It's worth reading the passage in its entirety and how a court would interpret it:
> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.
If Copilot is straight-up reproducing work, and it is a service that users have to pay to use, then it seems like Copilot is "sell[ing] your content" and thus the license does not apply.
More generally, a court is likely to look at the plain English summary and judge. Copilot is not an integral part of "the service" as developers understood it before Copilot existed.
