The AI IP Paradox: Why Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey Are Calling for the End of IP Protection and What That Means?
Recently, in the intellectual property (IP) debate, tech giants Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey have publicly advocated for the abolishment of all IP laws. Dorsey's viral "delete all IP law"...
Note: Yes, the irony of an AI-generated image is not lost on me. 😊 I couldn't help myself.
Let's get into it.
Recently, in the intellectual property (IP) debate, tech giants Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey have publicly advocated for the abolishment of all IP laws. Dorsey's viral "delete all IP law" post, quickly endorsed by Musk, has sparked a heated and far-reaching conversation about whether intellectual property (IP) protection still serves its intended purpose in the rapidly evolving era of artificial intelligence[1][2][5][8].
Note: Yes, the irony of Dorsey and Musk being on the same page is not lost on me.
The Roots of the Debate: Why Now?
Musk and Dorsey's call comes as AI companies face intense scrutiny for using copyrighted material in their training data. Lawsuits from major publishers and creators, such as The New York Times and Studio Ghibli, allege that AI models are built on unauthorised use of their intellectual property, introducing questions about consent, compensation, and control[1][4][5][7].
Dorsey, in particular, has dismissed arguments that IP law protects small creators from exploitation by larger entities. Instead, he claims that in today's tech landscape, speed and execution matter more than legal ownership, and that IP laws often act as barriers to progress rather than as safeguards for innovation [1][3][8].
This perspective is rooted in the ethos of open-source communities, which prioritises collaborative development and rapid iteration over exclusive rights [1][6].
Yet, as is being pointed out, both Musk and Dorsey have built their fortunes on proprietary technology and benefited from the very IP systems they now challenge[2][7]. Therefore, some see their stance as a radical, even contradictory, response to mounting legal pressures and the changing economics of AI.
Note: The irony of Musk and Dorsey making fortunes from the protection of their intellectual property is not lost on me.
What Are They Really Proposing?
While the rhetoric "delete all IP law" is sweeping, the specifics remain ambiguous.
Are they advocating for eliminating patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, or all legal protection for creative and technological works[2][6]? Dorsey has since clarified that his primary criticism targets what he sees as "rent-seeking" intermediaries. These entities profit from intellectual property (IP) without contributing to innovation or fairly compensating creators. [3] He has called for new models that pay creators more directly, hinting at systemic reform rather than outright anarchy[3].
The Tension: Innovation vs. Protection
The heart of the debate is a fundamental tension:
Advocates for Abolition: Musk, Dorsey, and some in the open-source and AI communities argue that intellectual property (IP) laws are outdated obstacles. They claim that removing these barriers would accelerate innovation, allow for more rapid AI development, and democratise access to knowledge[11][13][16][18]. They point to the original intent of IP law, not to create monopolies but to promote progress by making ideas public and available for further development[16].
Of course they would.
Defenders of IP: Critics warn that cancelling IP would undermine the rights of creators, inventors, and small businesses. IP law, they argue, is not just about profit; it is a tool that levels the playing field, giving individuals and startups leverage against powerful corporations[12][14][17]. Without IP, creative industries, like music, film, publishing, and software, could descend into a chaotic free-for-all, where original work is routinely copied, remixed, and monetised without attribution or compensation[11][14][15][17].
Of course they would.
Real-World Consequences of an AI Copyright "War"
The debate is not academic!
AI companies are already facing lawsuits over using copyrighted content in training data. Plaintiffs argue that AI models often generate outputs that resemble original works without reference or monetary gain, thereby blurring the line between inspiration and infringement [11][15]. Defendants counter that AI "learns patterns" rather than directly copying and that restricting access to data will slow innovation and put countries at a competitive disadvantage[15].
Recent controversies illustrate the risks, such as the unauthorised use of Studio Ghibli's animation style in AI-generated art. Artists and creators see their unique contributions replicated and distributed at scale, often without their consent or any form of remuneration[11][15].
The Historical Context: Not the First IP Backlash
This is not the first time influential entrepreneurs have called for dismantling the IP system. Henry Ford, for example, famously fought against the patent system in the early automotive industry, viewing it as a barrier to progress[14]. Yet, Ford later accumulated numerous patents, highlighting the complex relationship between innovators and intellectual property protection [14].
Toward a New Model: Reform or Revolution?
While Musk and Dorsey's statements are radical, the broader conversation appears to be shifting towards reform rather than outright abolition. There is growing recognition that the current IP system is ill-equipped to address the realities of generative AI and digital creativity [13][16]. Some propose new frameworks that:
Modernise IP law to clarify ownership and attribution in AI-generated works.
Develop transparent and direct compensation models for creators whose work is utilised in training data.
Strike a balance between openness and innovation, while ensuring fair economic rewards for original contributors.
The Dorsey-Musk call to
Related Article
As generative algorithms reshape industries and challenge traditional notions of authorship, the world faces urgent questions: Can intellectual property (IP) law evolve to keep pace with technological advancements? Or will it be swept aside in the name of progress?
Why Musk and Dorsey Want to End IP Protection: Ethics, Morals, and Economic Distribution
Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey's call to abolish intellectual property (IP) law is not just a reaction to legal headaches or a contrarian stance; it is rooted in deep philosophical, ethical, and economic critiques of how value is distributed in the digital age, especially as AI transforms the landscape of innovation.
Challenging Conventional Wisdom
Both Musk and Dorsey have long histories of questioning entrenched systems. Musk's decision to open-source Tesla's patents and Dorsey's advocacy for decentralised protocols like Bitcoin reflect a shared conviction: progress accelerates when knowledge is open, not hoarded. In their view, IP laws, designed to incentivise creation by granting temporary monopolies, now act as barriers that slow the pace of innovation, particularly as AI systems rely on vast, shared datasets that often include copyrighted works[22][29].
Ethical and Moral Dimensions
1. The Commons and Human Liberty
Economic Distribution of Value
1. Monopoly vs. Competition
The Deeper Debate: Who Benefits from Innovation?
At its heart, the Musk-Dorsey position forces a reckoning with foundational questions:
Does IP law still serve the public good, or has it become a tool for entrenched interests?
Is enclosing knowledge and creativity in the digital age morally justifiable, especially when AI thrives on openness and remixing?
How can economic value from AI, built on collective human effort, be distributed more equitably?
Musk and Dorsey's call to end IP protection is a challenge to rethink the ethics, morals, and economics of innovation in the AI era. Their critics warn that creators could lose vital protections and incentives without intellectual property (IP). However, their supporters argue that the status quo fails to deliver fairness or maximise progress. As AI continues to reshape the creative and economic landscape, society must grapple with how to balance openness, fairness, and reward, ensuring that the benefits of innovation are shared, not hoarded[19][20][21][23][25][26][27][28][29].
What Unfettered Access to IP Means for AI: Ethics, Morals, and Economic Consequences
When AI systems are trained without restriction on the world's intellectual capital, everything from Wikipedia and web forums to novels, music, and scientific research, they gain unprecedented breadth and depth of knowledge. Removing IP protections could make this process seamless, thereby enhancing AI's capabilities, creativity, and responsiveness. However, this vision comes with profound ethical, moral, and economic implications, particularly as the benefits of AI increasingly accrue to a small number of dominant companies.
Ethical and Moral Dimensions
Erosion of Consent and Attribution
Economic Distribution and Concentration of Value
Consolidation of Power and Wealth
Bias, Fairness, and Societal Impact
Amplification of Bias
Transparency in data sourcing and AI-generated outputs[37].
Market regulation to prevent excessive concentration and ensure a level playing field[32][33].
Human-centred ethical frameworks prioritise the interests and rights of creators and the broader public[36].
Without these safeguards, AI's promise risks becoming a story of value extraction and concentration rather than one of shared progress and innovation.
The Cost of IP Restrictions. Who Loses?
Heavy restrictions on the use of intellectual property (IP) in the context of AI development present a complex web of legal, economic, and ethical challenges. While IP laws incentivise creativity and protect creators, their stringent application in this new AI era can inadvertently suppress innovation, entrench inequalities, and slow progress.
Legal Bottlenecks and Innovation Gridlock
AI models require vast and diverse datasets to achieve high performance. When every piece of data, text, code, image, and music requires individual licensing, assembling training data becomes a complex and intricate legal process. This can result in:
Innovation Silos and Economic Inequality
Heavy IP restrictions can exacerbate existing divides in the tech ecosystem:
Regulatory Friction and Societal Impact
In fields like medicine, climate science, and education, the stakes of slow AI progress are particularly high:
Ethical and Moral Dimensions
Balancing Incentives and Openness:
The Need for Modernisation
The rapid evolution of AI has exposed the limitations of traditional IP frameworks, which were not designed for a world where algorithms remix and generate content at scale. Policymakers are now grappling with how to:
The Real Question: Who Gets Paid in the AI Economy? Who wins?
As AI companies build robust systems by training on vast troves of existing intellectual property, books, music, art, journalism, and more, the question of who benefits financially is becoming increasingly urgent.
Toward a Fairer Model: Revenue Sharing and Attribution
A more equitable system would ensure that creators are compensated proportionally when AI systems utilise their work, whether it be a paragraph from a book, a line of code, or a piece of music. Several new models and technologies are emerging to make this possible:
Lessons from Music Streaming: Caution and Opportunity
The music industry's experience with streaming platforms, such as Spotify, offers both inspiration and a warning. While streaming democratised access and introduced micro-royalties per play, most artists earn only small fractions of a cent per stream, with meaningful income reserved for a tiny elite. Most streaming revenue flows to platforms and major rights holders, rather than individual creators. [47]
The Path Forward: Building a Sustainable AI Economy
To ensure a fair and sustainable AI ecosystem, the following principles are gaining traction:
When AI Starts Training on AI: Ramifications for Innovation, Human Endeavour, and Critical Thinking
The phenomenon of AI models being trained on data generated by other AIs, sometimes called "AI inbreeding" or "model collapse", is no longer theoretical. As AI-generated content proliferates across the internet, newer models inevitably incorporate this synthetic data, leading to profound consequences for the quality, diversity, and reliability of AI outputs [50][51][53][54][55].
The Risks of AI Training on AI
1. Model Collapse and Quality Degradation
Implications for Human Endeavour and Critical Thinking
1. The Irreplaceable Value of Human Creativity
Human creativity is rooted in emotion, context, and lived experience, qualities AI cannot replicate[53].
Without a constant infusion of human-generated data, AI risks becoming a closed loop, recycling old ideas rather than generating new ones.
2. The Need for Human Judgment and Critical Thinking
Human oversight is crucial for maintaining relevance, accuracy, and ethical standards in AI-generated content.
The creative process, including the ability to imagine, empathise, and innovate, remains fundamentally human, even as AI assists with efficiency and scale[53]. Do we even want to outsource this?
3. Economic and Intellectual Value of Human Input
The sustainability of AI innovation depends on valuing, compensating, and protecting human creativity and knowledge.
Policies and business models must incentivise the creation and sharing of original human content rather than allowing AI to cannibalise its outputs.
The Path Forward
To avoid the pitfalls of AI inbreeding and model collapse, the AI might need to:
Prioritise the use of high-quality, human-generated data for training new models[50][52][55].
Develop robust methods to detect and filter out AI-generated content from training sets[51].
Foster ethical frameworks that recognise and reward human creativity as the foundation of technological progress.
AI's reliance on human-generated data is not a weakness but a reminder of the unique value of human endeavour. As models increasingly rely on their own synthetic outputs, the need to preserve, protect, and promote genuine human creativity, critical thinking, and lived experiences becomes more urgent than ever. The future of innovation depends on keeping humans at the centre, intellectually, ethically, and economically[50][53][54].
Final Twist
Imagine an AI revenue-sharing model inspired by
Every time AI uses data (e.g., a line of code, a sentence from a book), it logs the source.
A micro-royalty system distributes a portion of the revenue to the original IP owner based on the percentage of their content contributed.
Similar to how musicians are paid per stream, creators would be paid per inference.
But here's the twist:
The Irony
So with billionaires that have made their fortunes with their IP being protected now wanting no IP protection at all, or Henry Ford changing his position as the process of creating his wealth changed... Yes, the irony is not lost on me.
I hope you enjoyed this article.
If this sparked some thinking (or challenged a few assumptions), here’s how you can help me help more Founders and Start Up teams:
Follow me on LinkedIn for regular insights on startup growth, founder psychology, venture capital trends, real-world tactics and more
Subscribe to the LinkedIn Newsletter to get fresh, founder-first content in your inbox—no fluff, just the strategies and stories that matter.
Check out the Start Up Growth Hacking Resource Centre – it’s packed with articles, podcasts, curated lists, legal templates, fundraising tools, and proven playbooks for founders ready to start, grow, and scale smarter.
It would be great if you could recommend the Start-Up Growth Hacking Resource Centre and share it with others.
#SiliconValleyTech #SiliconValleyStartups #SiliconValleyVC #SVTech #SVStartups #TexasStartups #AustinTech #DallasTech #HoustonStartups #TexasVC #ParisTech #ParisStartups #FrenchTech #StartupParis #ParisVC #BerlinStartups #BerlinTech #GermanStartups #BerlinVC #StartupBerlin #VentureCapital #LPInsights #StartupFunding #VCPerformance #SiliconValleyTech #TexasStartups #ParisTech #BerlinStartups #FundraisingTips #StartupStrategy #FounderLife #StartupJourney #TechFounders #StartupTips #EarlyStageStartups #BuildInPublic #StartupLeadership #ScalingStartups #StartupGrowth #StartupMindset #VentureCapital #VCInsights #VCTrends #PrivateEquity #LPInsights #FundraisingTips #StartupFunding #CapitalRaising #InvestorRelations #VCStrategy #NYTech #NewYorkStartups #NYCFounders #NYCVentureCapital #SiliconValleyTech #SiliconValleyStartups #SFTech #SanFranciscoStartups #BayAreaVC #AI #IntellectualProperty #TechEthics #CreatorEconomy #InnovationDebate #FutureOfWork #ElonMusk #JackDorsey #SamAltman #OpenAI #Startups #GenerativeAI #DigitalEconomy #IPReform #SanFranciscoTech #SiliconValleyStartups #NYCTech #TexasTech #ChicagoInnovation #LondonTech #BerlinStartups #ParisInnovation #MelbourneStartups #SydneyTechScene