Jack Dorsey, who owns dozens of patents, conveniently does not opt to lead the charge by cancelling them all.
Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’.
Submitted 2 days ago by Tea@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.zip
https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/6da5aba9-1f66-4043-b3fa-5a6345d3b7e3.jpeg
Comments
Stern@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
To be absolutely fair, and I dont trust billionaire cunts. Sometimes that just doesnt make sense, it isnt like open sourcing doesnt exist, it hasnt triggered a shift to Jack Dorseys ilk’s big tech companies.
xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
you could try asking him to put his money where his mouth is
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
I am hard side eyeing everyone who are pro abolishment of IP laws. You are either mindless consumers who have never spent time and effort creating anything yourselves your entire lives, or you haven’t thought this through.
I hope for the latter.
EnsignWashout@startrek.website 1 day ago
I’ve created lots of things. The moment I finish creating it, I sign over my IP rights in exchange for money for food, and never have a right to it again.
Without IP law, the thing I created would at least be in the commons where I can still legally use it.
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Voiding all IP law would cause a huge loss in the creative community.
If people can no longer pay their bills by creating then they stop creating and work. If I can’t pay my bills by writing a book or creating art and selling it, then I stop doing that and get a job at Walmart.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
I personally fear that if such a decision was passed, we would see big companies find loopholes and exceptions and/or they would make their profit entirely by stealing from creators without compensation or acknowledgements.
You want to hurt the big companies so badly you’re willing to saw the branch they, you and everybody else sit on just so you can see them fall.
I doubt the big companies will be the ones who will feel threatened into negotiations if IP laws were abolished. They would flourish with their businesses and the AI tech bros would have field day making billions by stealing from all of us.
Your utopia is every creator’s nightmare.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
voiding all IP law would literally bankrupt the entire media industry, crashing tens if not hundreds of billions out of the industry practically overnight.
stray@pawb.social 1 day ago
How do you explain the vast wealth of free software and entertainment media created by both professionals and hobbyists alike? How do you explain the profitability of games and movies when any of us can pirate a copy with little effort? Why is it possible to sell copies of public domain books when we have libraries?
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Why is it possible to sell copies of public domain books when we have libraries?
because somebody physically produces the book wdym?
btw just because something is in the public domain, doesn’t mean that every variant attached to it is, just the one specifically defined under law, a book that is in the public domain, but also on the shelves of a retailer, might not be a public domain work at all. Because it’s a different work entirely.
I’m not even sure you can prevent the production of a work, just because it’s public domain, you just can’t hold copyright on it, so you could theoretically print and sell a book in the public domain legally, as long as you don’t declare that you own copyright.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
When software and entertainment is created for people to use for free, that is a deliberate action from the creator. They can’t do that every single time, but they can do it once in awhile if they please.
I am a professional artist and I sometimes draw things for free for other people because sometimes I decide it is worth it for me to do that. It is kinda like doing volunteer work. You don’t get paid, but it gives you something back either socially or ideologically etc.
But I am pretty sure that the people who create free software and entertainment either aren’t working full time in software or entertainment and get their money from an unrelated job or they decided to do one for the community inbetween orders. They would not do this all the time if they were financially dependent on their skills and products giving them food on the table. I don’t think you would give your own services away for free all the time in the name of community spirit. But once in awhile, is fine. Then it is an agreement you made woth yourself, that you have given a work to the community for free and therefore you don’t care about IP.
When it comes to games and copying, well, people have copied media for ages and no matter what you say, it does affect profitability. Musicians can’t earn any money on their music. They earn money on merch and when they are on tour. Nobody buys their music anymore because they can just download it for free online. I can’t speak for games as I’m not a gamer, but with movies I personally prefer to buy a physical copy of the film rather than downloading movies in poorer quality than what I would have been able to get on bluray. I don’t know, but I can imagine people still buy games to get the best quality and maybe enough people want to financially support the developers to make sure that they can still produce good games than they want to make copies and share them. If games ended up being copied to the same extent thst music does, I think you would start to see an effect on the market because making games would no longer be financially possible. In fact, the gaming industry bubble did burst a few years ago and I know a lot of developers who can’t find jobs. Similar in animation. And it is not like any of these creators lived good beforehand either. A profitable game, I doubt is profitable in the way you think it is. It is my personal experience from being both part of and a spectator in the industry that the success of any creation is largely smoke and mirrors. People are extremely poor and companies go bankrupt all the time, especially in recent years. Maybe part of it is because people decide to copy a game for free rather than buy it, maybe it is bigger than that, but people don’t really value art nowadays because they don’t see it as art, but as content that they can mindlessly consume and get easy access to. It should be easier than ever for artists to earn money with how much art people consume, but the opposite is true. If artists have their intellectual property taken from them as well in the landscape we already have, then that will be the death of the art career. We have so little already. If we can’t even keep domain over our own creation, then what is the point?
I don’t understand your argument about public domain books. Public domain refers to the material no longer having a living creator who can profit from their own work. People can sell public domain books but that money goes to the publisher who probably did a lovely new edition of an old book with pretty covers.
I don’t know what you mean. The money from a sale of a public domain book won’t financially support the author.
If we talk about a living author who owns their IP and their book is available in the library, then I still say the same thing I did before, that the library doesn’t sell the books, nor do they take ownership of the IP. The book market also has other problems than public libraries. The problems they face is that no one reads anymore, but that is a different discussion.
Gallows@lemm.ee 22 hours ago
The problem for me is that if you abolish copyrights it means your creation can be used for any reason without permission.
Maybe you don’t care if somebody downloads your music for free to listen to or uses it in their goofy TikTok dance video.
But, no copyright also means the most terrible person on the planet can use your song at their political rally. They can use it as a backing tracks for ideals you do not agree with. A major corporation can use it in their advertising campaign. They can even straight up sell your creations as their own for profit.
Without the protection of copyright, artists, authors, musicians, video content creators, etc. have no say in how their work is used.
uis@lemm.ee 13 hours ago
All you described is happening WITH copyright and even enforced by it.
Without the protection of copyright, artists, authors, musicians, video content creators, etc. have no say in how their work is used.
Copyright owner is not author. Publisher(disney, EA, Ubisoft) controls everything and author has no say in it. Often authors in order to discuss their works and show portfolios have to pirate their own work(e.g. The Owl House). So copyright protects inability of artists, authors, musicians, video content creators, etc. have no say in how their work is used.
Jayjader@jlai.lu 16 hours ago
That’s one of the least worrying aspects of abolishing copyright for me. but then again, the whole “control what others do with your creation” never sat right with me in the first place. I tend to fall into the “property is theft” line of reasoning.
With regards to profit sharing in particular, well, I think copyright law is a paltry, dirty bandage that covers up the festering wound of for-profit art. At the very least, the wound needs to be cleaned and the bandage changed.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 21 hours ago
Exactly. There are so, so, so many different ways that no IP laws can backfire severely and in ways that people don’t think about. The scenario you just used, I hadn’t even thought of, but yes! I would HATE for something I created to be used to promote ideologies or products I am vehemently against.
easily3667@lemmus.org 15 hours ago
Patents are also how you kill electronic vehicles for 15 years.
I think if you said “major reform” like use it or lose it, mandatory licensing, and any other number of sane overhauls…sure, but the point is to destroy the broken system we have today.
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Exactly, people don’t actually think about this. They just think “I get stuff companies have” and not “no one will write books anymore.” If creative people can’t make money by creating, they do something else. Why make music, books, art, when doing so becomes a financial drain.
Imagine a world where you created a hit story online. Well a big company could make that a book, sell it and you see nothing. If it got big they could sell merch, which you would see none of. Big companies, by having manufacturing and distribution setup, could steal any idea at any point and put it into the machine. This would be a nightmare.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
This is exactly what would happen.
I’m a creator myself and it is already hard enough to get jobs - not even well paying jobs, just jobs. Now we are competing with AI and then you’re telling me that people here on Lemmy agree with these wolves about abolishing IP laws, which means my hard work and intellectual property that I have spent countless hours on developing, is now up for grabs for anyone out there who is bigger and richer than me?
I seriously don’t believe people have thought this through, or they are lying about being creators themselves.
But I guess the “I got mine” mentality is all over the internet. Even here, lol. No one cares as long as they think it doesn’t affect them personally. Ladidah. How did that go for the American farmers who voted for Trump because they thought it would help their farms?
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
IP law and copyright is really important. It protects people from companies, and companies from bad actors.
Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I have spent time and effort creating things myself. Still think ip law is not entirely accomplishing what it should, which is protecting the interests of people producing intellectual works, preferably while they can still reap the benefits of said work and are not financially/socially stable. It seems it’s basically working backwards, great for inheritors to make millions by doing nothing except owning some IPs but terrible at protecting the people who actually need it.
I also know a few people holding some important patents, and I guess the patent system is alright in comparison, at least in France, since it did actually protect their work while also allowing others to use it fairly and improve on it.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
There is definitely room for improvement when it comes to IP laws, but abolishing them entirely is not the win some people think it is.
Valmond@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Swedish (For the user name)?
I think you should have rights but not like it is today with stupid 100 years after authors death.
You can also protect the creation, without having laws banning people using it. Like if you buy a painting in france, you can’t burn it or “disrespect” (sorry, can’t find a better word) it.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
Yes, there are definitely room for improvement when it comes to IP laws but that is a completely different discussion from the one about abolishing IP laws entirely. One discussion is constructive and aims toward a more fair system, the other is Trump-anarchy which will only ever benefit the ones who have money and power while it will screw the rest of us over.
Also, not Swedish. I just love Astrid Lindgren.
boonhet@lemm.ee 1 day ago
So what are the chances he means no copyright for everyone, versus that he means copyright shouldn’t affect corporations?
Thcdenton@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sure. Let’s start with publishing and copyright.
j4k3@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Yes please
sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Yes, now that rich people want to break the law to create AI we should just make it legal for them.
pennomi@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Yes. Because individuals stand to gain far, FAR more than corporations if IP law disappeared.
j4k3@lemmy.world 2 days ago
No, this has enormous implications to break the monopolies of many companies and supply chains. Companies like Broadcom and Qualcomm only exist because of their anticompetitive IP nonsense. This is everything anyone could ever dream of for Right to Repair. It stops Nintendo’s nonsense. It kills Shimano’s anti competitive bicycle monopoly.
Ever frivolous nonsense thing has been patented. Patents are not at all what they were intended to be. They are primary weapons of the super rich to prevent anyone from entering and competing in the market. Patents are given for the most vague nonsense so that any competitive product can be drug through years of legal nonsense just to exist. It is nor about infringement of novel ideas. It is about creating an enormous cost barrier to protect profiteering from stagnation milking every possible penny form the cheapest outdated junk.
IP is also used for things like criminal professors creating exorbitantly priced textbook scams to extort students.
All of that goes away if IP is ditched. The idea that some author has a right to profit from something for life is nonsense; the same with art. No one makes a fortune by copying others unless they are simply better artists. Your skills are your protection and those that lack the skills have no right to use their wealth to suppress others. The premise of IP is largely based on an era when access to publishing and production was extremely limited and required large investments. That is not the case any more; that is not the world we live in. Now those IP tools are used for exactly the opposite of their original purpose and suppressing art and innovation.
Cargon@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Delete all P = NP law. Return the sand from whence it came.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
i mean, i hate IP law as well, i like stealing shit.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 day ago
If there’s no IP law you can’t steal IP any more. Hah!
Tiger_Man_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Delete all internet protocol
rekabis@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Businesses were innovative long before patents and copyright became a thing. In fact, evidence shows that society was more innovative without patents and copyright than with.
For your reading pleasure:
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Do inventors lose because of this? Probably.”
This calls out the exact problem with this when glosses over it. With big companies able to now swing in and steal any idea this doesn’t work. Times have changed, your idea can be ripped away and sold to everyone while you get nothing. But the mindset of this article is that “there are more copies of your idea out there so it’s cheaper for everyone.” This ignores that the inventor has less motivation to actually invent.
rekabis@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
This ignores that the inventor has less motivation to actually invent. Author have less motivation to create.
Tell me you haven’t read the entire book without actually saying you haven’t done much more than browse a few pages.
drspod@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
IP = Imaginary Property
Tiger_Man_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
IP = internet protocol
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
And that is bad why…?
Intellectual property, the sheer concept that an idea, or color,or shape can be owned at all is absurd if you really think about it. There is certainly room for a fair compromise of appropriate and proportional compensation for the actual inventors or creators of something, but our current system of intellectual property and patents is silly and hostile to human nature.
andMoonsValue@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Current IP law may be too over reaching but I do like the idea that if an artist writes a song, or paints a picture others can’t just make copies and sell it. Similarly, if someone makes some invention its nice that there is an incentive to publish the technology openly for everyone to understand how it works, and in return they get to profit from their discovery for a set number of years.
Some design patents and patent tolls are obviously bad, but I think for the most part its a decent system. What compromise would you propose?
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Copyrights aren’t for you, or for that artist that writes a song, or paints a picture. They exists to maintain profits of large corporations. Copyright, patents, and intellectual rights were created under the false pretense that it “protects the little person”, but these are lies told by the rich and powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful. Time and time again, we have seen how broken the patent system is, how it is impossible to not step on musical copyright, how Disney has extended copyrights to forever, and how the megacorporations have way more money than everybody else to defend those copyrights and patents. These people are not your friend, and their legal protections are not for you.
As such, I would like to extend this to ‘delete all copyright law’.
100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 2 days ago
If Jack Dorsey proposes something and Elon Musk I’d be wary to see it as a good idea.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m big on copy left, but I agree
Fleur_@hilariouschaos.com 1 day ago
No IP laws encourage people to keep new inventions/technologies/creative works secret so that they can solely profit off of it. By ensuring a period where people are guaranteed the benefits of their creations society can coerce them into contributing to the collective knowledge base.
I think 5yrs is a suitable timeframe for copyright. Incentives sharing while also ensuring ideas can be promptly built off of and discorouging companies to hoard intellectual property for as long as possible while they drain every last dollar out.
Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Say the numbers of pi long enough and eventually you’ll commit a federal crime.
JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Actually fully agreed. IP, trademarks, copyright, all that shit just serves to make the rich richer and stifle innovation.
burak@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
don’t they have merit for the poor as well? If I start something and the rich knows it’ll work, what stops them from replicating my thing with more money and resources?
EnsignWashout@startrek.website 1 day ago
what stops them from replicating my thing with more money and resources?
That’s what happens today, anyway. Most of us cannot afford the lawyers to make the law work for us.
In contrast, if we re-use an innovation the billionaires have purchased, we go to jail.
TootSweet@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I hate agreeing with a CEO.
Artyom@lemm.ee 2 days ago
Don’t worry, he’s probably being disingenuous and likely has ulterior motives.
BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
Oh absolutely he’s being disingenuous, but it doesn’t make the idea outside of his goals wrong.
ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 day ago
He wants to steal everyone’s ideas to train an AI. But not get sued for it.
Abolishing IP law entirely is stupid.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
🏴☠️
doodledup@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Jesus christ. I’d lose my job immediately.
jared@mander.xyz 2 days ago
Let just delete the greedy!
doodledup@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This is not about being greedy. This is about incentives. IP enables billions of jobs.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 day ago
There are only 3.5 billion jobs worldwide. A good amount of those work for the government, in the army, in the public sector, etc…
I’d be surprised if it manages to get above a billion to be honest. Remember that copyright is a fairly recent invention.
SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
And makes research investment-worthy.
doodledup@lemmy.world 2 days ago
People suggesting this are shortsighted and naive. Removing IP means that a lot of industries will no longer have the incentive to be innovative or creative as using other’s ideas is much cheaper. This will hamper productivity of our society in the long term.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 day ago
If you copy everyone else you’re not going to be profiting much, as your product isn’t competitive. You have to keep iterating on an idea to stay ahead of the competition.
IP law lets companies stop innovating after they’ve come up with a product, because other companies cannot directly compete using the same or a similar design.
Did Android phones stop innovating because Apple did a smartphone first?
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is no naive…
If you copy everyone else you’re not going to be profiting much, as your product isn’t competitive.
Like there are a million different waters you can buy at the grocery store but somehow there are companies that dominate three space?
You are ignoring things like advertising, branding, manufacturing quality, distribution, etc. If your logic held, at all, generics of products would outsell brand names because they are more available and cost less. But people but brand name still.
Android innovated and now they make a ton of of the OS and embedding their apps in there.
You’re ignoring situations like say, you spent 5 years of your life writing a book. Guess what, another company can print and sell it, giving you nothing. Then can then manufacturer and sell merch around it, at scale, and you get nothing. They could then even start a live action play about it, it could win awards, and they never have to ever mention you. They could actually just bury you and muddy the water, saying they created it and calling you a liar.
Yeah, there’s a reason rich people want this.
Zorque@lemmy.world 2 days ago
a lot of industries will no longer have the incentive to be innovative or creative as using other’s ideas is much cheaper
That’s already what they do, it’s just those people are on their payroll. Industries don’t create, they absorb and proliferate.
C126@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
He right
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
No
freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Yes but the spirit of FOSS is clearly anti-copyright and a non copyright world would be preferable.
You don’t get to just do whatever you please with someones work.
The FOSS positions is that you should if you are not preventing that someone doing what he wants as well (or anybody else), which is the case with IP unlike real property.
It’s also how the world has worked for millennia, copyright and other IP law is relatively new phenomenon and even in the time it has existed it has not been as well enforced or accepted by society as say the concept of physical property.
AI is a great chance for commercial interests to push pro-copyright positions with a narrative of big bad tech corpos (absolutely true) vs little artist guy (bullshit, it’s big bad media corpos). I remember they tried to portray copyright and associated enforcement tooling (DMCA etc) as a solution to revenge porn, to rehabilitate it’s image.
EnsignWashout@startrek.website 1 day ago
Also doesn’t the GPL use IP law for enforcement of copy left?
That’s very probably Jack Dorsey’s motive in this. Briefly void all IP law, then restore it in a messy way that leaves everything owned by his lawyers.
vonbaronhans@midwest.social 2 days ago
I’m not saying I’m against getting rid of IP law, writ large, but I gotta agree the only reason a billionaire would say so right now is to remove legal barriers to training data for their AI models.
BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
Oh absolutely! When we get rid of IP law he’s got to go with it
Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 1 day ago
Delete all IP law ❌
Delete all P law ✅
reddig33@lemmy.world 2 days ago
There’s nothing stopping Dorsey from releasing all of his IP under a public license. Same with Elon who jumped on this bandwagon.
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Way ahead of you
reddig33@lemmy.world 2 days ago
From your link: “not all Tesla patents are open source.”
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Now do SpaceX rockets
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
R u sum kinda thinkin machine?
aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee 1 day ago
What is Dorsey’s IP, exactly?