6 ms·

While I sympathize with the author its (edit)unreasonable to suggest that they should be validating each course. However it appears more should be done to ease

While I sympathize with the author its (edit)unreasonable to suggest that they should be validating each course. However it appears more should be done to ease the path to getting your content taken down. You would think the person selling the course would have payment information that could be used to track that individual down, the correct course of action is to sue. If the content isnt worth doing this then the content isnt actually that valuable to the author.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
> its dangerous to suggest that they should be validating each course. Why's that?
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  Because how would you even do that with any sort of accuracy, do you check the global content registry database? Surely people dont expect to export the burden of protecting your IP to other companies?
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    If you're in the business of selling content you damn well ought to know who's content your selling. I'm not saying any system would be completely bulletproof, but you should at least look like you're TRYING.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Spivak 11y ago
      So if I lease commercial land it's my responsibility to make sure my renter isn't laundering money? Whatever argument you make should also explain why the web hosting provider isn't also responsible for hosting and distributing pirated content. Certainly they should also look like they're trying to prevent copyright infringement on their network. > but you should at least look like you're TRYING. This kind of logic is how an automatic 'review' process gets implemented which just spins for a few minutes and then then accepts the video. The problem of detecting copyrighted content is so complex that without source level access you would never be able to prove definitively that their review process is just theater.
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        Your metaphor isn't quite right, a better one would be "should a distributor of a given product be held responsible for determining if the goods they're given are stolen?" To that I would say: 1. A distributor would only use vetted manufacturers, or at least not buy from one again when the products purchased turn out to be stolen 2. When the products are digital, it's much easier to check if they are stolen than physical ones. 3. If it's been determined that a product is stolen, the distributor (generally) isn't held responsible but also isn't allowed to continue selling from the same stock. Also, I would argue that while it's impossible to detect everything (which is what I said initially too) there should be some legal requirement that the given distributor should show a reasonable attempt to enforce copyright law. The Content ID system, discounting all the ways its abused by a few big companies, is an excellent system for detecting copyright material, and would definitely show that YouTube is at least trying to prevent the spread of material that isn't legal. At the same time, it's clear by this post at least that Udemy is not only NOT vetting their content whatsoever but, similar to Facebook, makes the process to report said content intentionally difficult which I'm sure is not at all related to the fact that as long as said content is live, they're making money. In short, there's a difference between being a store owner who mistakenly bought stolen products one time, or being a distributor who makes regular business off of stolen product. One shouldn't be held to the fire, one really should.
  - wattengard 11y ago
    Screenshot of one of the projects in Adobe Premiere/video editor used?
AlexeyBrin 11y ago
> If the content isnt worth doing this then the content isnt actually that valuable to the author. I think you exaggerate a bit here. How easy is to sue someone from a different country ?
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  Largely depends on the country, at the very least you can report them to the authorities for fraud.
robconery 11y ago
Define "dangerous". Listen mate, if you make money on something and that something is stolen - you are responsible. Udemy created this marketplace for stolen things; people steal things and sell them there. > the correct course of action is to sue Nope. That's what people do in a dispute to solve the dispute. The correct course of action is something else entirely as we're talking about copyright law, not pissing on your neighbors orchids.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  > Define "dangerous" Dangerous was a bad word choice, perhaps "unreasonable". > Listen mate, if you make money on something and that something is stolen - you are responsible I never claimed they arent responsible and as the DCMA outlines they mitigate their responsibility for hosting this content by allowing DCMA take downs. What are you suggesting Udemy do to validate that the content creator owns the content they are selling. Copyright law and ownership is a very complicated issue. There isnt a copyright database where they can validate that the content is owned by that person but also the content in the actual content is owned by the person who created the content. What are you suggesting they do? > The correct course of action is something else entirely Like? > https://twitter.com/robconery/status/664960173455224832 https://twitter.com/robconery/status/664960173455224832 Do you have a licence for this content?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- chirau 11y ago
  Doesn't the same thing happen with YouTube? Despite ContentID and all that, there is still a lot of piracy. Do you blame YouTube? They can only do so much. I am not justifying Udemy by the way.
  - ps4fanboy 11y ago
    If you look around, the main complaint with YouTube now is people making false claims of ownership now, this is the problem with validating the idea of "ownership" there is no registry its almost impossible to validate that someone doesnt own the content that you dont know about.
Bjartr 11y ago
>If the content isnt worth doing this then the content isnt actually that valuable to the author. Even if the author thought the content was worth nothing doesn't change that it's his content, for which he controls the copyright. I don't necessarily agree with the modern copyright ecosystem, but as long as it's around it should be applied in a manner consistent with its goals of enabling content creators to control the commercialization of their content, including not at all.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  I agree, and the owner should assert his claim by submitting a DCMA takedown request, but the owner shouldnt complain that they had to do that in the first place, that is unreasonable.
  - djur 11y ago
    Why is it unreasonable for a marketplace to take active steps to ensure they are selling legal products?
    - ps4fanboy 11y ago
      What steps?
revelation 11y ago
It's unreasonable? How? This isn't YouTube, they're selling video courses. As a customer, you would damn better expect that they have curated the content on their site.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  Udemy has over 30,000 courses, how many videos and other course assets does that represent? What method are you suggesting they deploy to validate the person selling the course owns all the copyrights they need to sell it?
  - djur 11y ago
    Looking to see if another company's watermark is on it would be a good start.
    - ps4fanboy 11y ago
      OK so now they ban all videos with water marks of companies what does that solve, people will just start cropping videos.
      - erdojo 11y ago
        Not really a hard problem to solve. Better content moderation is one step. Another? Add a part of the EULA that states: "You hereby claim that you are either the original content creator or have written permission from the original content creator to sell this course. You agree that if you are judged by us to violate another creator's copyright, you will be liable for double any revenues generated by the sale of the course, payable directly to the copyright holder. You will also be permanently banned." Or something to this effect. Make it part of the EULA that copyright violation won't be tolerated.
        ps4fanboy 11y ago
        Good luck collecting double revenues legal action required to enforce that clause would cost more than the revenue.
bdcravens 11y ago
It's happening often enough that they could at least do a cursory search at the most common places. They're not a charity; they are profiting off of this, and it's reasonable to assume they could use some of that profit on due diligence.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  I do not see any evidence to suggest they are profiting from it, wouldn't they be legally obligated to refund the users who bought the content once its taken down, since they would lose access? So in theory wouldn't udemy be losing money? + Total Amount Recvd - Payment fees - Money paid to fraudster - Refunds
  - brbsix 11y ago
    Of course they are profiting these (pirate) courses. Content creators with infringed content have already charted these waters. One creator had $7k+ of his (stolen) content sold. There were no refunds and Udemy refused to reimburse the creator.
    - ps4fanboy 11y ago
      Can you link to this information, I am not saying your wrong but if true this is relevant to the discussion, because if they kept the money then that is the real thing we should be talking about, as this is highly questionable behavior.
    - sapokedak 11y ago
      Who said there were no refunds?
  - brbsix 11y ago
    The info is scattered all over the place... Here is one of the posts https://twitter.com/jeffrey_way/status/651215238470090754 https://twitter.com/jeffrey_way/status/651215238470090754. People were complaining Udemy didn't even refund users who purchased videos that were posted for free elsewhere.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

> its dangerous to suggest that they should be validating each course. Why's that?

ps4fanboy 11y ago
Because how would you even do that with any sort of accuracy, do you check the global content registry database? Surely people dont expect to export the burden of protecting your IP to other companies?
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  If you're in the business of selling content you damn well ought to know who's content your selling. I'm not saying any system would be completely bulletproof, but you should at least look like you're TRYING.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spivak 11y ago
    So if I lease commercial land it's my responsibility to make sure my renter isn't laundering money? Whatever argument you make should also explain why the web hosting provider isn't also responsible for hosting and distributing pirated content. Certainly they should also look like they're trying to prevent copyright infringement on their network. > but you should at least look like you're TRYING. This kind of logic is how an automatic 'review' process gets implemented which just spins for a few minutes and then then accepts the video. The problem of detecting copyrighted content is so complex that without source level access you would never be able to prove definitively that their review process is just theater.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      Your metaphor isn't quite right, a better one would be "should a distributor of a given product be held responsible for determining if the goods they're given are stolen?" To that I would say: 1. A distributor would only use vetted manufacturers, or at least not buy from one again when the products purchased turn out to be stolen 2. When the products are digital, it's much easier to check if they are stolen than physical ones. 3. If it's been determined that a product is stolen, the distributor (generally) isn't held responsible but also isn't allowed to continue selling from the same stock. Also, I would argue that while it's impossible to detect everything (which is what I said initially too) there should be some legal requirement that the given distributor should show a reasonable attempt to enforce copyright law. The Content ID system, discounting all the ways its abused by a few big companies, is an excellent system for detecting copyright material, and would definitely show that YouTube is at least trying to prevent the spread of material that isn't legal. At the same time, it's clear by this post at least that Udemy is not only NOT vetting their content whatsoever but, similar to Facebook, makes the process to report said content intentionally difficult which I'm sure is not at all related to the fact that as long as said content is live, they're making money. In short, there's a difference between being a store owner who mistakenly bought stolen products one time, or being a distributor who makes regular business off of stolen product. One shouldn't be held to the fire, one really should.
- wattengard 11y ago
  Screenshot of one of the projects in Adobe Premiere/video editor used?

AlexeyBrin 11y ago

> If the content isnt worth doing this then the content isnt actually that valuable to the author. I think you exaggerate a bit here. How easy is to sue someone from a different country ?

ps4fanboy 11y ago
Largely depends on the country, at the very least you can report them to the authorities for fraud.

robconery 11y ago

Define "dangerous". Listen mate, if you make money on something and that something is stolen - you are responsible. Udemy created this marketplace for stolen things; people steal things and sell them there. > the correct course of action is to sue Nope. That's what people do in a dispute to solve the dispute. The correct course of action is something else entirely as we're talking about copyright law, not pissing on your neighbors orchids.

ps4fanboy 11y ago
> Define "dangerous" Dangerous was a bad word choice, perhaps "unreasonable". > Listen mate, if you make money on something and that something is stolen - you are responsible I never claimed they arent responsible and as the DCMA outlines they mitigate their responsibility for hosting this content by allowing DCMA take downs. What are you suggesting Udemy do to validate that the content creator owns the content they are selling. Copyright law and ownership is a very complicated issue. There isnt a copyright database where they can validate that the content is owned by that person but also the content in the actual content is owned by the person who created the content. What are you suggesting they do? > The correct course of action is something else entirely Like? > https://twitter.com/robconery/status/664960173455224832 https://twitter.com/robconery/status/664960173455224832 Do you have a licence for this content?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
chirau 11y ago
Doesn't the same thing happen with YouTube? Despite ContentID and all that, there is still a lot of piracy. Do you blame YouTube? They can only do so much. I am not justifying Udemy by the way.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  If you look around, the main complaint with YouTube now is people making false claims of ownership now, this is the problem with validating the idea of "ownership" there is no registry its almost impossible to validate that someone doesnt own the content that you dont know about.

Bjartr 11y ago

>If the content isnt worth doing this then the content isnt actually that valuable to the author. Even if the author thought the content was worth nothing doesn't change that it's his content, for which he controls the copyright. I don't necessarily agree with the modern copyright ecosystem, but as long as it's around it should be applied in a manner consistent with its goals of enabling content creators to control the commercialization of their content, including not at all.

ps4fanboy 11y ago
I agree, and the owner should assert his claim by submitting a DCMA takedown request, but the owner shouldnt complain that they had to do that in the first place, that is unreasonable.
- djur 11y ago
  Why is it unreasonable for a marketplace to take active steps to ensure they are selling legal products?
  - ps4fanboy 11y ago
    What steps?

revelation 11y ago

It's unreasonable? How? This isn't YouTube, they're selling video courses. As a customer, you would damn better expect that they have curated the content on their site.

ps4fanboy 11y ago
Udemy has over 30,000 courses, how many videos and other course assets does that represent? What method are you suggesting they deploy to validate the person selling the course owns all the copyrights they need to sell it?
- djur 11y ago
  Looking to see if another company's watermark is on it would be a good start.
  - ps4fanboy 11y ago
    OK so now they ban all videos with water marks of companies what does that solve, people will just start cropping videos.
    - erdojo 11y ago
      Not really a hard problem to solve. Better content moderation is one step. Another? Add a part of the EULA that states: "You hereby claim that you are either the original content creator or have written permission from the original content creator to sell this course. You agree that if you are judged by us to violate another creator's copyright, you will be liable for double any revenues generated by the sale of the course, payable directly to the copyright holder. You will also be permanently banned." Or something to this effect. Make it part of the EULA that copyright violation won't be tolerated.
      - ps4fanboy 11y ago
        Good luck collecting double revenues legal action required to enforce that clause would cost more than the revenue.

bdcravens 11y ago

It's happening often enough that they could at least do a cursory search at the most common places. They're not a charity; they are profiting off of this, and it's reasonable to assume they could use some of that profit on due diligence.

ps4fanboy 11y ago
I do not see any evidence to suggest they are profiting from it, wouldn't they be legally obligated to refund the users who bought the content once its taken down, since they would lose access? So in theory wouldn't udemy be losing money? + Total Amount Recvd - Payment fees - Money paid to fraudster - Refunds
- brbsix 11y ago
  Of course they are profiting these (pirate) courses. Content creators with infringed content have already charted these waters. One creator had $7k+ of his (stolen) content sold. There were no refunds and Udemy refused to reimburse the creator.
  - ps4fanboy 11y ago
    Can you link to this information, I am not saying your wrong but if true this is relevant to the discussion, because if they kept the money then that is the real thing we should be talking about, as this is highly questionable behavior.
  - sapokedak 11y ago
    Who said there were no refunds?
- brbsix 11y ago
  The info is scattered all over the place... Here is one of the posts https://twitter.com/jeffrey_way/status/651215238470090754 https://twitter.com/jeffrey_way/status/651215238470090754. People were complaining Udemy didn't even refund users who purchased videos that were posted for free elsewhere.