The point is loss. You have to show you were damaged. In this case fry isn’t losing anything.
“When you steal something the person you stole it from doesn’t have it any more.”
That may be the case from a legal perspective, but it’s not in the actual definition of the word. Illegal or not, it does seem to be stealing. Like I said I don’t see a requirement for the thing being stolen to be a singular, finite thing.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 9 months ago
idiomaddict@feddit.de 9 months ago
He’s losing work and the effectiveness of his strike. Either they want his voice and they’d pay for it if he wasn’t striking, in which case his literal voice is working against his figurative one against his will, or they just need a voice and there was no fucking reason to steal a real person’s.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 9 months ago
You have to prove that in court. And no he’s not losing work cuz theres no one paying in the first place. Chatgpt didn’t get a job over him. No one said oh we don’t need him to do this voice-over we have ai.
Also Remember we are not talking about replicating his voice we are talking about training an AI with it. Technically different subjects.
idiomaddict@feddit.de 9 months ago
He has to prove it in court if he wants accurate compensation, but that’s not really on the table atm.
Did you read the article? I’ll quote the relevant section.
During his speech at CogX Festival on Thursday, Fry played a clip to the audience of an AI system mimicking his voice to narrate a historical documentary.
“I said not one word of that—it was a machine. Yes, it shocked me,” he said. “They used my reading of the seven volumes of the Harry Potter books, and from that dataset an AI of my voice was created, and it made that new narration.”
They are replicating his voice.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 9 months ago
No, it is considered copyright violation. That's a crime too (well, often a civil tort) but it is not theft. It's a different crime.
If you want something to be illegal there needs to be an actual law making it illegal. There isn't one in the case of AI training because it isn't theft and it isn't copyright violation. This is a new thing and new things are not illegal by default.
Calling it "theft" is simply incorrect, and meaningfully so since it's an emotionally charged and prejudicial term.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 9 months ago
You skipped the identity theft part because I guess it kinda takes all the wind out of your argument lol.
Even then, “Theft” isn’t a single unique crime or law that’s distinct from copyright infringement, it’s an umbrella term. What you’re thinking of as the crime of “theft” is “larceny”, which actually does refer to taking physical property specifically. But Stephen Fry didn’t use the term Larceny here.
Copyright infringement when dealing with the theft of intellectual property is a type of theft. And since the rights to your voice and or performance is a thing you can own, it can easily be considered theft. It doesn’t need a new law, it’s just a new way to commit an old crime.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 9 months ago
I skipped it because it's not related to what's going on here. "Identity theft" is fraud, not just impersonation. People impersonate other people with no problem, eg this Dolly Parton impersonation contest that was the first hit when I went googling for "look-alike contest". You could perhaps use AI voice emulation as part of an identity theft scheme, but the crime is in how it's used not in the emulation itself.
No, it is emphatically not a type of theft. That's the fundamental point you keep missing here.
Judges have explicitly and specifically said that this is not the case. In Dowling v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement was not stealing. This is a legal matter, which is not subject to personal opinion - it's not theft. Full stop.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The fact remains that in the case of identity theft, it is not the case that the thing being stolen must be a singular finite thing that is removed from your possession, which directly contradicts your original statement, which your entire argument depends on. You claim that it isn’t theft because his voice is “still where he left it”. Well in the crime of identity theft your identity remains right where you left it. This is the point you keep missing.
As for the Dowling v. United States ruling, it’s not the case that the judge held that copyright infringement isn’t theft, you’ve misinterpreted it entirely. What was held was that “Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as “stolen property” for the purposes of a prosecution under the National Stolen Property Act of 1934.”
That is a very narrow ruling that clarified the definition of stolen property only as it applies to potential prosecution over law unrelated to copyright infringement. Like I said, there are different types of theft, and this ruling simply solidified the difference between crimes of the nature of theft, and larceny.