More for Them, Less for Us: The Hidden Agenda Behind IP Abolition

 

More for Them, Less for Us: The Hidden Agenda Behind IP Abolition

When Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey publicly flirted with the idea of abolishing all intellectual property laws, the internet predictably erupted. "Delete all IP law," Dorsey tweeted. Musk—true to form—nodded in approval. Some observers saw it as a bold, disruptive call for change; others, a warning shot in an ongoing war against creative labor. The truth is more insidious: this wasn’t a moment of tech-fueled utopianism. It was a power grab disguised as liberation.

For all the talk of empowering creators, these billionaire moguls are waging an ideological war designed to benefit themselves. Musk and Dorsey aren’t interested in flattening hierarchies or creating equitable systems—they’re interested in escaping accountability, removing barriers to profit, and consolidating even more control over how information, art, and innovation flow through the digital world.

The Rhetoric of Liberation

To the untrained ear, the argument sounds noble. Intellectual property laws, they say, stifle innovation. Copyright, they argue, locks ideas behind paywalls. Patents are described as archaic tools used by bureaucrats and monopolists. It's a carefully crafted narrative that frames IP as the enemy of progress, and billionaires as the only ones brave enough to challenge it.

But scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find this framing isn’t just misleading—it’s dangerous. The erosion of IP protections doesn’t level the playing field; it bulldozes it. Without enforceable rights, creators—from musicians to inventors—lose one of the only legal mechanisms available to ensure fair compensation. What remains is a world where tech platforms act as gatekeepers, profiting endlessly from uncredited and uncompensated work.

Musk and Dorsey: Champions of Convenience

Musk has long styled himself as an iconoclast. In 2014, he made headlines by announcing Tesla wouldn’t enforce its patents against "good faith" users. The move was praised as radical transparency, but it came with caveats—many of those patents were already obsolete or difficult to monetize. Then in 2023, Tesla sued Australian firm Cap-XX over alleged patent violations. The message: IP law is fine, so long as it’s Musk using it.

Dorsey’s narrative is similar. As the co-founder of Twitter and CEO of Block, he’s made billions off digital infrastructure. But his calls to dismantle IP law conveniently coincide with rising pressure on AI companies—some of which are facing lawsuits for training models on copyrighted material without consent. It’s less about moral principle and more about strategic timing. If IP law disappears, so does the legal exposure.

AI, Piracy, and the New Frontier of Exploitation

Behind this latest push is a very real fear: lawsuits. AI companies have been caught red-handed scraping content—books, music, artwork—for training data. Platforms like Meta’s LLaMA have faced allegations of piracy. OpenAI, co-founded by Musk, is no exception. This isn’t just theory—it’s a legal minefield. And if you’re a tech executive sitting on a billion-dollar valuation, why risk a courtroom when you can just dismantle the laws themselves?

Dorsey and Musk’s call to abolish IP isn’t a solution to creator exploitation—it’s the blueprint for it.

What About the Creators?

What’s most galling is how this argument pretends to be pro-creator. “We’ll pay you with new models,” they say, while offering no specifics. There are indeed better models for supporting creators—Creative Commons licensing, direct patronage systems, fair use carve-outs—but none of these require the wholesale demolition of IP rights. Those systems require nuance, balance, and oversight—three things tech billionaires historically despise.

In this emerging ecosystem, creators have no real leverage. Their content can be scraped, remixed, rebranded, and resold by algorithmic engines, all under the guise of progress. And if they protest? They’re told they’re standing in the way of innovation.

The Feudal Future of the Internet

This debate isn’t just about law—it’s about power. If IP protections vanish, the ability to enforce ownership shifts from the courts to the platforms. In this new digital feudalism, your worth as a creator depends not on your rights, but on your relationship to the platform lords. Algorithms decide visibility. Monetization flows through proprietary systems. Disputes are settled by opaque terms-of-service agreements—not democratic legal systems.

That’s the endgame: a world where everything is free except the means of distribution, which remain tightly controlled by those who convinced us they were setting us free.

Don’t Be Fooled

We should absolutely debate how IP laws can evolve to better serve creators in a digital world. But that debate must be driven by artists, coders, writers, and inventors—not billionaires whose fortunes depend on avoiding the consequences of unauthorized use. Dorsey and Musk aren’t proposing a revolution; they’re executing a hostile takeover.

“More for them, less for us” isn’t just a feeling—it’s the formula. And if we let it go unchallenged, we’re not just losing our rights. We’re handing over our future.