Emotions run high around politics right now. Can't I say I blame people for that. Shits fucked. And there is friendly fire from time to time when people feel like saying or acknowledging anything bad about "your side" is strengthening "the other side". And hell maybe they're right I don't know. It's all very subjective.
That thing about when he was in China was a shitshow from top to bottom. I had never even heard of the "controversy" so it was probably some bullshit the moderators threw in to appease the conspiracy lunatics and appear balanced. Then his answer was a bunch of nothing and flailing around. I don't think he even answered it. The closest he got was "that's what I said" and didn't address the accuracy of the statement or an explanation in his answer. And then he stopped with a few seconds left in his allotted time and froze up and stammered for the rest of it.
Tim Walz is, by all appearances, a stand up guy and smart as a tack. But that isn't really what drives these debates. If they were won and lost on the merits, no Republican would have been elected in my lifetime. But they're not about substance and by pretty much every measure that answer and interaction was a doozy of a loser.
But that was the only answer that he flubbed like that, so the night wasn't a total disaster for Walz. It just wasn't a win.
I hope whoever gets the website keeps it exactly the same in looks and tone, and instead of contributing to misinformation actively correct misinformation online and post accurate stories. Keep the vibe and over-the-top voice tho.
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.
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?
Sorry but you can't own a voice. You can sue if it is implied that a voice is you, but you can't own the voice. If you could, you'd run into all kinds of problems. Imagine getting sued because your natural voice sounds too much like someone with more money and lawyers than you. Of if you happened to look like a celebrity/politician.
Even if it's true, he's just admitting that he doesn't care about future generations. Fuck them kids, I guess.