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.
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.
What method are you suggesting they deploy to validate the person selling the course owns all the copyrights they need to sell it?
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.
Why's that?
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.
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.
So in theory wouldn't udemy be losing money?
+ Total Amount Recvd - Payment fees - Money paid to fraudster - Refunds
I think you exaggerate a bit here. How easy is to sue someone from a different country ?
> 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.
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
Do you have a licence for this content?
I am not justifying Udemy by the way.
"Let the games begin."
You wanted to sue them yesterday. Ha ha. Fun game. Let's bury Udemy under stolen goods so we can sue Udemy, and screw its employees and the its content providers.
But now you seem to be admitting that you can't sue them. If they haven't broken copyright law, then you can't sue them.
So which is it? Have they stolen your content and shall you sue them? Or is someone else flooding them with pirated content for some nefarious reasons of his own?
Are they breaking copyright law so you can sue them? Or are they breaking no law so you have to settle for pissing in their orchids and stirring up trouble?