[HN Gopher] RIAA Reports AI Vocal Cloning Site 'Voicify' to the ...
___________________________________________________________________
RIAA Reports AI Vocal Cloning Site 'Voicify' to the U.S. Government
Author : gslin
Score : 28 points
Date : 2023-10-11 14:10 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| Just wait until their beloved talent's voice is shot from years
| of singing, drinking, smoking, etc. and they want a new album.
| Maybe they'll want to revisit their stance on this and use the
| tech to keep pumping out those hits that they need to survive on
| as a leech.
| kube-system wrote:
| Nothing in their complaint would preclude the artist from using
| the technology.
| mikece wrote:
| If a random singer can duplicate the sound of a popular singer
| it's one thing; to use a process to clone the voice of that
| singer from the singer's own recordings is a theft of that
| person's unique talent. Same principle as if I took a paparazzi
| photo of a celebrity and sold it as portraits due to the fame of
| that person and for legitimate news purposes.
| angryasian wrote:
| >If a random singer can duplicate the sound of a popular singer
| it's one thing; to use a process to clone the voice of that
| singer from the singer's own recordings is a theft of that
| person's unique talent.
|
| in the end the outcome is the same and happens all the time in
| the industry. When a voice actor portraying another character
| for an animated series, the original actor doesn't get
| compensated. Cloned or exactly duplicated is indistinguishable
| to the outcome.
|
| >Same principle as if I took a paparazzi photo of a celebrity
| and sold it as portraits due to the fame of that person and for
| legitimate news purposes.
|
| Not sure I understand this. paparazzi takes photo and sells
| photos ? whats the issue ?
| mikece wrote:
| I cannot take and sell a photograph of you, capitalizing on
| your image and likeness, for my own profit without permission
| (the violation is called "conversion") unless the photos meet
| exceptions such as being newsworthy or just a general street
| photography photograph (but the people captured by street
| photographers aren't captured specifically for who they are
| but how they look in a scene and could have been anyone
| without changing the essential nature of the photograph).
| jiminymcmoogley wrote:
| The trouble with using the word "theft" while making an
| argument about unauthorized copying is that it never holds
| water - does the popular singer lose their ability to sing? If
| not then the closest you can really get and still come across
| as genuine is to say they "stole" the uniqueness of their
| talent, rather than their unique talent itself
| hiatus wrote:
| Framing it as a "right to publicity" argument is interesting,
| though it invites comparison to celebrity impersonators which
| exist and don't seem to infringe.
|
| A relevant opinion:
|
| > The purpose of the portrayal in question must be examined to
| determine if it predominantly serves a social function valued by
| the protection of free speech. If the portrayal mainly serves the
| purpose of contributing information, which is not false or
| defamatory, to the public debate of political or social issues or
| of providing the free expression of creative talent which
| contributes to society's cultural enrichment, then the portray
| generally will be immune from liability. If, however, the
| portrayal functions primarily as a means of commercial
| exploitation, then such immunity will not be granted.
|
| from Estate of Presley v. Russen via
| https://ripl.law.uic.edu/news-stories/celebrity-impersonatio...
| kube-system wrote:
| I think the biggest difference is that impersonators are using
| humanly creative acting skills, whereas this tool's model is
| built mechanically from the original artist's recordings.
| dehrmann wrote:
| How is what an AI does any different?
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| The degree of human involvement and human creativity
| involved is a very critical part of copyright law.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| What if there is an AI built from the best impersonators
| without the input of the original? What if someone goes
| through enough effort to even get them to agree for their
| voice to be used as such?
| [deleted]
| GaggiX wrote:
| Well fortunately most people I see making AI covers they use open
| source tools to do that (https://github.com/RVC-
| Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Convers...)
| 14 wrote:
| Will they do a China style internet and attempt to lock it down
| to only approved websites? The cat is out of the bag and there is
| no stopping it. Personally I welcome this technology. Just this
| morning I listened to Drake and The Weekend with my kids it's an
| okay song. My bet is we will see Drake and The Weekend actually
| perform this song live. I suggest they find a way to embrace
| this.
| hyperbovine wrote:
| List of technologies RIAA has successfully sued out of existence:
| mikece wrote:
| Kinda hard to sue a _technology_ out of existence. The closest
| that comes to mind is Napster but that was a brand, not the
| technology per se (though it did become the legal precedent for
| going after illegal sharing and distribution of copyrighted
| music).
| meepmorp wrote:
| You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Someone needs to pay all those lawyers.
| spandextwins wrote:
| The poop has left the chute.
| dsgnr wrote:
| [flagged]
| angryasian wrote:
| corporations weaponinzing the government to hold back progress.
| nothing new here.
| kbenson wrote:
| That seems a somewhat extreme take. Do you feel the same about
| copyright? Should I be able to record someone else speaking or
| singing and sell it?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-11 16:01 UTC)