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?
wagesj45
joined 3 months ago
Ok, so how would that work? What does happen if you happen to sound like someone else? Who gets the rights to that voice?
If that's the case, then they're technically savvy enough to use Let's Encrypt which is universally trusted.
That one worked for me, thanks!
Just FYI, the certificate for that server was marked untrustworthy.
Yeah, there is plenty of Supreme Court precedence on this.
Hell yeah. I'm hilarious and the world deserves to know.
That's why we should look for good solutions to societal problems, and not fall back on bad "solutions" just because that's what we're used to. I'm not against the idea of copyright existing. But copyright as it exists today is stifling and counterproductive for most creative endeavors. We do live in reality, but I don't believe it is the only possible reality. We're not getting to Star Trek Space Communism™ anytime soon and honestly I like the idea of owning stuff. That doesn't mean that there aren't concrete steps we can and should take right now in the present reality to make things better. And for that to happen we need to get our priorities and philosophies straight. Philosophies which for me include a robust public commons, the inability to own ideas outright, and the ability to take and transform art and culture. Otherwise, we're just falling into the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" mindset but for art and culture.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression
...within a capitalistic framework.
Humans are creative creatures and will express themselves regardless of economic incentives. We don't have to transmute ideas into capital just because they have "value".
I'm gonna posit a guess of around 1930 through the late 90's when the internet started eating everyone's lunch for "free".
(I am not a news historian and this is purely a guess.)
That might be a valid claim. But I would find it to be a very weak one unless they can come up with evidence that their use actually pretended to be him. The strongest argument here in my opinion would be that they hoped people would assume it's him, even though they never state it. In the end it would be a very fact-reliant case, and subjectively I wouldn't be convinced of an attempt to mislead based just on the use of a voice alone.