Don't confuse what you want with what the law says
"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device" [https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html]
A copy is made whenever that text is displayed, e.g., in GitHub's UI. Even that copy is subject to copyright.
Is there an excuse/exception? In this case, there is no "fair use" exception, because exceptions have to be litigated case-by-case to be recognized, and there are no remotely similar situations. Don't forget: Lexis is a multi-billion-dollar business built on protecting the copyright to the page numbers in the otherwise public court opinions.
Does the law actually protect people if it's too costly to enforce? Not really; hence the blase attitude. Congress is considering a "small claims" system for copyright, to remedy the big-firm bias. [https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appm.html]
In the ML era, data is the new gold. Many, many firms nowadays get a good chunk of their revenues from selling their private view of "public" data: Facebook, LinkedIn, credit reporting companies, ADP, etc. Microsoft has gone all-in on stealing that gold from open-source developers.
It's not just that the code replication reduces any need to get the code from the source. But removing any link to the source destroys the value most-commonly sought in open-source software: recognition.
Salaries are the biggest expense of tech companies. They do everything they can to increase labor competition and reduce reputational rents: outsource, cross-train, promote open-source (for competition) and destroy any reputation networks or systems that justify higher rates. And, of course, standardize on containerized copy-paste or AI-generated software if they can.
So, no: copilot is not legal, it's socially and economically destabilizing, and it presents structural challenges to developers.
It's not good, but most will keep using it because although the vast, vast majority of developers are wage laborers, they aspire to be founders. They see it can make code fast, and they'll think it make them better.
"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device" [https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html]
A copy is made whenever that text is displayed, e.g., in GitHub's UI. Even that copy is subject to copyright.
Is there an excuse/exception? In this case, there is no "fair use" exception, because exceptions have to be litigated case-by-case to be recognized, and there are no remotely similar situations. Don't forget: Lexis is a multi-billion-dollar business built on protecting the copyright to the page numbers in the otherwise public court opinions.
Does the law actually protect people if it's too costly to enforce? Not really; hence the blase attitude. Congress is considering a "small claims" system for copyright, to remedy the big-firm bias. [https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appm.html]
In the ML era, data is the new gold. Many, many firms nowadays get a good chunk of their revenues from selling their private view of "public" data: Facebook, LinkedIn, credit reporting companies, ADP, etc. Microsoft has gone all-in on stealing that gold from open-source developers.
It's not just that the code replication reduces any need to get the code from the source. But removing any link to the source destroys the value most-commonly sought in open-source software: recognition.
Salaries are the biggest expense of tech companies. They do everything they can to increase labor competition and reduce reputational rents: outsource, cross-train, promote open-source (for competition) and destroy any reputation networks or systems that justify higher rates. And, of course, standardize on containerized copy-paste or AI-generated software if they can.
So, no: copilot is not legal, it's socially and economically destabilizing, and it presents structural challenges to developers.
It's not good, but most will keep using it because although the vast, vast majority of developers are wage laborers, they aspire to be founders. They see it can make code fast, and they'll think it make them better.