4 ms·
it's not theft when the owner still has the thing. If the owner never had the thing, it is theft, but subject and target are reversed (actions taken against me
by tenebrisalietum 3y ago
it's not theft when the owner still has the thing.
If the owner never had the thing, it is theft, but subject and target are reversed (actions taken against me for money I never gave you are stealing money from me). This could be considered protectionism, but also extortion.
- waihtis 3y agoby the same logic youre completely fine with having your face pasted into unauthorized contexts, say on some videos of questionable type
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoPerhaps a likeness of it was used in a way they didn't approve but, still, their face wasn't stolen from them. This isn't the same logic at all.
- waihtis 3y agoIt seems you're then fine with me "lending" your voice to make irritating prank calls to all your relatives and coworkers - since it's, to reiterate, fair use of AI in your opinion
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoWhy do you think that means I'm lending my voice? I still have the ability to talk while you're playing around with a digital representation of my voice. If I lend you my car, I can't use it to drive myself around because you have it.
- mcbuilder 3y agoI mean harassment or libel laws already cover this right? Or revenge porn laws could apply if you did it to your ex. That's not fair use, simply reproducing the sound of a voice using AI is not a crime.
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoNot theft. That's fraud.
- waihtis 3y agook let me fix the original quote then - it's not protectionism when you're defending something from fraud.
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoNot theft. The actual wrong is people taking adverse action against you based on fabricated evidence. Is creating such fabricated evidence with the intent to induce adverse action also wrong? I would say so. It seems similar to defamation or libel to me, unless there is a clear element of parody.