Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, turned Twitter/X upside down this weekend with a post calling for the "removal of all intellectual property laws." A position that was applauded by Elon Musk.
The origin of this outburst is not particularly clear, since, as usual, the original creator of the bluebird network did not deem it necessary to add context to his extremely minimalist message. However, we can formulate some hypotheses based on the current context.
AI at the heart of the debate?
As a reminder, for several years now, many artificial intelligence leaders (starting with OpenAI) have been facing legal action from companies accusing them of having blithely stolen their work to train their models. For their part, they argue that these laws unnecessarily hinder innovation and slow down humanity's technological progress. It is therefore likely that Dorsey's sally refers to these frictions.
In any case, this is how several major figures in the global tech world seem to have interpreted it. One example is Chris Messina, considered the inventor of the modern hashtag. In a Bluesky post spotted by TechCrunch, he stated that Dorsey was “not wrong,” arguing that “Automated IP fines for intellectual property infringement could become the substitute for jailing the poor for cannabis possession.”
For context, this is a reference to the fact that in the US, the vast majority of arrests related to the drug are of relatively poor and/or ethnic minority people. It has therefore become a symbol of irrelevant legislation that reinforces structural inequalities.
Messina believes the situation is comparable with intellectual property laws. According to him, the system as it is implemented today only benefits large companies; isolated artists, authors, and inventors, who can easily be targeted for minor violations, often have great difficulty asserting their rights against these behemoths, who, for their part, are rarely held accountable at this level.
Musk applauds
Jack Dorsey's opinion also received the approval of Elon Musk. A position that at least has the merit of being coherent. For years, the boss of Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter/X has openly attacked protection systems based on patents and intellectual property. About two and a half years ago, he reaffirmed this position with a much-discussed sally: "Patents are for the weak."
Unsurprisingly, this positioning has also raised some eyebrows. Author Michael Lincoln, for example, seems to see it as an argument in bad faith. "None of Jack [Dorsey]'s or Elon [Musk's] companies would exist without intellectual property laws," he replied. Attorney Nicole Shanahan, for her part, responded with a resounding "NO." She then added that "intellectual property is the only thing that separates human creations from AI creations today," and called for a discussion on possible reform. Dorsey countered this argument, more or less aligning himself with Messina's position. "Creativity is what separates us right now — and the current system limits that by putting the distribution of payments in the hands of gatekeepers who don't pay fairly," he argued.
These exchanges are likely just the tip of a vast iceberg of lobbying and discussions among legislators about the future of this legal framework. It will therefore be interesting to see if Dorsey's wish is ever granted. This would undoubtedly please Sam Altman, according to whom it is now "impossible" to advance AI without giving him access to data protected by this legal framework. But the creators and media outlets currently suing his company will probably not share the same opinion, so we can expect a few sparks to fly before the end of this saga.
0 Comments