If they did could we use the Twitter bird or Tesla logo all we wanted? I mean yeah let's get rid of all IP law but get rid of it for everyone. If we want to copy a big corporation then yeah we should do that. Get rid of copyright and trademarks, woo! Publish all that hidden patented material so anyone can produce it. Let's get creative. You think big corps will get on board with all this?
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
647 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
69109 readers
2824 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think Elon is that smart to realize what 'delete all IP laws' entails. He probably thinks it in the sense of an anarcho-capitalist.
Anarchy for me not for thee.
I’ve been on board with this for fucking years. Our IP system in the USA is so fucked. It’s like “death of the creator plus 40 years” or something and then Disney lobbies to increase it further to protect the mouse.
Let me make Mickey Mouse shirts and let me make money off of them!
Let me stream Nintendo games without a cease and desist!
Not to mention the fact that the stronger IP law is, the more it's often used to exploit people.
Oh, did you as an artist get given stronger rights for your work? That platform you're posting on demands that you give them a license for any possible use, in exchange for posting your art there to get eyeballs on your work.
Did your patents just get stronger enforcement? Too bad it's conveniently very difficult to fund and develop any product at scale under that patent without needing outside investor funding into a new corporate entity that will own the patent, instead of you!
To loosely paraphrase from Cory Doctorow: If someone wants a stronger lock, but won't give you the key, then it's not for your benefit.
If corporations get to put locks on everything with keys they own, but also make it hard for you to get or enforce access to the keys to the locks on your stuff, then the simplest way to level the playing field is to simply eliminate the locks.
As much as I also would like IP law to die, I do not think that these two saying such means much.
Jack Dorsey is not in government and worth a 100th of what Musk is worth. And Elon Musk is evil and retarded.
Wow. A white guy with money has an opinion. This is getting crazy! /s
So delete all pharmaceutical IP to make drugs accessible to everyone and save taxpayers trillions?
"Noooo, not like that!"
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.
I see the point you're aiming at, but it's not little companies discovering new drugs it's giant corporations (often on the back of government research money) who then 'swoop in' to protect their own profits while people in underdeveloped nations die of tuberculosis or whatever because they would rather make money than save lives.
load more comments
(4 replies)
idk i think our incentive should be to cure diseases with public funding and make people healthy instead of for profit but what do i know
load more comments
(16 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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)
I'm fully in favour of abolishing IP law for everyone, ideally globally.
Public domain everything.
I suspect that isn't the picture these two have in mind. It's going to be the same as Musk's demand for free speech, which just turns out to mean "let me be an asshole and you're not allowed to complain." This one is going to be "I get to profit off your ideas, but you're not allowed to use mine."
load more comments
(83 replies)
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?
load more comments
(12 replies)
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)
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)
... Delete... all... IP law?
So... just literally make all piracy legal, switch all gaming and tv show and movie production/consumption... to an optional donation model?
Fuck it, why not.
I am both an avid pirate and have a degree in econ, wrote papers as an undergrad on how to potentially reform the DMCA... and uh yeah, at this point yeah no one has any fucking idea how any thing works, everyone is an idiot, sure fuck it, blow it all up, why not.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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 as there are multiple ways to describe the same system using totally different technical descriptions. Copyright for software was enough.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's not a surprise that all these techbros who want to steal everything and feed it into their AI machines without paying a single fucking cent to the original creators all the sudden want to get rid of IP. They can lead by example by submitting their IP into the public domain.
Or maybe they're just massive frauds?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(8 replies)
"Delete all IP law" say people who have never created anything of any value to humanity.
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.
view more: next ›