Neil Brown, an English tech lawyer, writes about internet, telecoms, and technology law, including UK online safety and age verification rules.
HN commenters treat it as a reliable lawyer-written source on UK tech regulation, citing posts on the Online Safety Act and company name restrictions.
Here's Kate Downing, an IP lawyer specializing in software license:
> According to Downing, the answer depends to a certain extent on where that code is hosted. If it’s on GitHub, there very clearly would not be copyright infringement.
> “If you look at the GitHub Terms of Service, no matter what license you use, you give GitHub the right to host your code and to use your code to improve their products and features,” Downing says. “So with respect to code that’s already on GitHub, I think the answer to the question of copyright infringement is fairly straightforward.”
Downing cautions that copilot output of large chunks of code complete with comments are more questionable to use, but that for the most part it looks above board.
https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-copilot/
Here's an English lawyer on the same topic...
> The licence is broadly worded, and I'm confident that there is scope for argument, but if it turns out that Github does not require a licence for its activities then, in respect of the code hosted on Github, I suspect it could make a reasonable case that the mandatory licence grant in its terms covers this as against the uploader.
https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-thoughts-from-an-english-law-perspective
+ Politically regulated out.
The political environment the site operates in turns hostile to website content or method of publishing. The operators face costs of compliance, loss of scope, or personal risk in continuing.
See: The UK Online Safety Bill [1] [2] and especially [3] "Ofcom's >1,500 page consultation on the Online Safety Act 2023, and why small companies don't have a chance"
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23922397/uk-online-safety-bill-law-passed-royal-assent-moderation-regulation
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-government-knows-how-extreme-online-safety-bill
[3] https://decoded.legal/blog/2023/11/ofcoms-%3E1500-page-consultation-on-the-online-safety-act-2023-and-why-small-companies-dont-have-a-chance/
Except every attorney that has taken a look disagrees with you. So it is complex and unless you have any standing or new data I think it's safe to dismiss your entire argument.
https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-thoughts-from-an-english-law-perspective
https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-copilot/
https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/
I think you missed the boat - the requirement for filters and any company with user generated content having a censorship office in the EU and 1 hour SLA to delete content on request has recently passed without voting. It will be now implemented within a year.
Some light: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content-regulation-and-what-it-means-for-uk-hosting-providers
Though explicitly stating "Nothing on this site is legal advice. Use it at your own risk", the information on this site is compiled by a lawyer. Neil Brown [0] specialises in English Internet, telecoms, and as tech lawyer at decoded.legal [1].
[0] https://neilzone.co.uk/
[1] https://decoded.legal/
Also
https://decoded.legal/blog/2023/06/but-lawyers-know-nothing-about-tech/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36510439
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13446275
(https://jduclos.com/notes/github-for-lawyers is dead but several versions can be found on Internet Archive)