\n<\/p>\n
Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Square (now Block), sparked a weekend\u2019s worth of debate around intellectual property, patents, and copyright, with a characteristically terse post<\/a> declaring, \u201cdelete all IP law.\u201d<\/p>\n X\u2019s current owner Elon Musk quickly replied, \u201cI agree.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s not clear what exactly brought these comments on, but they come at a time when AI companies including OpenAI (which Musk co-founded, competes with, and is challenging in court<\/a>) are facing numerous<\/a> lawsuits<\/a> alleging that they\u2019ve violated copyright to train their models.<\/p>\n Indeed, tech evangelist and investor Chris Messina alluded to this while writing<\/a> that Dorsey \u201chas a point,\u201d because, \u201cAutomated IP fines\/3-strike rules for AI infringement may become the substitute for putting poor people in jail for cannabis possession.\u201d<\/p>\n Others were less sympathetic to this argument, with Ed Newton-Rex (whose nonprofit Fairly Trained certifies AI training practices that respect creators\u2019 rights) describing the Dorsey-Musk exchange<\/a> as \u201cTech execs declaring all-out war on creators who don\u2019t want their life\u2019s work pillaged for profit.\u201d<\/p>\n And the writer Lincoln Michel wrote that<\/a> \u201cnone of Jack or Elon\u2019s companies would exist without IP law,\u201d adding, \u201cThey just hate artists.\u201d<\/p>\n Dorsey elaborated on his stance in subsequent replies, writing<\/a> that there are \u201cmuch greater models to pay creators\u201d while claiming \u201cthe current ones take way too much from them and only rent-seek.\u201d<\/p>\n He made a similar point when attorney (and former Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running mate) Nicole Shanahan pushed back<\/a> with an all caps \u201cNO.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIP law is the only thing separating human creations from AI creations,\u201d Shanahan said. \u201cIf you want to reform it, let\u2019s talk!\u201d<\/p>\n Dorsey countered<\/a>, \u201ccreativity is what currently separates us, and the current system is limiting that, and putting the payments disbursement into the hands of gatekeepers who aren\u2019t paying out fairly.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk\u2019s reply is at least consistent with statements he\u2019s made in the past, for example telling Jay Leno<\/a> that \u201cpatents are for the weak.\u201d<\/p>\n A decade ago, in a so-called \u201cpatent giveaway,\u201d he pledged<\/a> that Tesla would not enforce patents against other companies that used them \u201cin good faith.\u201d (The company subsequently sued Australia\u2019s Cap-XX<\/a> over patents, but it said that was a response to a lawsuit Cap-XX filed against a Tesla subsidiary.)<\/p>\n And Dorsey, of course, initiated the open social media project that eventually became Bluesky, though he seemed to become disillusioned and eventually left Bluesky\u2019s board<\/a>. (Bluesky CEO Jay Graber recently said Dorsey\u2019s departure \u201cfreed up\u201d the company<\/a> from seeming like a billionaire\u2019s side project.)\u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s also worth noting that the line between a random conversation on Twitter\/X and actual government policy is thinner than it used to be, with Musk joining the Trump administration and pushing mass layoffs through his Department of Government Efficiency<\/a> \u2014 named after a meme and largely staffed from the tech world.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n