The question is whether these AI rewrites skirt around this by being a “clean rewrite”. Again, IANAL, but the proponents seem to argue that it is, while the detractors say that it is not a clear rewrite, or it may not be a clean rewrite in specific circumstances.
Because LLMs count as tools under current case law (as weak as it is), if you end up in court you’ll have to argue against the fact that:
You saw copyrighted code
Using a tool, you created substantially similar code
The current legal fiction of “having one agent describe what the existing code does to a separate agent that implements it” which is roughly like clean-room reverse engineering, just doesn’t work without the strict separation that requires multiple people to be involved - you are tainted, so you cannot have any influence on the output, which you inherently have if you’re the one controlling the LLMs.
Look I’m not a lawyer. Your argument could be sound or not. In any case accepting these AI rewrites as clean room rewrites would basically render copyright worthless, and I doubt the courts will stand for that. Although I could be wrong
Because LLMs count as tools under current case law (as weak as it is), if you end up in court you’ll have to argue against the fact that:
The current legal fiction of “having one agent describe what the existing code does to a separate agent that implements it” which is roughly like clean-room reverse engineering, just doesn’t work without the strict separation that requires multiple people to be involved - you are tainted, so you cannot have any influence on the output, which you inherently have if you’re the one controlling the LLMs.
score 1 · canonical
Look I’m not a lawyer. Your argument could be sound or not. In any case accepting these AI rewrites as clean room rewrites would basically render copyright worthless, and I doubt the courts will stand for that. Although I could be wrong
score 1 · canonical