wagesj45

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?

If that's the case, then they're technically savvy enough to use Let's Encrypt which is universally trusted.