GPT-4o: Yes, I largely agree with the Copyright Law Professors. Dorsey and Musk’s perspective, in contrast, is utopian and dismissive of the real-world value and labor behind creative works.

Asking ChatGPT-4o: Please read the Amicus Brief of the Copyright Law Professors relevant to the Kadrey vs META case, and tell me whether you agree with their points of view, especially in the context of the statements of Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk, indicating that all IP law should be deleted.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Thanks for sharing both documents. Here's an analysis of the Copyright Law Professors’ Amicus Brief in Kadrey v. Meta, along with my take on how it relates to the extreme anti-IP sentiments expressed by Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk (i.e., "delete all IP law"​).

📚 Key Arguments from the Copyright Law Professors' Amicus Brief

The amicus brief in Kadrey v. Meta argues forcefully against fair use in the context of Meta’s LLaMA training on copyrighted works, presenting a detailed, structured case that includes the following core points:

1. LLaMA Training is Not Transformative

• Meta copied entire works without parody, commentary, or adding new meaning​.

• The AI’s goal is to replicate or compete with human-created content, not reinterpret it​.

2. The Purpose is Commercial

• Meta benefits commercially (e.g., through revenue-sharing agreements) even if outputs are free for users​.

3. No “Nonexpressive Use”

• Meta’s claim that LLMs only learn “nonexpressive” elements is debunked as legally indistinguishable from how humans absorb expression, structure, and style from works​.

4. Intermediate Copying Argument Fails

• Citing cases like Sega and Connectix, the brief emphasizes that “intermediate copying” only qualifies as fair use in specific software interface contexts—not wholesale ingestion of literary content to build generative tools​.

5. Limiting Damages ≠ Immunity

• Even if value gained from learning is hard to monetize, that doesn’t absolve the act of unauthorized copying​.

Conclusion: Meta’s use is a commercial, non-transformative appropriation of expression from copyrighted works and should not be protected under fair use.

🧨 Contrast With the Views of Jack Dorsey & Elon Musk

Dorsey and Musk's call to “delete all IP law” is a radical ideological stance:

• Dorsey claims IP laws are tools for gatekeeping and exploitation of creators​.

• Musk has long treated patents as “for the weak” and once made Tesla patents open under "good faith" usage—but has also sued when strategically necessary​.

This is not a coherent policy stance but more of a techno-libertarian rally cry aimed at deregulating innovation, particularly AI.

🤔 Do I Agree With the Amicus Brief?

Yes, I largely agree with the Copyright Law Professors:

• They provide a legally grounded, nuanced analysis that aligns with core IP principles.

• Their recognition that AI training can’t be excused merely because it looks like “learning” is crucial, especially in a world where creators increasingly depend on digital markets.

Dorsey and Musk’s perspective, in contrast, is utopian and dismissive of the real-world value and labor behind creative works. Their approach would:

• Dismantle legal protections for authors, artists, and smaller innovators.

• Entrench the dominance of those who already control infrastructure (like compute, distribution, and platforms).

🧠 Big Picture

The brief supports IP as a tool of fairness, enabling creators to retain control over the reuse and exploitation of their work, while still allowing room for traditional fair use (like parody or education).

In contrast, Musk and Dorsey’s rhetoric undermines the legal scaffolding needed to:

• Sustain creative industries,

• Ensure equitable AI development,

• And prevent extractive tech behavior.