7 ms·

> IMO, the real tragedy here is not some threat to Drake (he’ll be fine) Man, what a skewed version of justice this is. "He'll be fine." The REAL victim is thi

> IMO, the real tragedy here is not some threat to Drake (he’ll be fine) Man, what a skewed version of justice this is. "He'll be fine." The REAL victim is this unnoticed artist? Give me a break. What he did impersonating another artist was wrong. There's this perverse notion that has infused our society where it's ok to rob from a Target or Walmart because it doesn't really "hurt" them. "They have insurance. They'll be fine!" That standard of justice will lead society to a very VERY bad place if you follow it.

waboremo 3y ago
Allowing massive conglomerates to exist has already led society to a VERY bad place already. Anyways, besides that, impersonation for personal gain or to cause disadvantage is already criminal. If Drake wants to do something about that, he can.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
siftrics 3y ago
I agree that it's not okay to rob the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. But this case is more nuanced. A compelling argument can be made against the very idea of robbery of IP. I think the vast majority of "intellectual property" should not, in fact, be anyone's property, and therefore no one can be robbed of it. Who is harmed and who benefits in the situation where Drake has a lock and key on his IP? Consumers are harmed --- they clearly enjoy new Drake music regardless of whether or not it was written and sung by Drake, but this is not allowed. The "AI artist" is harmed --- they could have created something valuable in the world, but this is not allowed. Drake artificially benefits from a regulatory monopoly. Everyone is strictly worse off because of arbitrary, draconian rules. A much better example is drug patents. Literally millions of lives could be saved --- and at a lower cost --- if patents didn't exist. Patents and intellectual property are just state-sanctioned monopolies where everyone is harmed and coerced to pay rent to some random asshole.
- bjt2n3904 3y ago
  Drake's voice isn't intellectual property, it's his own identity. Drake has a right to decide what his voice says, and have a monopoly on it. The AI artist is not "harmed" because they can't use Drake's voice. I can't believe this needs to be said.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    But is that true? If I were a gifted mimic, I couldn't go out and make a song called "Sad in Toronto", even if I was very clear about not actually being Drake?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      A gifted mimic is not a mechanical reproduction. The right of publicity doesn’t protect you from people with similar appearances or voices, it does protect (to a certain extent) against uses of mechanical reproduction of your appearance or voice. Because it is separate from copyright, US federal statutory fair use considerations don’t apply to this right (I’m not sure to what extent Constitutional fair use might apply to it; statutory fair use in copyright largely recapitulates what were found to be Constitutional limits on the copyright power stemming from the First Amendment, I don’t know if it has ever been considered the extent to which the First Amendment, applied ot the states through the 14th, applies similar restriction on the right of publicity, which is in the US, to the extent it exists, a state-law intellectual property right.)
    - rockemsockem 3y ago
      The op is extremely certain that they have interpreted this law correctly, but the fact of the matter is that a case like the one you describe has never gone through US courts, so we do not know. We are likely to have a court case sometime in the next few years it seems, who knows how long it'll take to get an answer though. There was a very important and similar case though where Bette Midler sued Ford over inappropriate use of "her" voice performed by an impersonator. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. The context seems important in that case though. Ford had the impersonator sing a song that she herself released! (They had acquired copyright release for that part) So there's no reasonable claim that Bette Midler was not the one they were impersonating. If you sang a song you wrote in a voice extremely similar to Drake's without mentioning Drake in any way, then that seems very different to me.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Give me a break. What he did impersonating another artist was wrong. I agree 100%. It's a bit disturbing that people seem to think it was a lesser wrong just because the victims are wealthy and famous.
- bjt2n3904 3y ago
  It would be bad enough if they JUST denied that Drake was a victim, but they go one step further and say Drake has committed the offense! Learn to spot the DARVO tactic: Deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender.

waboremo 3y ago

Allowing massive conglomerates to exist has already led society to a VERY bad place already. Anyways, besides that, impersonation for personal gain or to cause disadvantage is already criminal. If Drake wants to do something about that, he can.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

siftrics 3y ago

I agree that it's not okay to rob the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. But this case is more nuanced. A compelling argument can be made against the very idea of robbery of IP. I think the vast majority of "intellectual property" should not, in fact, be anyone's property, and therefore no one can be robbed of it. Who is harmed and who benefits in the situation where Drake has a lock and key on his IP? Consumers are harmed --- they clearly enjoy new Drake music regardless of whether or not it was written and sung by Drake, but this is not allowed. The "AI artist" is harmed --- they could have created something valuable in the world, but this is not allowed. Drake artificially benefits from a regulatory monopoly. Everyone is strictly worse off because of arbitrary, draconian rules. A much better example is drug patents. Literally millions of lives could be saved --- and at a lower cost --- if patents didn't exist. Patents and intellectual property are just state-sanctioned monopolies where everyone is harmed and coerced to pay rent to some random asshole.

bjt2n3904 3y ago
Drake's voice isn't intellectual property, it's his own identity. Drake has a right to decide what his voice says, and have a monopoly on it. The AI artist is not "harmed" because they can't use Drake's voice. I can't believe this needs to be said.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  But is that true? If I were a gifted mimic, I couldn't go out and make a song called "Sad in Toronto", even if I was very clear about not actually being Drake?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    A gifted mimic is not a mechanical reproduction. The right of publicity doesn’t protect you from people with similar appearances or voices, it does protect (to a certain extent) against uses of mechanical reproduction of your appearance or voice. Because it is separate from copyright, US federal statutory fair use considerations don’t apply to this right (I’m not sure to what extent Constitutional fair use might apply to it; statutory fair use in copyright largely recapitulates what were found to be Constitutional limits on the copyright power stemming from the First Amendment, I don’t know if it has ever been considered the extent to which the First Amendment, applied ot the states through the 14th, applies similar restriction on the right of publicity, which is in the US, to the extent it exists, a state-law intellectual property right.)
  - rockemsockem 3y ago
    The op is extremely certain that they have interpreted this law correctly, but the fact of the matter is that a case like the one you describe has never gone through US courts, so we do not know. We are likely to have a court case sometime in the next few years it seems, who knows how long it'll take to get an answer though. There was a very important and similar case though where Bette Midler sued Ford over inappropriate use of "her" voice performed by an impersonator. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. The context seems important in that case though. Ford had the impersonator sing a song that she herself released! (They had acquired copyright release for that part) So there's no reasonable claim that Bette Midler was not the one they were impersonating. If you sang a song you wrote in a voice extremely similar to Drake's without mentioning Drake in any way, then that seems very different to me.

JohnFen 3y ago

> Give me a break. What he did impersonating another artist was wrong. I agree 100%. It's a bit disturbing that people seem to think it was a lesser wrong just because the victims are wealthy and famous.

bjt2n3904 3y ago
It would be bad enough if they JUST denied that Drake was a victim, but they go one step further and say Drake has committed the offense! Learn to spot the DARVO tactic: Deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender.