文プロ(Bunpro): Profile Sharing - Feb 1st, 2024 - Japanese SRS Study Site

You can just as easily just google “[grammar point] + grammar” though, which is what I do when looking up new grammar points.

When I used Bunpro, I don’t think I ever clicked those links because I was using Bunpro to keep the grammar points I knew refreshed.

You can get a benefit from the site even without them teaching you the grammar points.

9 Likes

OK, but that doesn’t really change anything. Bunpro encourages you to visit those links, tells you which parts to study, and then asks you to check a box to say that you’ve done it. Those external pages are part of the Bunpro system.

In any case, I was responding to a post that implied that Bunpro actually taught grammar and only used those links as supplements. That’s simply untrue.

2 Likes

But see, that is the rub. If the links provided are the “real” lessons when it comes to learning grammar. I feel like if my site was used for the “meat” of another site that is behind a paywall, I would not be happy that i didn’t get paid for my content that was used. Driving traffic is nice, but if you are making money, then they should be making money. Otherwise that is theft, bottom line. If i tell you “hey, want to learn grammar”, and then charge you money, then direct you to another source for the lesson, and tell you i will run flashcards with you after wards. That is not right, how do the creators of that content not deserve to get paid if their content is being used behind a paywall? If no money is involved, traffic increase is fine, but if you are making $1 off of my hard work, then i better get some of it. Otherwise, it’s misleading and basically a form of theft.

2 Likes

If i tell you “hey, want to learn grammar”, and then charge you money, then direct you to another source for the lesson, and tell you i will run flashcards with you after wards. That is not right, how do the creators of that content not deserve to get paid if their content is being used behind a paywall?

We’ll have to agree to disagree :slight_smile: . I don’t see it as black and white as you’re making it out to be. I can understand that some creators might not appreciate having their content linked like this, and as I said above, I think the best course of action would be for the Bunpro guys to respect their wishes (regardless of whether the linking is legal).

But if it were my content? I wouldn’t have any expectation of getting paid, because I wouldn’t view Bunpro as “stealing” my content, or locking it “behind” a paywall. There’s no copying or plagiarism involved. It’s just a link.
My content would still be just as open and as freely accessible as it always had been. If I’m already putting my content out there for the whole world to see, and Bunpro wants to recommend it to their users as an optional source of additional information for the grammar they’re studying, I don’t see any reason to discourage that.

I’m sure some content owners will disagree with this, and that’s ok! This is just my opinion. But the main point I’m trying to make is that this is ultimately a matter of perspective, and one size fits all statements like

theft, bottom line

may not reflect the viewpoints of all of the content owners involved. So I think the best course of action is for Bunpro to simply ask the actual content creators what they think about this, and then honor their individual viewpoints.

6 Likes

That would definitely be misleading. That said, I assume the creators are not going to advertise Bunpro as a complete solution to learning grammar. As long as they promote it as an SRS solution for grammar points, I don’t really see an issue.

Right now, this is what it says on the homepage:

Grammar Resources
Effortless access to the best Japanese grammar resources online with a single click. No need to scour the internet or sift through difficult to navigate sites for more information.

That, in combination with the screenshot, makes it clear that they’re only pointing you towards existing resources. They’re not claiming it as their own work, they’re not ripping it off other other sites, they’re simply directing you towards those sites, and they’re upfront about it.

6 Likes

Fair enough.

to me it feels very wrong to charge money for someone’s content and not pay them at all. They put it out there for free, not for another site to commander it as part of their “grammar learning program”, then charge money for it. It just feels wrong. If it was just the SMS and just the sentences that they created, this isn’t a conversation. It would be marketed as that, it shows you grammar, explains it very briefly using context, and plugs it into the SRS. Simple, clean. No qualms at all.

But as it is marketing itself as a way to “learn grammar”, and the only “lessons” that it offers, are the free content of other people. That is misleading and wrong. You aren’t teaching grammar, they are, but you are assuming credit, and most importantly, money.

I don’t understand how that isn’t wrong in any fashion. If you ask me to teach you a grammar point, and I say “sure, give me 5 bucks”, then point you to genki, or maggie sensei, or Tae Kim. How did i not just basically take your money for nothing and point you to people/resources that you can learn the points from?

I would feel much more comfortable if the links were not there, then at least i am getting what i paid for and not taking food off of someone elses table who may or may not know.

It just feels like they are trying to sell something that isn’t theirs to sell. That just feels wrong to me. In my opinion at least.

3 Likes

right, but they are collecting money for access to free information. That is the icky part to me. It is what it is, obviously they see nothing wrong with it, maybe it’s just me that thinks it’s wrong to sell access to free information. If that’s the case, so be it.

2 Likes

What would people say if they wrote their own explanations and then cited their sources. Somehow I feel like people would see that as better, but to me it would just be a dilution of the source, since it’s not like the Bunpro creators actually have any authority to write on grammar themselves (unless they’ve got someone with a master’s degree or PhD or something I just missed). If you’re going to sell your grammar explanations, you need to have something to back that up.

5 Likes

It’s not like most of their linked sources are written by natives or PhDs. I don’t see why their own lessons would necessarily be worse.

1 Like

They’re free though.

1 Like

Everything changes when you start to charge money

1 Like

Funny… that’s what Google has to deal with everyday, the RIAA and MPAA etc… would like to have a word with you, to explain you how they want to sue and destroy Google because of their linking to information, maybe you haven’t realized that Google has avoided the lawsuits by censoring and removing their links?

Just to make it more clear, yes linking and referencing material can be a copyright crime! Doesn’t matter what the material is about, if the owners don’t like it you have to remove it and if you don’t then it’s a crime period.

If bunpro makes money and the owners of the other content don’t like the idea (for good reasons) of them linking them or is under a license that prohibits the use of their free stuff for profit… then they have to stop it, and since bunpro seems to be incomplete and relies on other sites to really become a complete grammar source, then I think bunpro shouldn’t be paid until the day they’re completely independent.

Seeing how desperate they’re of going through this… I feel like is clear that they just want money, and possibly make a living out of bunpro, which is okay… they just need to be more upfront about it and stop pretending they are not doing it for the money.

That’s how it should’ve been from the start, with a HUGE disclaimer that it was going to be paid, that the whole thing was just an alpha version with free access,

But instead they used the Wanikani community as beta testers without making it sufficiently clear and of course now they want to charge them for their incomplete beta because that was their idea the whole time.

If you look at it that way then all makes sense and why it’s not a surprise, it’s not “bad” per se but is kind of scumbaggy no doubt.

3 Likes

Holy smokes people the resources they linked to are put online by the copyright holders. There is an implicit acceptance of people linking to your things when you put it up online and crawlable by search bots. I feel like this is so basic.

Is it possible that you’re all just butthurt that Bunpro is going paid, so you’re trying to find ways to paint them in a bad light?

21 Likes

Yeah I think that’s what irks me the most. You can be both passionate about your work and charge for what you do. But let’s call it what it is. I also think they wanted to go for paid subscriptions from the start.
For many, what they have right now is in no shape to charge money for but that’s okay too. Just don’t use it then.

1 Like

Well the things we are discussing about are not lies are they? I don’t think they are made up solely on revenge to make them look bad, Are you forgetting that bunpro is a business and should be judged like one?

To me you look more like a fanboy defending the bad practices of a business.

Yes a lot of people are “butthurt” is understandable but I think most people who have criticized bunpro in this thread hold valuable points and they’re not just doing it out of hate.

Of course that’s only my opinion, I’m sure the bunpro staff will like yours more.

Anyone against going paid = hater, butthurt

1 Like

Whatever. As you can see multiple times in this thread, I didn’t even use this tool when it was free, so I’m not sure how I can be a “fanboy”. I’ve found the site not to my liking, as of right now. Maybe it will change.

Judge as you will, linking to web sites that the authors themselves made public is not illegal, and in my opinion, not even morally questionable. You’re putting spin and not presenting a “valuable point”. Many others have, though, and as you can see, the Bunpro team seems to appreciate that feedback.

3 Likes

Except that the point I was trying to make wasn’t on the linking, like I said liking can be made ilegal if the owners want it, just because it’s public doesn’t mean you can use it to make profit, charging money changes the game completely, but that was just one point I was trying to make, I’m not sure why you’re only focusing on that though

Tbh we’re on the same boat I don’t use the site much or like it, it might change who knows. I’m just stating the facts like you.

Maybe you’re not a fanboy but others here sure are, no matter how much you like the site or the idea I don’t think bunpro needs fanboys defending them from some cold hard truths, they are about to become a business after all.

1 Like

If the owners want it, yes, which they don’t, so it seems a moot point. If Tae Kim changes his mind and hides his content behind some sort of a wall, legal or otherwise, I’m sure Bunpro will respect his wish. For now, this argument is just a storm in a glass of water.

3 Likes

I can understand why you’re upset, but you have seen their post that they ARE taking this into account and are actively contacting the websites they link to to open a discussion with them? The problem is already being solved, there’s not really a reason to post about it anymore.

^ In case you missed it.

7 Likes

Suppose I wanted to start a pottery enthusiast group, and charge for membership. At the meetings, I show the members some videos on Youtube by some talented potters who have a passion for pottery-making that have posted some how-to videos for free. After watching the videos, I take the group to my studio where they can use my own equipment and materials to practice making pottery.

Suppose I’m not in any way claiming to be teaching the material. You can still watch the same videos on Youtube at home for free if you want (in fact, I’d encourage it!). You can even practice at home if you want and just not pay me at all since you know Youtube has DIY videos. You’re simply paying for me to organize the group, pick the most useful videos, and provide equipment and materials to practice with. And each of those things have value on their own.

Is that a fitting analogy?

I think the disconnect with Bunpro is that people are confusing it as a site that teaches Japanese, rather than one that provides a way to practice it… which is understandable since most sites do claim to teach Japanese and Bunpro’s front-page verbage is ambiguous about where the learning actually takes place.

Would it seem less questionable to people if the site advertised itself as “a place to practice Japanese grammar”, and use language that doesn’t leave room for assuming that the “learning” and “grammar study” are part of the services offered?

23 Likes