As much as I also would like IP law to die, I do not think that these two saying such means much.

Jack Dorsey is not in government and worth a 100th of what Musk is worth. And Elon Musk is evil and retarded.

Microsoft’s Copilot funnily enough actually provides sources that it pulls from the internet if you ask it to.

Lightly edited copy paste of my response elsewhere:

Creation’s are not that of only the individual creator, they come from a common progress, culture, and history. When individual creator’s copyright their works and their works become a major part of common culture they slice up culture for themselves, dictating how it may be used against the wishes of the masses. Desiring this makes them unworthy of having any cultural control IMO. They become just as much of an authoritarian as a lord, landlord, or capitalist.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that copyright also harms individual creators once culture has been carved up: Producing brand new stories inevitably are in some way derivative of previous existing works so because they are locked out of the existing IP unless they sign a deal with the devil they’re usually doomed to failure due to no ability to have a grip on cultural relevance.

Now, desiring the ability to make a living being an individual creator? That’s completely reasonable. Copyright is not the solution however.

"Thing is, land ownership also served a purpose before lord’s/landlord’s/capitalists decided to expand it to the point of controlling and dictating the lives of serfs/renters/workers. "

Creation’s are not that of only the individual creator, they come from a common progress, culture, and history. When individual creator’s copyright their works and their works become a major part of common culture they slice up culture for themselves, dictating how it may be used against the wishes of the masses. Desiring this makes them unworthy of having any cultural control IMO. They become just as much of an authoritarian as a lord, landlord, or capitalist.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that copyright also harms individual creators once culture has been carved up: Producing brand new stories inevitably are in some way derivative of previous existing works so because they are locked out of the existing IP unless they sign a deal with the devil they’re usually doomed to failure due to no ability to have a grip on cultural relevance.

Now, desiring the ability to make a living being an individual creator? That’s completely reasonable. Copyright is not the solution however.

I suspect your assessment is at best subconsciously biased and at worst in bad faith. You’ll need to elaborate on the mechanism of how they’d “keep copyright as restrictive as possible” in a world where it is not possible to copyright AI generated works.

I hope generative AI obliterates copyright. I hope that its destruction is so thorough that we either forget it ever existed or we talk about it in disgust as something that only existed in stupider times.

This is too weak and virtue oriented.

That said, I guess its better than nothing. Focusing on promoting alternatives however would probably be a little more effective. Amazon has a lot of weird niche products that I’ve struggled to find else where from trust-able sellers.

Reading these comments I feel a sense of dread. You are all experiencing survivor bias. Initially when I ran into barriers I gave up for like a year before bothering to try Lemmy again.

If you don’t want Lemmy to serve as an actual counter to corporate controlled social media if it means letting in “normies” then you are content with corporate controlled social media continuing to dominate our lives. Which sounds about right for humanity. The smugness is vile.

Just bring on the vacuum decay event already.