Ok. Then you don't own anything anymore.
I'll start making Teslas that don't suck.
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
624 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
69391 readers
2419 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 think Disney might have a few things to say about that.
Along with every other film studio, record company, publisher, video game studio…
…engineering firm, architecture firm…
…pharma company, law firm…
And people flocked to this guy's social network
It is not and never was his social network. And the fact that they upset him so badly that he left is probably a good sign.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The only sensible thing either of these two have ever said. All knowledge belongs to all humankind.
The GPL relies on copyright law to keep software free.
Yeah, we'd have to shift tactics. But, without IP law protections, the hacker community would double down on reverse engineering and binary patching. Debian etc. would still be available, but you'd also see spins on Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Google software based on decompiling, patching, and rebuilding, or just game genie / PC game cracks binary patching based on offset and signature.
The DMCA would dissolve and encrypted data that was expected to be decrypted on the fly ("streaming only") would just be published fully decrypted.
It would be a revolutionary shift, but I'm not convinced it would be worse.
What would be worse is keeping IP law, but only having it enforced by million dollar yearly budget teams of lawyers and not protecting creators from having their works fed to "AI" and regurgitated as slop.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Saying something and putting it into action are entirely different. If he does it, I will personally build a statue of musk.
Hey, the broken clock's right!
IP law always had a built-in scale pronlem. Without a registration-required copyright model, and probably some sort of mandatory licensing rate system, the sheer logistics of finding and arranging rights made a lot of business models inpractical. (For example, why aren't modern bookstores just print-on-demand kiosks, or streaming services have All The Content? In large part because it would cost thousands to track down owners and negotiate terms for $1.87 in royalties multiplied by every item in the catalog.)
This was ignorable for a long time, or even a commercial advantage for firms with access to large, pre-negotiated catalogs. The AI boom created a surprise market of non-incumbents who need to get access to a lot of IP in a streamlined manner.
If we open the door for bulk IP clearance to grant the AI bubble a stro ger legal footing, it can also allow other, potentially more interesting business ideas to slip through.
I'm pretty much on board with getting rid of software patents as they are absolutely ridiculous, but I don't think we should necessarily get rid of the rest, but they do require reform.