Jack Dorsey proposes to end intellectual property rights, and Elon Musk speaks out in support of him

This weekend, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and promoter of Bluesky, stirred the hornet’s nest with a tweet of only four words: “delete all IP law” (eliminate all intellectual property legislation). This demand quickly sparked a debate, gathering both supporters and detractors.

One of the most notable reactions came from Elon Musk, who responded with an even more concise “I agree” (I am in agreement).

I agree

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 11, 2025

The mogul, who never misses a controversy, has previously shown opposition to patents. In 2022, during an interview with CNBC at the SpaceX Starbase facilities in Texas, he stated that SpaceX did not patent anything and that “patents are for the weak“.

However, just one year later Tesla, another of Musk’s companies, sued the Australian company Cap-XX for patent infringement in order to protect its intellectual property rights.

Dorsey vaguely justifies himself

On the opposite side of the scale, we find statements like those of Ed Newton-Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, a non-profit organization that certifies generative AI companies for training data practices that respect creators’ rights.

Newton-Rex referred to the tweet by Jack Dorsey and Musk’s response as follows: “Tech executives are declaring total war against creators who do not want their life’s work to be plundered for profit.”

In response to this, Dorsey stated: “There are much better models to pay creators. The current ones take way too much from them and only seek rent.”

there are much greater models to pay creators. the current ones take way too much from them and only rent-seek.

— jack (@jack) April 12, 2025

Dorsey further elaborated on his position in brief exchanges responding to Nicole Shanahan, a lawyer and participant in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign in 2024. Shanahan stated: “I am a true intellectual property professional: NO. Intellectual property law is the only thing that separates human creations from those of AI. If you want to reform it, let’s talk!”

Dorsey, in turn, noted: “Creativity is what currently separates us, and the current system is limiting that, putting the distribution of payments into the hands of gatekeepers who are not paying out fairly.”

creativity is what currently separates us, and the current system is limiting that, and putting the payments disbursement into the hands of gatekeepers who aren’t paying out fairly.

— jack (@jack) April 12, 2025

What implications would ending intellectual property have?

Currently, several AI companies are facing lawsuits for violating copyright by training their AIs with works without the authorization of their creators and without paying for their use. Dorsey’s statements have served to ignite this debate, which is not new to us.

• For more information: Meta in the dock: justice evaluates whether Llama AI was trained with copyrighted works

If what was proposed by the co-founder of Twitter were to become a reality, it would be a severe blow to countless creative professionals, from illustrators to musicians, writers, designers, and many others.

In this case, we would not be talking about large tech companies that, by using released patents, can draw on knowledge to drive innovation, but rather professionals who would see their work used, without any kind of compensation or recognition, to train technologies that would directly compete with them at minimal or even free costs.

This constitutes a wholly unjust exploitation of creative work that ultimately disincentivizes the production of original content and results in precarious conditions with little or no guarantee for these individuals and their professional performance.

This would be the real scenario, no matter how much individuals like Dorsey or the investor and tech advisor Chris Messina try to suggest otherwise: “Jack has a point. Automated IP fines and three-strike rules for AI infringement could become the substitute for imprisoning financially disadvantaged individuals for cannabis possession.”

Jack has a point.

Automated IP fines/3-strike rules for AI infringement may become the substitute for putting poor people in jail for cannabis possession.

[image or embed]

— Chris Messina (@chrismessina.me) April 13, 2025, 3:30 AM

Indeed, comparing the penalties for large corporations for capitalizing on the work of other professionals to continue developing their products for their own benefit with the financial hardship situation of a financially disadvantaged individual is utterly inconsistent and falls into a fallacy that is unsustainable.