4 ms·
I think you mis-parsed the disclaimer. It's just warning people that cloned voices come with a different set of rights to the software (because the person the v
by weego 3y ago
I think you mis-parsed the disclaimer. It's just warning people that cloned voices come with a different set of rights to the software (because the person the voice is a clone of has rights to their voice).
- chrismorgan 3y ago(Don’t let’s derail the conversation, please, but “disclaimer” is completely the wrong word here. This is a condition of use. A disclaimer is “this isn’t mine” or “I’m not responsible for this”. Disclaimers and disclosures are quite different things and commonly confused, but this isn’t even either of them.)
- gosub100 3y agoThis always annoys me when people put "disclaimers" on their posts. IANAL, so tired of hearing that one. It's pointless because even if you were a lawyer, you cannot meaningfully comment on a case without the details, jurisdiction, circumstance, etc. Next, it's meaningless because is anyone going to blindly bow down and obey if you state the opposite? "Yes, I AM a lawyer, you do not need to pay taxes, they are unconstitutional." Thirdly, when they "disclaimer" themselves as working at google, that's not a dis-claimer, thats a "claimer", asserting the affirmative. I know their companies require them to not speak for the company without permission, but I hardly ever hear that one, usually its just some useless self-disclosure that they might be biased because they work there. Ok, who isn't biased? What bugs me overall is that it's usually vapid mimicry of a phrase they don't even understand.
- nielsole 3y agoIanal, but giving legal advice without being a lawyer may be illegal in some jurisdictions. Not sure if the disclaimer is effective or was ever tested in court. The disclaimer/disclosure mix-up is super annoying, but disclosing obvious biases even if not legally required seems like good practice to me.