Capitalism: steal first, apologize with no real repurcussions later
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
308 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68348 readers
3761 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sadly, it was Grace Hopper who said "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (9 December 1906 – 1 January 1992) was a U.S. Naval officer, and an early computer programmer. She was the developer of the first compiler for a computer programming language; at the end of her service she was the oldest serving officer in the United States Navy.
That brings me to the most important piece of advice that I can give to all of you: if you've got a good idea, and it's a contribution, I want you to go ahead and DO IT. It is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission.
- The future: Hardware, Software, and People in Carver, 1983
Except she probably wasn't referring to identity theft; just how to handle dumb shits in management.
Yeah, there's some key qualifiers in there
if you’ve got a good idea, and it’s a contribution
Identity theft is neither a good idea or a contribution to society
trump x biden fan fiction being voiced with deepfaked voices is both a good idea, and beneficial to society.
Dumb shits in military management. And she was an admiral; near the top of that management.
Well, she did tell that she didn't get a budget, so they just effectively stole from other departments. Want a table that's not bolted down? Take it.
But that's Navy internals, (arguably) not a massive for-profit company that's going it out of sheer greed.
Oh so I guess piracy is fine if it’s citizens getting robbed huh? Funny how that works.
I think you misspelled capitalism.
Sony will pirate from anyone who isn't Sony. Same with Time-Warner. Same with Columbia. Same with every studio, every label, every publishing house.
Absolutely no-one in the industry takes piracy seriously until it's their own stuff being pirated by someone else.
Moreover, they all are used to Hollywood accounting, in which lawyers try to justify not paying someone for work whenever they can.
Hollywood. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.
A fantastic example is the Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony.
It samples a few seconds of a Rolling Stones song. For this, the former Stones manager Allen Klein sues them. The Verve gives up all royalties for the whole song. So the Stones are getting that money, right? No, Klein had the ownership of the piece in question go to himself.
Klein dies in 2009, and the rights to everything finally revert to the Stones in 2019. They think the whole sampling thing with the Verve is stupid, and relinquish the song's rights back to them.
For about 20 years, it was not only morally OK to pirate that song, but morally obligatory. The execs of the industry don't give a shit about the artists.
We are going to need much stronger image rights for individuals in the AI age.
There’s no way to stop the technology itself (although current development may plateau at some point), so there must be strong legal restrictions on abusing it.
Do you want the rich to be richer? Because that's how you make the rich richer. People like Scarlett Johanson will be able to license their likeness for millions or billions. Of course, we would have the same rights; the same rights to own a mansion and a yacht. Feeling lucky?
That's the kind of capitalism that Marx rages against: Laws that let people demand money without contributing labor.
There's no future where this affects me in the slightest. Okay, so jeff Goldblum can get a few more shekels for renting his voice. This doesn't affect me: that's his JOB, whether they stole his likeness and paid him, paid him and cloned his voice, or paid him to do the speaking. It's the same thing, imho.
Talk to me when people who don't have their voice recorded get an unfair leg-up for selling it. I'll be okay with it then, too, but let me know.
And it's a landlord's job to collect rent. It's Elon Musk's job to maximize shareholder value.
It's ok if you watch out for numero uno. I'm not expecting more. But you are wrong to think that this doesn't affect you. You can't opt out of society. You won't be able to avoid products with licensed voices. Your taxes will be paying for enforcement against "pirates". And most importantly, every new privilege for the rich and famous changes society. With every step, the elite becomes more entrenched and the bottom more hopeless. It's a matter of enlightened self-interest. If we only reject what directly hurts us individually, then the elites will simply build themselves a new feudalism.
And it's a landlord's job to collect rent. It's Elon Musk's job to maximize shareholder value.
Are you really conflating people who make their living based upon their acting skills and likeness with landlords?... Wow.
I am asking this in good faith as a neurodivergent individual:
Could you please clarify where you're coming at this from?
Is it that you feel that actors and other creatives are less legitimate as workers than others?
Is it that you think that LLMs could be a path towards AGI that could save humans from themselves?
Is it something else entirely?
Myself, I am coming at it from the perspective of someone who has worked in the tech industry for a while, and is familiar with the underlying technologies and how hyped they've been. I additionally personally know several professional actors, SAG-AFTRA and non-union, who have been materially impacted by AI and corpo bad faith in recent years (especially streaming services and game companies). On top of that, as a millennial, I have experienced significant financial setbacks due to unfettered corporate greed and know many peers who are much worse off than myself because of price gouging and stagnant wages.
My main motivations in AI conversations are undermining hype and ensuring that people take ethics into consideration, while looking at technologies that do have some actually interesting use cases and could lead to other interesting things.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The real risk is the voice being sold to Disney or Sony Music, and then youtube videos are getting removed because of similarities.
Voice tones aren't all that unique in most cases and there's too much room for abuse imo. The Scarjo and open ai scandal is a good example of this. The voices weren't that similar and I'm just not interested in having celebrities own whole spectrums like that.
You do realize that the vast majority of voice actors are not famous right? These are people working in a highly competitive labor market that has one of the few influential unions in the US outside of trades. Most of these AI companies aren't going after Johansson and the like if they have to pay instead of steal. They're going for those who are less established and trying to get a break, making them easier to exploit.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Legal plagiarism machine
I think this is pretty blatant. Sadly, I don't think there is anything we'll be able to do about this. The onus is on you and the prosecution to prove that they did.
I thought the fallout from that would lead to companies being careful about the AI voices they use for things like product demos and tutorials...
Oh, honey...
They stole it? Did they send a robot to surgically remove his vocal cords?
No, instead they raped his rights with some ToS..
Ok this ~~is~~ seems like a problem of trademark not copyright, or impersonation and fraud by pretending to be him. It's about his name, not really about his voice. His voice is also pretty generic EDIT: it's only in this specific market segment that it's problematic.
Not sure if the video said it was from him or not. It's been taken down, so I can't check, but I don't think it ever made that claim. Someone just noticed it sounded the same as Jeff.
It's copyright because they had to have fed the model with voice data from Jeff's videos.
Well in this case they used his likeness and brand to appear more legitimate and make money. So I'd argue this is trademark (even if not registered) so a legitimate complaint.
I don't believe in "copyright" for a voice. See for example impersonators. But in this case it's a deliberate deception which is pretty simple.
I don't believe in intellectual property at all and think it is a form of theft, to deprive others from common knowledge or information just to seek rent. In case of patents I equate it even to aiding in genocide, since most advances in more energy efficiency use are patented and exploited for profit and slowing down adaptation. Without exhaustive attempts to try other systems to pay creators, copyright law is a moral abomination. That is a philosophical or ethical argument, not a legal one.
Sorry but you can't own a voice. You can sue if it is implied that a voice is you, but you can't own the voice. If you could, you'd run into all kinds of problems. Imagine getting sued because your natural voice sounds too much like someone with more money and lawyers than you. Of if you happened to look like a celebrity/politician.
"You can't own your own voice"
Talking out of your dystopian ass, aren't you?
Ok, so how would that work? What does happen if you happen to sound like someone else? Who gets the rights to that voice?
In this case, it is likely that they wanted to use his voice if the videos done in collaboration went particularly well. So the fact that it's hus voice has a specific reason to be. This could hold as a claim, I think.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So you'd be ok with someone taking your fedia.io account and just posting whatever they wanted? I mean it's just an account it's not you is it?
Again, I'm asking what, in a perfect world where this kind of protection existed, would happen if two people had similar (or identical) sounding voices? Which entity would gain the legal rights and protections?
Impersonating exists, the difference there is if someone was impersonates you and says something defamatory, you can sue that person, what this article is suggesting is if I made an AI model of your voice I am not liable for anything I make that voice say
I never argued that you can't sue for implied endorsement or defamation. That is illegal. What isn't legal is owning a voice outright. You're conflating the two.
load more comments
(1 replies)
My voice developed through a combination of my body structure, my upbringing, speech therapy and a lot of training to do VO work. I absolutely own it. I have worked very hard on it.
I own my voice the same way I own my legs.
I'm sorry but that isn't true. A voice is a natural trait. There are other people with similar or identical voices out there.
Let's just say you can "own" a voice. In that world, what happens when two people naturally sound similar? Who gets the rights?
Similar voices are not the same voice. You can analyze them and show that they are different.
So the answer is that the person who said it gets the rights. Because it's their voice.
The idea that you don't own something that is a unique part of you is ludicrous.
There is no way to exactly fingerprint a voice. There isn't a mathematical definition of a voice. Even fingerprints and DNA aren't completely unique; think of twins. This means that a subjective judgement would have to be made when deciding ownership.
Look, I'm obviously not going to convince you. But I hope, for your sake, that this legal framework doesn't come to exist because you will not be the winner. Disney, Warner Brothers, or some other entity with deep pockets will own just about everything because they have the lawyers and money to litigate it.
There are real problems and dangers of trying to turn everything that has value into capital for capital owners.
You're right. It's not like there's anything out there like voiceprint identification or anyth-
https://www.phonexia.com/knowledge-base/voice-biometrics-essential-guide/
Oh.
Sure, but you can use someone's likeness to fraudulently tie them to some product you're pushing. The burden here is if the average person familiar with the voice would mistake it for support, and if the creator likely intended for that to happen, and I think that standard has been met here given the response by the CEO and the allegations by Jeff Geerling's audience.
If you just happen to look or sound like a celebrity/politician, that's a different story because fraud requires intent. Now, if you used your likeness to imply support by that celebrity/politician for some cause or product, and you don't disclose that you're not them, then we're back in fraud territory.
In this case, there seems to be clear evidence that there was intent to mislead viewers to improve views. That's fraud.
Yes, that was the distinction I was trying to make. These cases are fact dependent. I'm willing to admit that in this specific case there might have been both the intent to imply endorsement by a specific person and that practical result.
But as you can see in the other comments where I'm getting reamed, owning a voice outright is a pretty popular (if currently legally dubious/impossible) concept.
Yeah, you technically don't own your voice/likeness, but it's quite difficult to use someone's voice/likeness without violating some other law. If you call out that you're using it and that your use is not endorsed by the person it came from, you should be fine.
The voice isn’t his to own in the first place. “They” have a right to use it as much as he does.
Huh?
Your voice is not unique. Therefore not "yours"
Incorrect
The voice isn’t his to own in the first place. “They” have a right to use it as much as he does.
No, it's fraud. The CEO of the other company admitted that they consider this to be infringement, and it was done to make the video more popular, which to me means the staff did it so people would assume Jeff Geerling supported the video (and there's evidence that viewers did initially make that assumption).
So it seems clear to me that Jeff Geerling, Jeff's viewers, and the CEO of the company producing the videos with the voice imitation consider it to be infringement, and I believe it amounts to fraud.
How dem boots taste?
I cannot wait until all actors and writers get replaced so every thing is just bland cookie cutting trite that is mid tier at best. Producers will make do much money and audience won't have a choice but to watch it
So much money
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›