Subscribe to Eric's Blog
>100 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
I’ve seen many posts fly around social media (especially LinkedIn) lately in response to Jack and Elon’s comments about abolishing IP.
Many are full of moral certainty: protecting creators, defending innovation, upholding what’s “right.”
As someone studying AI’s impact on work, I’ve been thinking about what’s actually at stake in these debates.
Not just legally, but structurally.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about who can claim the moral high ground in the AI and IP law conversation.
The tension between AI and IP isn’t about ethics vs. theft.
It’s about a system struggling to control what it can’t contain.
When people speak about IP law with moral certainty, I always wonder whose morality they defend.
Creators? Or the systems that decide which creators matter?
Maybe the current system isn't about protecting creator IP.
Maybe, in practice, it's about deciding which company's IP gets to stay exclusive longer.
Certainty is easy when one outsources complexity to law and call it ethics.
Note: This isn’t a fully formed argument. I’m just poking at an idea that’s been bothering me.
Send this to someone who might find meaning in it.
Share it so others can discover it, too.
This is how we grow. One connection at a time. 🌱
I’ve seen many posts fly around social media (especially LinkedIn) lately in response to Jack and Elon’s comments about abolishing IP.
Many are full of moral certainty: protecting creators, defending innovation, upholding what’s “right.”
As someone studying AI’s impact on work, I’ve been thinking about what’s actually at stake in these debates.
Not just legally, but structurally.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about who can claim the moral high ground in the AI and IP law conversation.
The tension between AI and IP isn’t about ethics vs. theft.
It’s about a system struggling to control what it can’t contain.
When people speak about IP law with moral certainty, I always wonder whose morality they defend.
Creators? Or the systems that decide which creators matter?
Maybe the current system isn't about protecting creator IP.
Maybe, in practice, it's about deciding which company's IP gets to stay exclusive longer.
Certainty is easy when one outsources complexity to law and call it ethics.
Note: This isn’t a fully formed argument. I’m just poking at an idea that’s been bothering me.
Send this to someone who might find meaning in it.
Share it so others can discover it, too.
This is how we grow. One connection at a time. 🌱
Eric's BlogThe Artist's Oath
The Artist’s Oath is a personal commitment to how I show up creatively. It is a reminder to lead with integrity, to resist the pressure to perform, and to make work that reflects truth, not just what gets attention. It is a compass for navigating the tension between expression and permanence, and a way to stay rooted in what matters: presence, process, and purpose, not perfection.
Eric's BlogStanford Confirms My Research Findings
AI is changing how people relate to each other at work.
Eric's BlogNot My First Rodeo: Minting SuperRare Ghost Tokens
The story of how I minted art on SuperRare in 2021 while banned.
Eric's BlogThe Artist's Oath
The Artist’s Oath is a personal commitment to how I show up creatively. It is a reminder to lead with integrity, to resist the pressure to perform, and to make work that reflects truth, not just what gets attention. It is a compass for navigating the tension between expression and permanence, and a way to stay rooted in what matters: presence, process, and purpose, not perfection.
Eric's BlogStanford Confirms My Research Findings
AI is changing how people relate to each other at work.
Eric's BlogNot My First Rodeo: Minting SuperRare Ghost Tokens
The story of how I minted art on SuperRare in 2021 while banned.
1 comment
https://blog.epr.net/ai-ip-moral-high-ground?referrer=0xC0a643f80D5cbD633FfD3e778caBB6993bDcC319