It is not. I can setup a automated reply if you continue to insist on… Whatever this is, or we can agree to disagree which is fine, but I find your perspective twisted, ignorant, and incorrect. I’m not sure what you want from me beyond that other than to capitulate to your tantrum.

That’s not accurate.

Nah, you’re wrong. Code is almost exclusively implementations with a final optimized form for a task akin to a recipe.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

It’s just not man. Maybe bad code has a style, but good code can always be be broken down to optimized implementations if done properly, and even if, you could then say the same thing about a sufficiently developed recipe, or meal, as you can generally tell the chef that made it or diner it came from in town, etc, etc in a lot of cases. I’m not saying it can’t be used to make something artistic at some level, but code itself is not deserving of copyright, and copyright itself is entirely busted anyway. The concept is unfit and untooled for modern society.

That’s just not true. There are optimal implementations in code and computer science. It’s not expressive art at the code level.

Coding isn’t creative though. There’s an optimum solution to every problem, the layer above the code may be some form of art that needs protected but the code itself is just a recipe.

I disagree. I would say both are incomplete comparisons because code is special, it has limitations, it relies on underlying hardware support, and it’s implementing, generally, functionality not anything creative. I don’t have to present a good solution though in order to point out something is broken, I leave that for those more intelligent than I, but copyright is objectively a poor answer to code and is not comparable to an expressive artistic written work.

They’re moving to this as it’s the only defense against oppression, but copy left was intentionally designed to combat copyright because the core founders of open source disagreed with it and the oppression it was causing in the software development community. Imagine if a recipe for Chilli dogs was copyrightable, but not the concept of Chilli dogs. That’s downright silly.

I disagree entirely. I grew up when the conversation around if code should even be copyrightable was happening, and at the time to an extent it made some sense, but the entire copy left movement was intended to combat the copyright of code in the name of open source because copy righting code is both stupid and baseless. Imagine if for loops were copyrighted? That’s what you’re essentially arguing unless there’s some sort of vague subjective measure you’re using to determine when something is copyrightable. The entire thing is just oppressive and does not help the people involved that actually deserve benefit and protection. I’m not saying to cut lose and allow rampant theft but copyright as currently designed and implemented is objectively broken and untooled to the tasks of today, stifling innovation and protecting corporate interests above creators and actual developers.

Code should’ve never been copyrightable from the start. It’s basically the compute equivalent of a recipe. That aside, almost all modern transformer models are trained on generated data by this point, how would we even apply traditional copyright to that? Whole thing needs tossed and retooled. Entire economic system with it tbh, just slows innovation, and despite what you might believe it doesn’t protect the little guy, it just allows massive corporate conglomerates to buy up everything and control for what will be pretty much the extent of your lifetime.

iPhone: 499 Laptop: 0

Kids are being shit asses and using tools for malicious purposes because everyone involved with being responsible for them has shrugged responsibility and action! More at a 11!