Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

You can go after Udemy. They're not just a hosting service. They claim ownership of the content. "Each of our 35,000+ courses is taught by an expert instructor". Many courses are paid. If Udemy charges for access to the course, they lose the DMCA safe harbor. Then they're liable for full copyright damages.

This may even be criminal copyright infringment under 18 U.S. Code § 2319 (Criminal infringement of a copyright) if the total retail value exceeds $2500.

Get a lawyer. This looks winnable.

View on HN

Make sure you file copyright for each video before making it available on your own website. Having a copyright in place before any theft allows you to go after (by threat or course) statutory damages for each theft of your work. I learned this a few years ago from our own IP lawyer when someone was reusing some of our material. We now file the $35(or whatever it is) fee before posting the material online.

File for copyright? how do you mean: Copyright is implicit, unlike patents, upon creation of a work.

You can file a registration for copyright, which gives you certain presumptions and advantages in court (e.g. it serves as a presumption of ownership, which would be important in these kinds of cases). It also might serve as "notice" for potential infringers so that you can get higher damages.

>Registration is still required in the US for some benefits, such as awards of statutory damages. [1]

>You must register your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office before you are legally permitted to bring a lawsuit to enforce it. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration#Require... [2] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-registratio...

Can you just register your copyright after the infringement?

Yes but statutory damages will not be available and according to our lawyer. The statutory damages is what gets people to comply because it is the one that can multiply exponentially as it applies to EACH violation (download, sale, ect...). If you use the implicit copyright you can only go after actual damages which will be harder to prove. I'm not suggesting you file a copyright for everything, just stuff you want to absolutely protect. In the context of this discussion it is education videos.

You have one month after discovering the infringement to register if you want to get statutory damages.[1] Register a copyright online here: http://copyright.gov/eco/ Yes, they take video uploads. Costs $35 per item.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/412

> can multiply exponentially as it applies to EACH violation

You meant "linearly", right?

probably

all work you create is copyrighted. you own the content you produce

this is why, I believe, it's actually against copyright law to use an open source project that doesn't include a license.

> use an open source project that doesn't include a license.

It's not open source if it doesn't include a license stating that it is.

Open source just means you can read the source. That's why the acronym FLOSS had to be invented.

You are wrong. Read the Open Source Definition:

https://opensource.org/osd

That is _one_ definition and comes from an organization with an interest in loading the term.

The OSI surely has some say in what they meant when they created the term "open source". The term didn't exist before 1998 when the people involved† with the organization you're referring to coined it. Anything else is just perverting a well-defined term.

I'm not a huge OSI fan, so when I say this, it's not coming from a place of ideology. It's just historical fact.

† The organization didn't exist yet, but it was founded later that month.

(Almost) all work is copyrighted from the moment of creation, but registration still has advantages if you want to litigate.

I thought writing a little (c) was all that was required to protect content with a copyright.

You don't even need to put a (c) or mark it with "copyright 2015". You can do that to express that you are the copyright holder but you don't need to do it. Your work, assuming it falls within copyrights, is automatically given a copyright.

OP was saying that there is a provision in the law that allows you to claim 3x the allowable damages if you take the time to register with the copyright office and pay the filing fee.

Note too that this is for USA law. USA was one of the last countries to ratify the Berne Convention, nearly 100 years after it was formed. It is Berne that brought in automatic copyright without registration.I still occasionally come across people in the UK who think they must register for copyright because of registration still being a thing in USA.

Udemy being active in many jurisdictions I imagine parallel cases or forum shopping might be worthwhile. Particularly an international firm might be able to direct the case to somewhere that values personal rights above those of corporations which might enable you to hit Udemy hard enough that they'll care to do something to prevent it happening in the future.

> Get a lawyer. This looks winnable.

Remember: this should be your first step. If you want to resolve it amicably let your lawyer communicate that for you.

A decent lawyer is what, $100 an hour?

How much are you planning to win to justify that?

More than that! However, in some areas of copyright law lawyers are willing to work on contingency fee or percentage based fees.

In any case, almost always a consultation is free. Just ask, and they'll make sure the litigation is worth your time/money.

I wouldn't be scared to contact a lawyer. The professionals I've contacted (tax people, finance managers, lawyers) have always been upfront if it's not worth their time and about how much things might cost. They'll also usually give you free advice.

Also, lawyers have different payment structures (a percentage instead of hourly) and won't always charge for a consultation. Maybe writing a nasty letter on lawyer letterhead is enough--they might do it for free or bill you 1/4 hour. See if your workplace has free legal council as a benefit.

F*ck you. Pay me. is a really good video I see posted on here periodically: https://vimeo.com/22053820 Lawyers are there to make you money--not take your money.

I expect it's true that they lose safe harbor, but I couldn't find anything saying that. Are you just guessing?

17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

"(1)In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—"

...

"(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity"[1]

That's the killer. This service not only charges, they charge on a per-course basis. That's direct financial benefit from the infringing activity.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

> That's the killer. This service not only charges, they charge on a per-course basis.

That seems relatively easy to weasel your way out of. Just sell 'download tokens' which enable the user to download any course on the site they want. Whatever legal argument YouTube is using to protect themselves from this with their new premium subscription would also have to apply here.

YouTube is simply selling you access to the site without advertisement. They are not otherwise demanding payment for the content on their site.

Isn't YT "[receiving] a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity [video views]"? Just wondering how they actually get around that?

I don't believe so because you are paying for an ad free experience. You are not paying for a particular video. They are not making money from the infringing activity (the copyrighted video).

YT (or at least, YT's lawyers) would say no. A financial benefit _directly_ attributable to the infringing activity would be charging for (access to) the content itself, that is to say, unless you pay you don't get to view the content in the first place.

I would say that it is clear that _if_ YT is breaking even or making a profit via ad impressions providing the service that they provide then it is _indirectly_ benefiting. No, they are not directly monetizing the (alleged copyright infringing) content but they traffic is driven to their site and eyeballs continue to be view pages because of said (alleged copyright infringing) content which in turn is monetized via ad impressions.

Which is why I have no problem with people running an ad blocker.

They do not claim ownership of the courses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com