> If it's actually co authored then you should be fine on copyright

How so? All your outoutput is now legally partly owned by Microsoft?

If I write "I own lelanthran's car", does that make me the legal owner of your car? No?

> If I write "I own lelanthran's car", does that make me the legal owner of your car?

If I counter sign agreement, certainly. How do you think that sales of both movable and immovable property work?

That's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a third party modifying your document without your consent (and sometimes even without your knowledge). You write git commit "Fix bug" and then a third party swoops in the night and modifies that with "Co-authored by: Microsoft".

> That's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a third party modifying your document without your consent (and sometimes even without your knowledge). You write git commit "Fix bug" and then a third party swoops in the night and modifies that with "Co-authored by: Microsoft".

Right, and how is a court supposed to differentiate between the cases when copilot was not sharing your typewriter and cases when it was?

The bot (and therefore microsoft) doesn't get any copyright at all.

> The bot (and therefore microsoft) doesn't get any copyright at all.

But then neither do you, for every commit that was marked with copilot.

What makes you say that?

If a monkey uses a typewriter, there's no copyright.

If I use a typewriter with a monkey, I get copyright and the monkey doesn't.

Why would the monkey need copyright for me to get copyright?

> If I use a typewriter with a monkey, I get copyright and the monkey doesn't.

Right, because monkeys cannot be granted copyright. If you use a typewriter along with Microsoft, the resulting copyright will be owned jointly.

This story isn't about a monkey claiming co-authorship, it's about Microsoft claiming co-authorship.

No. Legal ownership doesn't depend on whether aislop edited your commit message.