zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
As some other commenters have noted, it seems like the copyrighted code is being copied and pasted into many other codebases (shadowgovt says they found 32,000 hits), which are then (illegally) representing an incorrect license.

So obviously the source of the error is one or more third parties, not Microsoft, and it's obviously impossible for Microsoft to be responsible in advance for what other people claim to license.

It does make you wonder, however, if Microsoft ought to be responsible for obeying a type of "DCMA takedown" request that should apply to ML models -- not on all 32,000 sources but rather on a specified text snippet -- to be implemented the next time the model is trained (or if it's practical for filters to be placed on the output of the existing model). I don't know what the law says, but it certainly seems like a takedown model would be a good compromise here.

>>crazyg+7p
> So obviously the source of the error is one or more third parties, not Microsoft, and it's obviously impossible for Microsoft to be responsible in advance for what other people claim to license.

No. Look at the insane YouTube copystrike situation. Why shouldn't Microsoft be held to the same standards?

>>matheu+up
I can't tell what you're arguing. You seem to be suggesting that YouTube is doing insane things, and that therefore... Microsoft should also be doing insane things?

Also a major problem with YouTube is not with DCMA itself, but it how it implements the system to allow for abusive takedowns without repercussions for the abusers.