That's correct, but it's important to distinguish something explicitly here. The voices may not be copyrightable, but the dialogue is, as long as it's not also generated by AI (i.e., dynamically generated). Also, the trained model that generates the voice is still proprietary: only its product (and only the sound itself, not the words if the speech is from a script) can be openly used.
It does, yes. And they can also choose to opt out of future uses of their voice in the AI trained model. Which essentially means that their contracts are on a per-project basis, rather than allowing the game developer to force them to contract for the current project and any future use of the model by that game dev.
This deal solves the problem you're encountering, because it allows game companies to use real voices to generate dialogue. It will sound a hell of a lot better than the 100% AI generated voices you dislike.
And it will protect voice actors' jobs because the deal effectively requires new contracts for each use out of scope of the previous contract (i.e., the "opt out" language), and it encourages game companies to continue to rely on voice actors rather than switch to 100% AI generated.
Without this deal, game devs will just go 100% AI (and the tech will improve dramatically), and within a year or two, game voice actors will have no jobs to contract.
This is especially important in light of the trend toward dynamically generated dialogue in RPGs, etc. Without allowing an AI to train on real voice actors, dynamically generated dialogue will have to be 100% AI generated (no human voice involvement).
Voice acting in all fields is already a diminishing market because of AI generated voices. One of my coworkers had to get a job where I work because his VA jobs basically dried up. This agreement stanches the bleeding by permitting the use of AI trained on VAs (but only allowing use on a per-contract basis). Without that permission, AI would just be trained on open source / freely available voice samples, and there would be no contracts, and VAs would just .... not exist anymore.
It wasn't awful, it was just hapless. It probably would have gotten its sea legs in a second season.
Sad story: the actress who played the little girl died a day after her honeymoon and 8 days before her 22nd birthday, from a heart attack. (She'd had a heart transplant when she was 15.)
The big problem with "Lost" is that many in the writer's room (and the showrunners themselves) were raging racist assholes who decided to steer the show toward all the white characters, which meant changing a lot of their early plans.
I'm sure there are some "data harvesting" reasons, but honestly, the simplest is likely the truest:
Most people aren't computer-savvy, and having an app is much easier for most users than going to a website (either directly or through a bookmark that they probably won't ever be able to find again).
One must remember, always and forever: most people aren't us/you. Just because something is easy for you to do doesn't mean it's easy for everyone else.
Is it dumb for me that T-Mobile has an app that just goes to a webview that I could get through my phone browser? Yes. Is it dumb for my parents? Absolutely ten thousand percent no.
The value (in terms of money made/saved/protected) that a company gets from having an app instead of a website only is probably ranked in this order:
1 - ease of use for the majority of customers, reducing tech and customer support calls, angry customers, lost goodwill, bad reputation
2-99 - same as #1
100 - data harvesting
Even if risks are under-reported (plausible, but unlikely, given the amount of scrutiny), it's definitely the case that the risks from getting COVID are still not fully understood. Long COVID is a major issue that is still under investigation. So by your own metric - "highly reluctant to try the new possibly risky thing" - the vaccine is important. Because "the new possibly risky thing" in this case is getting COVID. You definitely don't want to "try" that.
I'll be honest, I'm surprised - I thought Estonia would have already had this in place! Among the Baltic countries they are superstars. (Among all countries, really.)
Maybe? HIPAA generally covers medical-to-medical information transfer. Most non-medical entities/people aren't part of that law and it's not a violation for a hospital to release information to law enforcement.
Violating the rights of patients definitely. HIPAA...maybe not.
It makes sense why a Starbucks would be across the street from a Starbucks (coffee buyers are not, as a rule, brand-loyal, so they will go to the nearest/most easily accessible spot - so Starbucks grows like a weed to prevent other shops from taking the business of fickle customers). But two Apple Stores cheek to jowl... that's weird.
Do you mean early human development biologically, or early human development overall (including culturally)? Because if the latter, humans using fire to cook meat was probably significantly less important than humans using fire for heat and light.
If Kbin defederates from Threads, I'll just leave Kbin, and stay with Threads. Defederating over vibes is not how the fediverse is supposed to operate. And for everyone advocating for this dumb idea, I'm just using this thread as a honey pot.
Do you not understand how unions work?