I find the conundrum of the ‘Claw Code’ scenario amusing.
LLM companies have argued they should get to ignore all copyright, and now that one of their code leaked, suddenly they care greatly about copyright.
But fine, their argument is that LLM digest of copyright infringements are ‘fair use’, so now that’s been turned against them, using an LLM to launder their copyrighted material in precisely the way they declared doesn’t count. So either they let it ride or undermine their own argument…
Or, and in my view the most likely option, they will get away with ripping off the little guy AND claiming “but bruh mah copyright” because they have very well paid lawyers and most western countries but especially the US have a two tiered legal system designed to protect the rich and punish the poor.
Right, I asked the source of those figures (I didn’t give the source in context, it just did a web search) and I got this: https://read.engineerscodex.com/p/diving-into-claude-codes-source-code
I find the conundrum of the ‘Claw Code’ scenario amusing.
LLM companies have argued they should get to ignore all copyright, and now that one of their code leaked, suddenly they care greatly about copyright.
But fine, their argument is that LLM digest of copyright infringements are ‘fair use’, so now that’s been turned against them, using an LLM to launder their copyrighted material in precisely the way they declared doesn’t count. So either they let it ride or undermine their own argument…
Or, and in my view the most likely option, they will get away with ripping off the little guy AND claiming “but bruh mah copyright” because they have very well paid lawyers and most western countries but especially the US have a two tiered legal system designed to protect the rich and punish the poor.