this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
303 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
16 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

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.