5 ms·

Maintaining the integrity of our community

63 points by lolptdr 11y ago

gamesbrainiac 11y ago
> Many of you have asked about what happened to the money received from Troy’s course. There was none. As the fraudulent instructor had created coupon codes to allow students free access to the course, no money was exchanged in this process. This puts a lot of context to the whole thing. However, I find it hard to believe that this happened for every plagiarized course.
- nostalgiac 11y ago
  There's still the issue of the people receiving the content freely when they should have payed (even though it's not their fault).
  - meowface 11y ago
    Udemy isn't producing the pirated content themselves. Their only responsibility is to quickly respond to valid DMCA complaints in those cases. I think they handled Hunt's case appropriately. While there is certainly some lost revenue in terms of opportunity cost, there isn't really any more you can expect them to do. The problem is at least one other person claimed their course was up for a considerable amount of time, and took in substantial revenue (thousands of dollars). In those cases, Udemy should remove the material and transfer the money to the content holder once they prove that they own it and that it was infringing.
    - tombrossman 11y ago
      Here is another angle to consider. How many of the viewers of Troy's 'free' plagiarized courses saw them and were impressed enough to convert to paying customers? Difficult to measure but Udemy will have a pretty good idea. For Udemy to say that no money changed hands is a bit myopic, but perhaps this is unintentional. Money likely did change hands, but it was abstracted from the original transaction and only Udemy knows that figure.
      - peteretep 11y ago
        So what's your recommendation here? What's your utopian vision for how Udemy should have handled this?
        tombrossman 11y ago
        I don't really have any utopian visions because by definition they are impossible to achieve. We have to be realistic and I think Udemy will get away with this and my comment above was basically me calling bullshit on their public statements. They didn't seem sincere to me, that's all.
        codecamper 11y ago
        I agree with you Tom. Udemy is not Youtube. Udemy could easily verify each of their instructors. However it is not in their best interest to do so. At this moment Udemy wants users. If it gets those users because people copy course content & display it on their site, then this is good for them. It makes it look like Udemy is the go to place for courseware. Lets not forget there is a lot of potential money at stake. What did Adobe pay for Lynda.com? My mention of Youtube was not accidental. Youtube created a strategy for getting big fast. Was it the dog videos that made youtube big? Or was it that you can see almost any piece of copy written stuff in one place. You either see it for a short time before it is taken down. Or you see it for a while because the original copyright holder no longer cares.
      - briantakita 11y ago
        Sounds like the $ that changed hands is minuscule.
  - tombrossman 11y ago
    Exactly. Imagine I ripped a MPAA film DVD and distributed via free coupon codes to users of this service. Think any lawyers would have an issue or would they go 'oh, no money changed hands' and give it a pass? Also, they used the boilerplate 'taking it seriously' twice, including the second sentence. Can corporate PR people please stop with this silliness? It seems like it is in every press release ever.
    - ps4fanboy 11y ago
      The MPAA would most likely go after supplier not the store, the MPAA would have to prove the store knew the products where duplicated/reproduced.
    - justaaron 11y ago
      um that's essentially the argument any software copier er "pirate" (i have a real problem with that term) uses. to call the forced redistribution of someones software or content "theft" is also intellectually dishonest, as the original has not be altered, nor have any physical goods been taken. there may be a case made for debasement of value of the original item, with which counterfeits would also be included... but yes, i think this particular issue strikes me as passionate personal illogical over-reaction due to being the victim, which is why victims don't often get to mete out punishments: they are biased. i read the original thread yesterday, and while i sympathize with the victim/claimant, I find this letter from the CEO to sufficiently address concerns of deliberate malfeasance. now, i have no problem with the suggestion that perhaps he could lay bare the financial details of those roughly 150 takedowns they deal with annually.
- sukulaku 11y ago
  Why would a "fraudulent instructor" not charge for the lessons he's 'stolen' from someone? Otherwise what's the point? It doesn't make sense, which means it's probably not true.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    This is just a guess. Maybe she sold the coupons via some other more untraceable means?
  - jamhan 11y ago
    Why are there vast numbers of technical blogs which simply copy content? Why are there vast numbers of people who post rubbish answers on technical help forums which are simply copy and pasted from, for example, Microsoft's knowledge base? It's because these people want to raise their profile, e.g. so they perhaps put it on a CV, in a job application etc. In the English-speaking world (and unfortunately for the stereotype), they overwhelmingly belong to a particular demographic.
    - sukulaku 11y ago
      > Why are there vast numbers of technical blogs which simply copy content? > It's because these people want to raise their profile Sure, but aren't we talking about a website where course creators directly sell their materials to students? What's the point of copying someone else's teaching materials for your own use on that website, if you're not going to sell them there? On the other hand, the idea that the 'stolen' courses were not actually sold makes Udemy's negligence look less serious, which is exactly why they would spread that idea.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
yarou 11y ago
Empty promises given by a morally bereft company. These types of companies are the ones we should crucify and condemn.
- RyJones 11y ago
  What more do you want? They got the DMCA notice, they took the content down.
  - Walkman 11y ago
    not allow pirated content in the first place?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      IIRC, Viacom v. YouTube revealed that the question of whether or not a given reproduction of a work covered by copyright is authorized is a very difficult thing to determine. [0] Not even the rightsholder was able to keep track of which of the reproductions of its works posted to YouTube were authorized and which were not. This particular area of law is a goddamn twisty maze built on top of a minefield. [0] This is not to say that this was the first time that this was made plain to anyone, but it is one of the more notable ones in recent memory.
  - yarou 11y ago
    I want them to commit to take their own lives. But what I want is irrelevant.
    - abrookewood 11y ago
      Seriously, these comments aren't helpful or welcome on HN.
      - yarou 11y ago
        As I told you, what I want is irrelevant.
TerryADavis 11y ago
I wrote the original Ticketmaster FANTM RS232 octart keypad display barcode reader network-working device firmware. It was installed at NHRA and I was on-hand at the first FANTM usage. I have done RS232 serial drivers many times. I wrote every line of code in TempleOS. You can ask God. Dumb fuck nigger is going to try to lie to God? This ought to be fun. Watch some CIA nigger get killed lying to God.
erikb 11y ago
Yeah, that's a joke. What would a good article look like where the company claimed to be at fault handles the case well? (1) They give an overview of all the claims that are in public discussion and not just one that they finally handled, (2) then they show being actually sorry for having pissed off people so badly that it became a global discussion, and (3) then they show some points about what they will do to reduce the chance of this happening again.
- iaw 11y ago
  There seemed to be a pattern of abuse going on at Udemy that was described in the comment thread on the original article link on HN. This post addresses the article that was linked, but does not address the concerns raised in the thread.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    I think the wider concerns were addressed with "We'll look at this and get back to you." Which can be interpreted in any number of ways - some generous, some less so. Personally I'm not yet convinced. Udemy makes its instructors jump through all kinds of hoops when they upload courses. And yet plainly the QC process doesn't include any checks for duplication or piracy. This seems strange, and not entirely believable. But we'll see what happens next week.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
njsubedi 11y ago
> "...welcome any person who has a question, comment or issue to be discussed reach out to support@udemy.com." Well, it would be much better to have a comment thread below the blog post itself so we could learn what everyone has to say?
vonklaus 11y ago
copyright is hard. If you just blindly accept DMCA takedown notices you become an avenue for trolls, overzealous lawyers and predatory companies. However, if you do nothing, people will pirate shit and sell it on your platform. "I steal music, but I don't resell it" is a shitty argument I saw someone make earlier. I steal content all the time. It is wrong, but I do it anyway. If I create content that can be copied in a frictionless way, I know it will be stolen, I will expect it and I will be pissed. What do the people who are criticizing udemy want them to do? Bias towards dropping all speculative content? That would make it very hard to onboard new users, lead to abuse, and lead to dead-links and ephemeral content. Do what they are doing now? Trying to take content down that is known to be copied, especially when it is pointed out publcily. Obviously, it is good from a biz standpoint they want to make money, protect their reputation and not have to hire a ton of mechanical turk workers to prowl all social media. so what do you want? The world could use an awesome answer to copywrite issues, but there is no easy answer, it is hard to automate, and that is just a reality that we will have to live with for a while into the future.
- briandear 11y ago
  It's easy: a DMCA takedown ought to require proof of infringement: the burden being on the license holder. As it is now, it's takedown first then the poster of the content must prove their rights. Many of my music producer friends have had their own content pulled on Soundcloud, despite them having both created the song and owned the label that released it!
  - lips 11y ago
    I think there's at least as much progress to be made via platforms developing solution systems, ala CAPTCHA, password reset emails, the verification system used on swappa.com, "salutes" (verification selfie), verification files... Could udemy only accept videos that have a visual/verbal confirmation "leader" attached with the submission? Yes, confirmation via voice is absurd - but it's a relatively minor obstacle in creation/submission, and quickly triaged for missing or egregiously obvious fakes. This is not some incredible idea, but my point is that when it matters to the web, the web can sometimes create accurate widely adaptable solutions, instead of intractable legalese. The question is, when will piracy (capital M) matter on a cultural level, vs. primarily being a concern of groups that are sometimes not even acting in the best interest of the people they represent.
ps4fanboy 11y ago
Anyone still not happy here should provide a detailed explanation on what they would do differently, instead of decrying the company.
MarkvW 11y ago
How does DMCA work when the site watermarks the posted content with the site's own brand?
abcd_f 11y ago
> Over the Thanksgiving holiday, there has been discussion online about POTENTIALLY plagiarized content on Udemy. Integrity is just gushing.
- sukulaku 11y ago
  Yeah, some content MAY have been plagiarized, maybe! "We're sorry you FEEL THAT WAY about any inconvenience we MAY have caused!"

63 points by lolptdr 11y ago

> Many of you have asked about what happened to the money received from Troy’s course. There was none. As the fraudulent instructor had created coupon codes to allow students free access to the course, no money was exchanged in this process. This puts a lot of context to the whole thing. However, I find it hard to believe that this happened for every plagiarized course.

nostalgiac 11y ago
There's still the issue of the people receiving the content freely when they should have payed (even though it's not their fault).
- meowface 11y ago
  Udemy isn't producing the pirated content themselves. Their only responsibility is to quickly respond to valid DMCA complaints in those cases. I think they handled Hunt's case appropriately. While there is certainly some lost revenue in terms of opportunity cost, there isn't really any more you can expect them to do. The problem is at least one other person claimed their course was up for a considerable amount of time, and took in substantial revenue (thousands of dollars). In those cases, Udemy should remove the material and transfer the money to the content holder once they prove that they own it and that it was infringing.
  - tombrossman 11y ago
    Here is another angle to consider. How many of the viewers of Troy's 'free' plagiarized courses saw them and were impressed enough to convert to paying customers? Difficult to measure but Udemy will have a pretty good idea. For Udemy to say that no money changed hands is a bit myopic, but perhaps this is unintentional. Money likely did change hands, but it was abstracted from the original transaction and only Udemy knows that figure.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      So what's your recommendation here? What's your utopian vision for how Udemy should have handled this?
      - tombrossman 11y ago
        I don't really have any utopian visions because by definition they are impossible to achieve. We have to be realistic and I think Udemy will get away with this and my comment above was basically me calling bullshit on their public statements. They didn't seem sincere to me, that's all.
        codecamper 11y ago
        I agree with you Tom. Udemy is not Youtube. Udemy could easily verify each of their instructors. However it is not in their best interest to do so. At this moment Udemy wants users. If it gets those users because people copy course content & display it on their site, then this is good for them. It makes it look like Udemy is the go to place for courseware. Lets not forget there is a lot of potential money at stake. What did Adobe pay for Lynda.com? My mention of Youtube was not accidental. Youtube created a strategy for getting big fast. Was it the dog videos that made youtube big? Or was it that you can see almost any piece of copy written stuff in one place. You either see it for a short time before it is taken down. Or you see it for a while because the original copyright holder no longer cares.
    - briantakita 11y ago
      Sounds like the $ that changed hands is minuscule.
- tombrossman 11y ago
  Exactly. Imagine I ripped a MPAA film DVD and distributed via free coupon codes to users of this service. Think any lawyers would have an issue or would they go 'oh, no money changed hands' and give it a pass? Also, they used the boilerplate 'taking it seriously' twice, including the second sentence. Can corporate PR people please stop with this silliness? It seems like it is in every press release ever.
  - ps4fanboy 11y ago
    The MPAA would most likely go after supplier not the store, the MPAA would have to prove the store knew the products where duplicated/reproduced.
  - justaaron 11y ago
    um that's essentially the argument any software copier er "pirate" (i have a real problem with that term) uses. to call the forced redistribution of someones software or content "theft" is also intellectually dishonest, as the original has not be altered, nor have any physical goods been taken. there may be a case made for debasement of value of the original item, with which counterfeits would also be included... but yes, i think this particular issue strikes me as passionate personal illogical over-reaction due to being the victim, which is why victims don't often get to mete out punishments: they are biased. i read the original thread yesterday, and while i sympathize with the victim/claimant, I find this letter from the CEO to sufficiently address concerns of deliberate malfeasance. now, i have no problem with the suggestion that perhaps he could lay bare the financial details of those roughly 150 takedowns they deal with annually.
sukulaku 11y ago
Why would a "fraudulent instructor" not charge for the lessons he's 'stolen' from someone? Otherwise what's the point? It doesn't make sense, which means it's probably not true.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  This is just a guess. Maybe she sold the coupons via some other more untraceable means?
- jamhan 11y ago
  Why are there vast numbers of technical blogs which simply copy content? Why are there vast numbers of people who post rubbish answers on technical help forums which are simply copy and pasted from, for example, Microsoft's knowledge base? It's because these people want to raise their profile, e.g. so they perhaps put it on a CV, in a job application etc. In the English-speaking world (and unfortunately for the stereotype), they overwhelmingly belong to a particular demographic.
  - sukulaku 11y ago
    > Why are there vast numbers of technical blogs which simply copy content? > It's because these people want to raise their profile Sure, but aren't we talking about a website where course creators directly sell their materials to students? What's the point of copying someone else's teaching materials for your own use on that website, if you're not going to sell them there? On the other hand, the idea that the 'stolen' courses were not actually sold makes Udemy's negligence look less serious, which is exactly why they would spread that idea.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

yarou 11y ago

Empty promises given by a morally bereft company. These types of companies are the ones we should crucify and condemn.

RyJones 11y ago
What more do you want? They got the DMCA notice, they took the content down.
- Walkman 11y ago
  not allow pirated content in the first place?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    IIRC, Viacom v. YouTube revealed that the question of whether or not a given reproduction of a work covered by copyright is authorized is a very difficult thing to determine. [0] Not even the rightsholder was able to keep track of which of the reproductions of its works posted to YouTube were authorized and which were not. This particular area of law is a goddamn twisty maze built on top of a minefield. [0] This is not to say that this was the first time that this was made plain to anyone, but it is one of the more notable ones in recent memory.
- yarou 11y ago
  I want them to commit to take their own lives. But what I want is irrelevant.
  - abrookewood 11y ago
    Seriously, these comments aren't helpful or welcome on HN.
    - yarou 11y ago
      As I told you, what I want is irrelevant.

TerryADavis 11y ago

I wrote the original Ticketmaster FANTM RS232 octart keypad display barcode reader network-working device firmware. It was installed at NHRA and I was on-hand at the first FANTM usage. I have done RS232 serial drivers many times. I wrote every line of code in TempleOS. You can ask God. Dumb fuck nigger is going to try to lie to God? This ought to be fun. Watch some CIA nigger get killed lying to God.

erikb 11y ago

Yeah, that's a joke. What would a good article look like where the company claimed to be at fault handles the case well? (1) They give an overview of all the claims that are in public discussion and not just one that they finally handled, (2) then they show being actually sorry for having pissed off people so badly that it became a global discussion, and (3) then they show some points about what they will do to reduce the chance of this happening again.

iaw 11y ago
There seemed to be a pattern of abuse going on at Udemy that was described in the comment thread on the original article link on HN. This post addresses the article that was linked, but does not address the concerns raised in the thread.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  I think the wider concerns were addressed with "We'll look at this and get back to you." Which can be interpreted in any number of ways - some generous, some less so. Personally I'm not yet convinced. Udemy makes its instructors jump through all kinds of hoops when they upload courses. And yet plainly the QC process doesn't include any checks for duplication or piracy. This seems strange, and not entirely believable. But we'll see what happens next week.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

njsubedi 11y ago

> "...welcome any person who has a question, comment or issue to be discussed reach out to support@udemy.com." Well, it would be much better to have a comment thread below the blog post itself so we could learn what everyone has to say?

vonklaus 11y ago

copyright is hard. If you just blindly accept DMCA takedown notices you become an avenue for trolls, overzealous lawyers and predatory companies. However, if you do nothing, people will pirate shit and sell it on your platform. "I steal music, but I don't resell it" is a shitty argument I saw someone make earlier. I steal content all the time. It is wrong, but I do it anyway. If I create content that can be copied in a frictionless way, I know it will be stolen, I will expect it and I will be pissed. What do the people who are criticizing udemy want them to do? Bias towards dropping all speculative content? That would make it very hard to onboard new users, lead to abuse, and lead to dead-links and ephemeral content. Do what they are doing now? Trying to take content down that is known to be copied, especially when it is pointed out publcily. Obviously, it is good from a biz standpoint they want to make money, protect their reputation and not have to hire a ton of mechanical turk workers to prowl all social media. so what do you want? The world could use an awesome answer to copywrite issues, but there is no easy answer, it is hard to automate, and that is just a reality that we will have to live with for a while into the future.

briandear 11y ago
It's easy: a DMCA takedown ought to require proof of infringement: the burden being on the license holder. As it is now, it's takedown first then the poster of the content must prove their rights. Many of my music producer friends have had their own content pulled on Soundcloud, despite them having both created the song and owned the label that released it!
- lips 11y ago
  I think there's at least as much progress to be made via platforms developing solution systems, ala CAPTCHA, password reset emails, the verification system used on swappa.com, "salutes" (verification selfie), verification files... Could udemy only accept videos that have a visual/verbal confirmation "leader" attached with the submission? Yes, confirmation via voice is absurd - but it's a relatively minor obstacle in creation/submission, and quickly triaged for missing or egregiously obvious fakes. This is not some incredible idea, but my point is that when it matters to the web, the web can sometimes create accurate widely adaptable solutions, instead of intractable legalese. The question is, when will piracy (capital M) matter on a cultural level, vs. primarily being a concern of groups that are sometimes not even acting in the best interest of the people they represent.

ps4fanboy 11y ago

Anyone still not happy here should provide a detailed explanation on what they would do differently, instead of decrying the company.

MarkvW 11y ago

How does DMCA work when the site watermarks the posted content with the site's own brand?

abcd_f 11y ago

> Over the Thanksgiving holiday, there has been discussion online about POTENTIALLY plagiarized content on Udemy. Integrity is just gushing.

sukulaku 11y ago
Yeah, some content MAY have been plagiarized, maybe! "We're sorry you FEEL THAT WAY about any inconvenience we MAY have caused!"