this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
653 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

69041 readers
5702 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Square (now Block), sparked a weekend’s worth of debate around intellectual property, patents, and copyright, with a characteristically terse post declaring, “delete all IP law.”

X’s current owner Elon Musk quickly replied, “I agree.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] melsaskca 1 points 6 days ago

Wow. A white guy with money has an opinion. This is getting crazy! /s

[–] veeesix 432 points 1 week ago (3 children)

So delete all pharmaceutical IP to make drugs accessible to everyone and save taxpayers trillions?

[–] [email protected] 193 points 1 week ago

"Noooo, not like that!"

[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (28 children)

This is why it's a mixed bag for me. IP law is kinda important in a capitalist system, which, for better or worse, that's what we have. If someone comes up with a wonder drug that outright cures addiction or something, you'd want that person to be able to recoup their costs before a bigger organization with more capital swoops in and undercuts them on production costs until they're the sole supplier of the drug. The hepatitis C cure drug selling for $70,000 is a great example of this quandary; there's millions of dollars worth of research and clinical trials that went into developing the drug, you'd want the company to be able to recuperate the costs of developing it or else there's less incentive to do something similar for other diseases down the line. Also, though, $70,000 or go fucking die is an outrageous statement.

Of course, what we have for IP law in practice is a bastardized monster, where corporations exploit the fuck out of it to have monopoly control over important products like insulins and life-saving medications that cost cents to produce and allow them to sell for hundreds a dose. That's not the intent of IP law, IMO, and that doesn't really serve anyone.

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 153 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (18 children)

Do it., but also ensure that all work enters the public domain and is free for anyone to use, modify, commercialize, or basically whatever the GPL says.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 week ago

Nonono, see, they will have punitive contracts with employees that will nail them to the wall if they leak source code.

They like rules as long as they’re the one writing them.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 96 points 1 week ago (84 children)

I'm fully in favour of abolishing IP law for everyone, ideally globally.

Public domain everything.

load more comments (84 replies)
[–] [email protected] 81 points 1 week ago (12 children)

IP law does 3 things that are incredibly important… but have been basically irrelevant between roughly 1995-2023.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

I'm yet to see how AI makes #2 relevant.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They don't want to delete all IP law, they just want to delete the IP law which is preventing them from postponing the collapse of the AI hype a little bit more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They want to do this so they can feed their ai models.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 week ago (14 children)

This isn’t as forward thinking as you’d want it to be.

For as much as they are abused, “IP laws” protect small and individual inventors, writers, composers, etc.

With no patent, copyright or trademark protections the billionaires will own or bury everything.

What is needed is to bring the laws back to their intended purpose.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›