hell yeah i love learning new words

Always, if they can deal with the consequences. But if the consequence is being blocked by a country they could make money from, chances are slim.

My understanding is that it is technically a “federated” standard, but I think there is a lot of technical hurdles to implementing and hosting a compatible server. So no one actually does it, and I’m not sure they’d federate even if someone went through the trouble of getting it up and running.

I suspect everyone is just going to be a manager from now on, managing AIs instead of people.

Loved that movie.

I would suggest a dedicated NVR for recording and monitoring. I tried using a home-rolled system and it was more trouble than it was worth and was unreliable. I use an Amcrest 24 channel dedicated NVR with some POE Amcrest cameras around the house. I would consider this self hosted, as everything stays in my network and the apps point directly to it without needing to go through a cloud service. I think they offer one if you want, but it’s on-top-of and not required.

my guess is something to do with drug testing, though what exactly I’m not sure

Lucky

Last date idea

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.