They want to do this so they can feed their ai models.
Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch
Submitted 11 months ago by zaxvenz@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/13/jack-dorsey-and-elon-musk-would-like-to-delete-all-ip-law/
Comments
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
freely1333@reddthat.com 11 months ago
You can tell China is making strides when suddenly IP laws are a nuisance rather than a fundamental value of the American system lol
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
Our models
drmoose@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Good. I don’t like them but clearly IP law is a net negative on our society and peoppe have been argueing against it forever now.
deathbird@mander.xyz 11 months ago
Now that it interferes with me I’m against it. As soon as it’s absence causes me any grief I’ll be for it again.
neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
I think ip laws are important but need to be changed. One example are things that are funded by tax dollars. They can’t own the ip of something we funded even if partially funded. Maybe let them hold the ip until they recoup their cost.
I also think that it is OK for companies to have ip, but it needs to be shorter. Like, they get 10 years or they earn 10x their cost on developing it.
Im not saying my exact ideas are perfect, but just an example of how ip should not last for as long as it does.
dzso@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Musk is out to delete all laws that don’t benefit him, and replace them with harsh private rules that are not accountable to the people.
vane@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I see someone read “Chokepoint Capitalism” 3 years later.
tabular@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Talking about “IP” as if it were a single thing confuses any debate. Copyright is not a patent, which is not a trademark - they do different things.
Software patents actually should be deleted. It is impractical to avoid accidentally infringing there are multiple ways to describe the same system using totally different technical descriptions. Copyright for software was enough.
uis@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Copyright for software is a joke. Software is only copyrightable thing, where mandatory copy is not enforced.
hansolo@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Thank you for the only based take.
IP law is so fractured that individual US states have different laws that can have international implications. It’s a massive hodgepodge that need to be aligned and nationalized.
Taleya@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Disney vs the tech brats. Jumbish, bring me the popcorn
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If we lived in a just world these bastards would be sued into bankruptcy.
x00z@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’ll make Teslas, but good ones, and I’m not a Nazi.
maplebar@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They can lead by example by submitting their IP into the public domain.
Or maybe they’re just massive frauds?
StJohnMcCrae@slrpnk.net 11 months ago
This is of course after they spent decades consolidating power, wealth and influence, while snuffing out all smaller competitors.
merc@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
The current US trade war is the perfect opportunity for some other country or countries to “right-size” their IP laws.
Hollywood wanted “lifetime plus 900 years” or whatever. So, whenever the US negotiated a trade deal it said “you only get tariff-free access to our markets if you give Hollywood lifetime plus 900 years in your country too.”
With section 1201 of the DMCA this also meant that other countries had to accept that you could only repair your John Deere tractor if you paid Deere for the privilege. Or that HP could prevent you from using any ink but theirs in your printer, allowing them to make printer ink the most expensive liquid on the planet.
If the US is no longer abiding by the terms of their trade agreements, other countries should no longer honor these absurd IP treaties.
noxypaws@pawb.social 11 months ago
kibiz0r@midwest.social 11 months ago
IP law does 3 things that are incredibly important… but have been basically irrelevant between roughly 1995-2023.
- Accurate attribution. Knowing who actually made a thing is super important for the continued development of ideas, as well as just granting some dignity to the inventor/author/creator.
- Faithful reproduction. Historically, bootleg copies of things would often be abridged to save costs or modified to suit the politics of the bootlegger, but would still be sold under the original title. It’s important to know what the canonical original content is, if you’re going to judge it fairly and respond to it.
- Preventing bootleggers from outcompeting original creators through scale.
Digital technology made these irrelevant for a while, because search engines could easily answer #1, digital copies are usually exact copies so #2 was not an issue, and digital distribution made #3 (scale) much more balanced.
But then came AI. And suddenly all 3 of these concerns are valid again. And we’ve got a population who just spent the past 30 years living in a world where IP law had zero upsides and massive downsides.
There’s no question that IP law is due for an overhaul. The question is: will we remember that it ever did anything useful, or will we exchange one regime of fatcats fucking over culture for another one?
uis@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I’m yet to see how AI makes #2 relevant.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
1&2 solved by digital signature
3 both never happens and when it happens IP laws can’t really stop it
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Are we pretending metadata on images and sounds actually work and don’t get scrubbed almost immediately?
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 11 months ago
How does genai make those concerns valid again?
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’ve decided all of your comments are all mine, I’m feeding them into an AI which approximates you except ends every statement with how stupid and lame it is. It talks a lot about gayness as a side effect of that, in a derogatory manner.
Would you like me to stop?
odioLemmy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Make yourself the question: how does genai respect these 3 boundaries set by IP law? All providers of Generative AI services should be forced by law to explicitly estate this.
void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
The only sensible thing either of these two have ever said. All knowledge belongs to all humankind.
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 11 months ago
And people flocked to this guy’s social network
Ulrich@feddit.org 11 months ago
It is not and never was his social network. And the fact that they upset him so badly that he left is probably a good sign.
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I really thought it was, will do some reading
kreskin@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Dorsey got fired from his own company by the board for incompetence.
vonbaronhans@midwest.social 11 months ago
Was that from Bluesky or somewhere else?
kreskin@lemmy.world 11 months ago
twitter. He was fired as ceo in 2008, was brought back, and then again was told to step down by the board or be fired. axios.com/…/jack-dorsey-step-down-twitter-ceo
qaz@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A real nuisance for all those AI datasets, huh?
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I don’t think so, it seems they are already immune to it
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m pretty much on board with getting rid of software patents as they are absolutely ridiculous, but I don’t think we should necessarily get rid of the rest, but they do require reform.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Musk saying something doesn’t reflect on the idea itself. For many thousands of years people freely imitated whatever they saw that worked, in a process known as “the spread of civilization”. At some point somebody figured out they could get rich by selling copies of other people’s work and paying them a pittence, aka “royalty”, and boom IP laws were born, and so was the concept that imitation = “stealing”. So now if you rub two sticks together without paying somebody it means you’re evil. Unless they’re evil - in that case you’re fighting for social justice. It all makes so much sense.
gargolito@lemm.ee 11 months ago
The libertarians want everything for free. Interesting.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 11 months ago
You wouldn’t download a car?
the_q@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I’m not a libertarian and I want everything to be free. If I have an idea on how to make a device that betters the lives of those around me, why the hell would I keep it to myself or try to become rich off it?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
What libertarians? I don’t know much about Dorsey, but Musk doesn’t seem much like a libertarian to me.
chaogomu@lemmy.world 11 months ago
And the second they get it, they reinvent IP law, but in an even more restricted form.
Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Well now they will just crush opponents via favours from the politicians they directly and openly paid for.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 11 months ago
Ok. Then you don’t own anything anymore.
I’ll start making Teslas that don’t suck.
VolumetricShitCompressor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Disney has entered the chat
sdfric88@lemmy.sdf.org 11 months ago
You know, Disney is an awful mega corporation, but wow would I love to see them turn on this administration with their full ire. The mouse v swasticars
VolumetricShitCompressor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Yea, that’s what I was thinking about as well.
Naich@lemmings.world 11 months ago
The GPL relies on copyright law to keep software free.
bss03@infosec.pub 11 months ago
Yeah, we’d have to shift tactics. But, without IP law protections, the hacker community would double down on reverse engineering and binary patching. Debian etc. would still be available, but you’d also see spins on Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Google software based on decompiling, patching, and rebuilding, or just game genie / PC game cracks binary patching based on offset and signature.
The DMCA would dissolve and encysted data and the expected to be decrypted on the fly (“streaming only”) would just be published fully decrypted.
It would be a revolutionary shift, but I’m not convinced it would be worse.
What would be worse is keeping IP law, but only having it enforced by million dollar yearly budget teams of lawyers and not protecting creators of having their works fed to AI and regurgitated as slop.
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Making source available suddenly makes it free of copyright
Naich@lemmings.world 11 months ago
No it doesn’t. The GPL provides a license to copy it as long as certain conditions are met. Availability has nothing to do with it.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m cool with it. I think we should require almost everything to be public domain. But I think those personally contributing to the public domain should be recognized, and no one should be allowed to get rich off of it.
obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 11 months ago
I’d like to get back to ‘for limited time’. Patents 10 years, no extensions. Copyright, 10 years, no extensions. Trademarks indefinite as long as the owner still has a meaningful business still operating and using the trademark ( this one is tricky to define well).
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s still a misguided policy aimed at furthering the lie of individualism. Which why we have so many ridiculous true stories of parallel invention, and scientists racing to the patent office to claim full credit.
These people are building on the works of all those who came before. All should benefit from the results. And all should enjoy a basic standard of living, instead of this cut throat first past this finish line system, where all who fall behind will suffer.
nik9000@programming.dev 11 months ago
A government stipend to make public art or open source software or literature or whatever sounds pretty great. It’s hard to see how we get there from here. But it’d be great.
France has something like it for artists I think.
RedFrank24@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Well… Until you get someone like Trump in charge and he decides that the stipend only goes to those that praise him and strips the stipend from anyone critical of him or his ideology.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A great starting point is guaranteeing a basic standard of living for all. No exceptions.
AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev 11 months ago
Removing copyright entirely is a bridge too far.
Just roll it back to a reasonable time limit (I dunno, 7 years?), and categorically reject all further lobbying attempts from Disney and the like.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is called being a “reactionary.” You don’t want to drastically change the system in ways that’ll make things better for all. You just want to return to a previous status quo you enjoyed.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You’re cool with it until you realize that they only want to do this to personally gain from it. And guaranteed will protect their own IP, and the IP of every large corporation.
It’s just that you yourself and small businesses will no longer have the benefit of intellectual property. Megacorps can steal whatever they want with impunity since they are the only true holders of intellectual property.
tiddy@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Kinda feel like they said something like
“I think everyone should have food”
And you responded with
“you want a Walmart on every block in the world?? do you even know the environmental impact that will have? Poor people are really to blame for their starvation because they’re not voting with their wallets enough”
How an asshole can mess something up is entirely independent of how a proper implementation might not mess up
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You really need to read something that isn’t capitalist propaganda.
Revan343@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
A rare Musk win. Broken clock, I suppose
crusa187@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
Scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find unscrupulous greed here as well.
void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
The reason Musk wants this might be greed, but it’s very stupid if that’s his reason. A huge amount of the US’s global economic power comes from strong-arming the rest of the world to enforce US patents and copyright, thus funneling trillions of dollars from the rest of the world to the US. Without any patents or copyright there would be improved Chinese Tesla copies on the market within a year.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Except that the entire premise of this is to allow ai unfettered and unrestricted access to the creations of anyone without any repercussions.
Solely to benefit those owners.
Also guaranteed that this will be one of those situations where IP laws will be removed for everyone except those who stand benefit from this.
So overall there is nothing actually good or winning about this.
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Honestly at this point, poor people have no form of IP protection whatsoever, even before chat GPT it was commonplace for megacorps to just take other peoples work and profit from and now that LLMs are here its outright routine. So why keep that shit when it only benefits the rich.
MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah bullshit they want to delete IP law. Go ahead and copy Square, Xhitter, Tesla, SpaceX, etc and watch them explode.
IsaamoonKHGDT_6143@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
It’s more complicated, because that conflicts with international treaties.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
Hard yes. Glad to see there’s at least one thing we are aligned on.
twice_hatch@midwest.social 11 months ago
Nah copyright is useful for free software. Patents, we could probably live without patents
Trademark is also useful. I don’t want Tyson making fake vegan hot dogs
uis@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Free software is response to software copyright and software patents.
It has nothing to do with trademark.
Ronno@feddit.nl 11 months ago
I’m curious: why?
Removing IP law just feels like it would only benefit those with the resources to new technology quickly. It basically kills all start ups.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
My hatred of Disney knows no bounds lol.
Seriously though, I would like to see IP law replaced with something that benefits the little guy more than the big guy. I assume that, similar to “defund the police” really means “replace the police with a different system,” “delete all IP law” really means “replace IP law with a different system.”
uis@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Example. Copyright is a joke. For art if you have more lawyers, you win. For software mandatory copy laws are not enforced.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yep. People are really shortsighted here.
If you scrapped all our IP laws, you could spend years writing a book, spend all your savings on getting it published, only for the likes of Amazon to steal your work and make millions from it.
We need IP laws to protect people and small businesses.