I can see it. Trump seems very susceptible to flattery. Slob his knob enough and be the last person he talked to, you could definitely get funding.

Thanks, Silas!

I’m sorry, but your premise is flawed. The actual fact is that they are not fun at parties.

Even if it’s true, he’s just admitting that he doesn’t care about future generations. Fuck them kids, I guess.

my reason for waking up

Yes, that was the distinction I was trying to make. These cases are fact dependent. I’m willing to admit that in this specific case there might have been both the intent to imply endorsement by a specific person and that practical result.

But as you can see in the other comments where I’m getting reamed, owning a voice outright is a pretty popular (if currently legally dubious/impossible) concept.

There is no way to exactly fingerprint a voice. There isn’t a mathematical definition of a voice. Even fingerprints and DNA aren’t completely unique; think of twins. This means that a subjective judgement would have to be made when deciding ownership.

Look, I’m obviously not going to convince you. But I hope, for your sake, that this legal framework doesn’t come to exist because you will not be the winner. Disney, Warner Brothers, or some other entity with deep pockets will own just about everything because they have the lawyers and money to litigate it.

There are real problems and dangers of trying to turn everything that has value into capital for capital owners.

I never argued that you can’t sue for implied endorsement or defamation. That is illegal. What isn’t legal is owning a voice outright. You’re conflating the two.

I’m sorry but that isn’t true. A voice is a natural trait. There are other people with similar or identical voices out there.

Let’s just say you can “own” a voice. In that world, what happens when two people naturally sound similar? Who gets the rights?

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.

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?

Ok, so how would that work? What does happen if you happen to sound like someone else? Who gets the rights to that voice?

Sorry but you can’t own a voice. You can sue if it is implied that a voice is you, but you can’t own the voice. If you could, you’d run into all kinds of problems. Imagine getting sued because your natural voice sounds too much like someone with more money and lawyers than you. Of if you happened to look like a celebrity/politician.

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”.