Capitalism: steal first, apologize with no real repurcussions later
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
- 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 1 year 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.
Yeah, the genie is out of the bottle on this one. I can do voice cloning with consumer hardware and available models. That can't be undone, but good legal protections would be nice.
That said, the Johanson case is a bad example because it really didn't sound much like her at all. It was a chipper yound white lady sound, but to my ear sounded nothing like Johanson. It did sound kinda like a character she voiced, but I would not gave confused the two. They cloned the voice of someone they paid to give a similar inflection as the voice from Her. That's far removed from cloning Johanson herself. It is closer to people making music "in the style of".
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.
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.
You do realize that the vast majority of voice actors are not famous right?
Yes, that's the point. You are not defending voice actors by demanding likeness rights.
I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Maybe there is some confusion about the technology. You only need a few seconds of audio to clone a voice. You don't need hours of audio from a professional. That's why the tech can be used for scams. Likeness rights won't create jobs for voice actors. Only free money for famous people. You can also generate random voices.
Leading AI voice companies like Elevenlabs require you to have permission to clone a voice. But how can they check if their customers are being truthful? In practice, it simply means that famous people, whose voices are known, may not be imitated. Likeness rights, by their nature, can only be enforced, with any kind of effectiveness, for the rich and famous.
OpenAI tried to hire Johansson. When she declined, they hired a different, less famous actress. Maybe they did that to defend against lawsuits, or maybe it gives better results. If they had engineered a nonexistent voice, it would be almost impossible to make the case that they did not imitate Johansson. But still, everyone is talking about that poor famous, rich person who got ripped off. What about the actress who actually provided the voice? I guess she can look for another job, because Johansson owns that voice type.
one of the few influential unions in the US
You mean Ronald Reagan's old outfit? Do you even know who Ronald Reagan was?
Yes, that's the point. You are not defending voice actors by demanding likeness rights.
Knowing people who are not famous but are SAG-AFTRA actors, I'm going to have to disagree very much on that. A regular contractual battle is the "in perpetuity" clause for one's likeness. This happens at all levels. Essentially, clients often try to sneak a clause in that grants them the exclusive right to use the actor's likeness forever. While this does not mean that the actor does not receive pay, it binds them to the client in a way that prevents them from getting other work and diminishes their bargaining ability.
But still, everyone is talking about that poor famous, rich person who got ripped off. What about the actress who actually provided the voice? I guess she can look for another job, because Johansson owns that voice type.
If the actress was performing in an affectation to impersonate Johansson, she was effectively acting no better than a scab and enabling corpos to violate consent. Knowingly impersonating another loving actor for purposes other than parody is a scummy thing to do and the actress was ethically bound to refuse the job.
Being famous doesn't make someone less of a person. They're just people like the rest of us (though generally more financially lucky). We all have a right to our identity and likeness and to decide how our likeness is used. Legitimatizing the violation of that consent is not a path that benefits any worker.
You mean Ronald Reagan's old outfit? Do you even know who Ronald Reagan was?
That's a poor and fallacious argument there. California is Ronnie "Pull Up the Ladder" Reagan's home state does that make all Californians Reaganites by association?
Knowing people who are not famous but are SAG-AFTRA actors, I’m going to have to disagree very much on that.
How do likeness rights benefit non-famous people?
Turning likeness into an intellectual property implies the right to sell it. Apparently you want to argue for likeness, so I don't see why you would use such clauses as an argument.
That’s a poor and fallacious argument there.
It's not an argument, as you have recognized. I hoped it would make you think.
You know that not everyone in Hollywood is part of SAG-AFTRA, right? Have you ever wondered what happened to them during the strike? I guess they just have to fend for themselves. If the "union" doesn't care about those guys, do you think the leadership cares about the small members?
Actors are a conservative lot. At the bottom, you have the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and at the top... Well, you know. It's not common on lemmy to cheer for such a system.
Legal plagiarism machine
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.
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
audience won't have a choice but to watch it
This is only true if humans stop making art. Maybe Hollywood dies at the hands of AI, but independent media will always exist & consumers will always have a choice.
But what about live performers? Why would someone go to see a local band when they can see a hologram of the 'beetles' for much cheaper?
I'm not sure how you can get much cheaper than a local band lol.
I can go see a DIY show with a local no-name act for less than $12. There are even shows (often I see this for theatrical shows) that are pay-what-you-can (including $0). I don't see a world where these are going away, even in the face of AI.
Besides, I don't think the consumer is comparing a local band with the 'beetles'. The Beatles are quite literally one of the most influential acts of all time – it's a false equivalency.
view more: next ›