Here, we have the equivalent of Jack posting a stern issue, without proposal, without rationale, without previous involvement in the project.
And Elon doing a +1.
Two bros who are not the least committed to what they're suggesting, and that don't even have the need to.
4 basic questions pop up when a maintainer receives such a issue (or poorly expressed pull request):
1/ what are you trying to achieve?
2/ how do you maintain the good things working in order (here, an ecosystem that sustains creativity and community)?
3/ how is it better than the existing code?
4/ who will maintain that?
Be like the engineers you claim to be, guys. Show us how you do engineering. Show us how you do understand law, and IP laws. Do specs. Projections. Plans. Data.
I agree, I'm not saying it's perfect. Far from that.
But removing the framework within which artists still have the means to control their work (however unbalanced contracts can happen to be between corps and artists - it's a complex field to navigate).
Improving/upgrading it? Certainly. With a proven, demonstrable improved replacement or path... that takes into account primarily the artists, that do want the public to have access to their work, but to be also appropriately compensated, and in control of it.
What Jack and Elon are sustaining, when you read between the lines, is not reform to sustain the actual people that actually create the stuff.
But to benefit the power structures they have and want, first and foremost by allowing them to literally suck in all the existing artworks without having to pay for it, so they can sell it back to everyone, under the guise of "democratising" "creation".
The ploy is so obvious, though, it's fascinating not more people see it.
What is often, very often lacking in these discussions within the tech/software spheres, is the perspective of people actually working with and making a living out of these (ie, professional _and_ non-pro artists).
