this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
760 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59118 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The actor told an audience in London that AI was a “burning issue” for actors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

His voice wasn't stolen, it's still right where he left it.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 74 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Fair enough. It's not theft, it's something else.

But that's just semantics, though.

The point is that his voice is being used without his permission, and that companies, profiteering people, and scammers will do so using his voice and the voices others. He likely wants some kind of law against this kind of stuff.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago (8 children)

If you made a painting for me, and then I started making copies of it without your permission and selling them off, while I might not have stolen the physical painting, I have stolen your art.

Just because they didn't rip his larynx out of his throat, doesn't mean you can't steal someone's voice.

We're getting into samantics but it's counterfeit not stolen.

It would be more like if you made a painting for me, and I then used that to replicate your artistic style and used that to make new paintings without your permission and passed it off as your work.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

No, the use of words matter when having a debate. "Theft" is an emotionally charged word that has a lot of implications that don't actually map well to what's going on here. It's not a good word to be using for this.

[–] liquidparasyte@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

FaceDeer stop being an inhuman techbro about ai for 5 minutes challenge

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What word or phrase would you have used in the headline ?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Copied" or "mimicked" would be more accurate.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I’ll go for ‘captured’ which is both figuratively and literally accurate

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Copyright infringement, which, in this context, is still a seriously concerning crime.

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reproducing the contents of those works as they have is

This did not occur.