814
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
814 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
60070 readers
3684 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Copyright infringement, which, in this context, is still a seriously concerning crime.
It's not copyright infringement. You can't copyright a style, which is basically what a voice amounts to.
This is something new. It's a way of taking something that we always thought of as belonging to a person, and using it without their permission.
At the moment the closest thing is trademark infringement, assuming you could trademark your personal identity (which you can't). The harms are basically the same, deliberately passing off something cheap or dodgy as if it was associated with a particular entity. Doesn't matter if the entity is Stephen fry or Pepsi Max.
It is, as a matter of fact. When Fry recorded his voice for those audiobooks, they were copyrighted. Reproducing the contents of those works as they have is, arguably a violation of copyright.
And when you compare Steven Frye to Pepsi Max, that’s a false equivalence, because you’re comparing a copyrighted material to a trademarked brand which are two different things.
Still, to your point of theft, nobody is taking anything from anyone. They are using something without permission, and that still falls squarely as copyright infringement, not theft.
This did not occur.
That's not reproduction of content so isn't a copyright violation. Not shouldn't be. Literally right now is not.
The whole reason people are so up in arms about this is that we do not currently have laws or even standards that accurately police this kind of thing.
I am describing the current situation. You are the one describing events you hope to occur.
No I'm looking at this the way a lawyer does.
You know, like for court.
That you think I am defending the people using Fry's voice here is just further confirmation that you don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm saying there aren't laws or standards that accurately restrict this usage, and that is a bad thing and why people are upset.
Here is current precedent:
Please explain, in your view, the substantive differences.
Quote from here: https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem
The AI doesn't scrape words, in context. It scrapes morphemes and pieces them together. That's how voice AI works. I work with voice AI as part of my job, and learning to feed it morphemes instead of full words is often important, because the AI trips up on some of its inflections.
It's weird that you still think I'm defending this usage after this many posts. What are you missing?
Yeah me and the Harvard Business Review are wrong about existing precdent because you have very strong feelings.
Guess the SAG strike should end then, since this is all settled!
Fun fact: by your current interpretation, since movie companies own the likeness of characters within movies, they can reuse those characters, and potentially even those actors in some instances (since they can claim they are representative of similar archetypes) forever and the movie stars don't need to get paid. Writers are flat fucked so long as the studios train AI on prior scripts they own.
This is why semantics are important in law.
You don't know what ad hominem means if you think I've attacked you at all. Idk what you think a straw man is, but maybe just leave those words for another day when you know what they mean.
Your points are wrong on their own merit, and you have no case law to back you up. Quite the opposite.