Hacker News Reader

Comment by robconery | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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

Do you have a licence for this content?

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.

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.

Exactly. "Ownership" is not easily defined when it comes to content. For all we know, just because Rob appears in the video does not mean he owns the rights to the content. And just because the guy who uploaded the content is not in the video doesn't mean he might not have connections with people who own the content. Just saying.

And this is all because ownership beyond "I made it I own it" is hidden in contracts which arent required to be public. People who expect third parties to have knowledge of private contracts are making unreasonable claims.

Are you the owner of the copyright of the course that was stolen? If you are and if you've filed to have the course taken down and Udemy has refused, then you have a dispute and you need to sue them. You knew that breaking copyright law was something that would be settled in court yesterday when you said, "I sincerely hope Udemy is flooded with pirated content. Lawsuit fodder.

"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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com