So what are the chances he means no copyright for everyone, versus that he means copyright shouldn't affect corporations?
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
207 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
2440 readers
349 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sure. Let's start with publishing and copyright.
i mean, i hate IP law as well, i like stealing shit.
If there's no IP law you can't steal IP any more. Hah!
Jack Dorsey, who owns dozens of patents, conveniently does not opt to lead the charge by cancelling them all.
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.
you could try asking him to put his money where his mouth is
Delete all P = NP law. Return the sand from whence it came.
Delete all internet protocol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't care. Don't like what you created existing? Don't make it. You're using "but muh art" to prop up a system which is needlessly killing people by denying them access to information which would save their lives. Your art doesn't matter. The concept of IP is evil
IP law and copyright is really important. It protects people from companies, and companies from bad actors.
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
(I agree with your point, some IP law could be better than none. But I'll assert that a total void of all IP law would be better than what we have now.
And we need to theaten to void it all, to get the current rights holders to negotiate. Frankly, I don't think they will. I think we need to void all IP law and then encourage the next generation to create some new IP law after we starve our current billionaires.)
(All this is in spite of my objection to being on the same side of any argument with Jack Dorsey. I have no illusion that his motives are pro-social.)
voiding all IP law would literally bankrupt the entire media industry, crashing tens if not hundreds of billions out of the industry practically overnight.
load more comments
(8 replies)
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.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
There’s nothing stopping Dorsey from releasing all of his IP under a public license. Same with Elon who jumped on this bandwagon.
What is Dorsey's IP, exactly?
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›