean, legitimately-obtained dataset (which few of the major models are).

I think this argument is BS, there are several remix/sample based albums that count as derived works and AFAIK, no one is getting paid.

[–] Peasley@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not exactly the same, and the music industry has had plenty of lawsuits going both ways on that kind of thing establishing a status quo for remixes and samples in music

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 1 week ago

"Most" music is also under a compulsory licensing system, while virtually no code, prose, or visual art is.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

SilvaGunner 🫡

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Note that the remix/sample example hasn't always worked out as you state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony#Credits_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord#Copyright_infringement_suit

In many cases, "AFAIK" in your case you may have no idea that in fact, the copyright holder is being paid. Or the copyright holder is one and the same, with rights sometimes assigned to someone other than the musicians involved.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substantiality

you wanna make the argument that 5000000 hello world projects are a substantial part of an AI?