Ingela said:

Bunsterdk said:

If that were true they would only remove things that can be bought elsewhere. This is about putting control over music, and I choose music any day. They don't care about artists making money at all. They just want to control the outlet of Prince music which will mean there are only few things available, mostly mainstream most likely. They couldn't care less about his actual body of work and legacy. You are very naive if you think we'll be able to buy all of this ever, I'm afraid.

Well it is true and you're the one that's naive. I simply post facts, you base it on your emotions.

Bunsterdk said:

Ingela said:

Well it is true and you're the one that's naive. I simply post facts, you base it on your emotions.

ROFL You are funny, you know. You have no idea what I base anything on. But thanks for the laugh.

Horsefeathers said:

Ingela said:

Horsefeathers said:

Ingela said:

I sure hope someone sues your ass. Prince has always been right in terms of YouTube. And finally the labels are going after YouTube and hopefully you. More music is listened to today than in the entire history of man kind, but musicians are making less and less and not being able to make a living off their work. Something is wrong with that picture. YouTube has grown through illicit work. It has been the onus of people like Prince to hire agencies to sift through the YouTube mess to issue take down after take down instead of Google itself. Thankfully that will soon change and put the onus back on YouTube or face serious monetary consequences. Finally YouTube will be taken out back and get the beat down it deserves. YouTube can use machine learning to detect your face and objects and everything else and you tell me it can't detect the illicit material that propels it? Bullshit. I only wish Prince was alive to see YouTube finally get the beat down it deserves. It took labels and artist long enough to really get its shit together to go after them/you, but better late than never. Keep an eye on the news for this.

Point of clarification: Machine learning is not what YouTube uses or could use for the purpose you specify. Machine learning would not also be used for the purpose you specify by any entity or service that evaluates content posted to YouTube.

Machine learning is a subfield of study of broader technologies that would be used for the purpose you specify, comparative analytics and pattern recognition (broadly). Sepcific to the purpose you cite, these would simply be application technologies that have an ability to take a sample of digital content (video, picture, audio, text etc.) and crawl/compare the sample content to content that appears on a website that is publicly accessible. www.tineye.com uses this type of service specific to graphics, for example.

Machine learning is the conceptual offshoot of advanced technologies which include comparative analytics and pattern recognition, and is distinguished by the "learning" portion of the title. The broad concept is that algorithms can be designed and used that train a program, application, or other function to apply actual application performance (results) back into the machine's analytics algorithm to further refine the application's ability to get more accurate, refined, and often predictive results. A key example is in the area of financial fraud detection. A comparative analytics and pattern analysis engine would be deployed as version 1.0. As results come back on suspected financial fraud and investigations commence and individuals eventually prosecuted, the original analytics algorithm would be adjusted and refined with the successful detection details to enable the application itself to get more accurate in version 2.0. This continues iteratively throughout subsequent releases and, eventually, the application itself could become truly predictive at identifying likely fraud before it happens rather than finding actual fraud after the fact.

RenaRF said:

Ingela said:

Ingela said:

Noodled24 said:

Ingela said:

Prince was a fan of youtube. He found several band members from the site. He just didn't like the fact Youtube dictated how much they would pay. Prince wanted to set his own price. Although he had the 3EG channel which did see some uploads.

If it wasn't for youtube, many artists would find it much more difficult to connect to their audience.

It has nothing to do with Prince now. It's about theft. It's about the decimation of an industry. It's about getting paid for your hard work.

"Hard work" - let's not get carried away. Musicians aren't exactly firefighters.

Youtube didn't decimate the industry. Mp3 compression did that. Along with the likes of Toshiba and Hitachi selling CD burners for less than the price of an album in HMV.

Youtube enabled a generation (plus) of artists to have their own platform with which to build a following.

As for "Theft" - You'd have to be more specific. Youtube will take down anything it's asked to.

Ingela said:

Bunsterdk said:

ROFL You are funny, you know. You have no idea what I base anything on. But thanks for the laugh.

Ignorant people are amused so easily. Glad I could help.

Ingela said:

Horsefeathers said:

This is literally the first time I've seen this comment. I'd forgotten about this thread until now and had to search to figure out what you were talking about and why so indignant on that thread. Anyway, it is completely unrelated to the point I made in the other thread about dropping random YouTube videos with no context. This would be considered context and is not a random YouTube link. Hope that helps (sincere, not sarcasm).

I have no idea what you are talking about. But machine learning should be able to detect all illicit videos and remove them. The onus should be on Google to impliment it to automatically remove videos instead of having the onus on an artist like Prince to hire someone to find and issue take downs. The technology is there, but it seems like Google impliments it feablly to continue to benefit from theft.

It can't learn what to remove without first being given the videos so that it can "learn" them. Only humans can do that.

Ask microsoft about machine learning... they switched on their AI twitter chat bot and it took all of 3 hours before it began trolling people and making racist comments.

Noodled24 said:

Ingela said:

RenaRF said:

RenaRF said:

Ingela said:

The same videos that have been taken down keep pippin up. You're making excuses for Google now lol. Microsoft has their AI back up and running. Dumb public relations move but it's says nothing about the technology that's advancing exponentially.

And as I stated earlier, machine learning has nothing to do with what you are discussing. Machine learning would be applied to detect the likelihood that someone might post something that constituted a copyright infringement. Your lengthy non-answer on this subject was laughable. Must be nice to know everything even when you don't. Bye Felicia.

That's an application. A form of machine learning would also be used if you were building an AI to police Youtube with anything like the efficiancy of a human.

Ingela said:

Ingela said:

Bunsterdk said:

Ingela said:

I can't help that you don't understand. But I would suggest you educate yourself and stop making a fool of yourself.
[Edited 6/16/16 14:53pm]

RenaRF isn't the one making a fool of her/himself in this thread, mate.

2020 said:

2020 said: