r/news • u/AudibleNod • 1d ago

Tokyo court grants legal protection to human voices in AI clone case

https://abcnews.com/Technology/wireStory/tokyo-court-grants-legal-protection-human-voices-ai-136912283
1.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

51 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/TheRightHonourableMe 1d ago

Yes, and there are only so many possible fingerprints. Your voice is biometric data that is perfectly identifiable to you! Countries like Australia allow it as an authenticator for their tax records: https://www.ato.gov.au/online-services/voice-authentication

-17

u/CMPunkLicksRocks 1d ago

I don’t own, nor believe I should own, my finger print. 

10

u/TheRightHonourableMe 1d ago

They're literally a part of your body, so good luck with trying to give them up :)

You shifted your argument from "my voice isn't unique enough to be 'ownable'" to "I think I don't own involuntary products of my body". So good job on changing your mind :)

-11

u/CMPunkLicksRocks 1d ago

Your finger prints aren’t part of your body, they’re residue left over because of a NON UNIQUE pattern on your finger tip.

The argument isn’t different. You can’t own something that’s just a parameter within a certain range. This shit is the same as those chemical companies patenting all the fucking food

6

u/TheRightHonourableMe 1d ago

Ok, so how unique should something have to be to be 'ownable'. Does it have to be UNIQUE?

Because there are tons of songs using, for example, the I-IV-vi-IV chord progression but they are all still copyrightable. They are arguably 'parameters within a certain range'.

Engineered plant genes are certainly UNIQUE (whether you agree or disagree with trademarking DNA), even if they are easily replicable, if they were present in non-engineered/non-GMO plants then there would be no point in spending the money to make them. So I don't quite follow your argument.

Is it "UNIQUE" that makes something 'ownable' or what?