zlacker

Under what legal theory is intending to do something which is legal (hiring a person that has a voice you want) becomes illegal because there is another person who has a similar voice?

>>howbad+(OP)
It's not intending to do something legal, it's intending to do something illegal: Stealing their likeness. The fact you used an otherwise legal procedure to do the illegal activity doesn't make it less illegal.

>>ocdtre+11
How can something be illegal if every step towards the objective is legal? This would result in an incoherent legal system where selective prosecution/corruption is trivial.

>>howbad+09
It is legal to buy a gun, and legal to fire a gun, and it can even be legal to fire a gun at someone who is threatening to kill you in the moment, but if you fire a gun at someone with the intention of killing someone that happens to be very, very illegal.

>>ocdtre+Aa
Very well. But in this case the end goal is the end of someone's unique life.

In the case of acquiring a likeness, if it's done legally you acquire someone else's likeness that happens to be shared with your target.

The likeness is shared and non-unique.

If you objective is to take someone's life, there is no other pathway to the objective but their life. With likeness that isn't the case.

>>howbad+09
What's illegal, in general, is not the action itself but the intent to do an action and the steps taken in furtherance of that intent.

Hiring someone with a voice you want isn't illegal; hiring someone with a voice you want because it is similar to a voice that someone expressly denied you permission to use is illegal.

Actually, it's so foundational to the common law legal system that there's a specialized Latin term to represent the concept: mens rea (literally 'guilty mind').

>>howbad+9d
So? You're merely (correctly) pointing out that the acts have consequences that are of wildly differing severity. Not that one is a legal and the other is not.

>>howbad+9d
OpenAI should hire you as their lawyer.