文プロ(Bunpro): オノマトペ Deck - April 8th, 2024 - Japanese Grammar and Vocab SRS

[MosbyNeko]

@ajcr

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?

Those issues are specifically about Google linking to websites that hosted pirated content, so I’m not sure how they’re really relevant here?

@ajcr

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.

@ajcr

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

If you’re going to make bold and specific legal claims like these, I think you should either provide citations that back them up or let everyone know which law school you got your degree from.

To be clear, I think it’s completely valid to disagree with what Bunpro is doing – I don’t think the people that take issue with the linking model are all “butthurt” – but it’s another thing to so casually throw out accusations of actual crimes being committed.

[ajcr]

Can you please show me where I said that bunpro is "ilegal’ or what they’re doing is 100% ilegal? or maybe where I accused them of “crimes”

Only thing I said is that linking CAN be ilegal, which is a fact as demonstrated by many companies who deemed it like that, not only because something was linking to pirated stuff but because the owner/creator didn’t want it to be linked + licenses that don’t allow use for profit.

And that’s it, some people believe that linking is completely okay, but when there’s money behind it, it becomes a lot more complicated, this is not a community effort anymore so it’s time to stop treating it like one.

And like @conan said, there’s nothing else to discuss about it, no need to get anyone’s panties in a bunch, that point is pretty much dead the others are not. If you guys only want to defend bunpro blindly then this discussion won’t lead anywhere and it’s pretty much pointless and over I guess.

[anon63218666]

But have they reached out to let them know that their intellectual property was going to be the core on how they make their living without any compensation given to the creators?

like was said above, charging money changes EVERYTHING.

saying “hey, i’m going to link to your page from mine, it’ll increase traffic” is great when it’s free. But now it becomes

“hey, i’m going to make money off of linking to your sites, and you won’t get anything more than you already have from me”.

totally different. the key word IN THE PAST, i.e. BEFORE a paid model was made up. So it’s easy to presume that the content creators don’t know that their work is going to be manipulated into a system that makes a living for someone other than them.

and that’s just …ok?.. I don’t think so

[anon63218666]

I think that would be the solution. Because once money is charged “ambiguous” becomes “misleading”

and misleading someone to get their money, becomes a very bad path to go down.

Clarity, and i mean EXTREME clarity. Showing that they aren’t just trying to “trick” people into paying money thinking they are getting a full grammar resource, and not a portal to other resources. that’s just going to lead to people feeling lied to, misled and ripped off.

I still think it’s a shady tactic and don’t think i would want to contribute to something that is questionable as this is. But i’m sure many others don’t really care about the hard word of others being spun for a profit for non-related people.

There are pirates all over the internet after all

[finnra]

Care to explain exactly what changes, in regard to linking to public websites, when going from a free to a paid model? I’m assuming American copyright law, so feel free to cite that or EU law.

There are some provisions in place protecting against linking to infringing content, namely the DMCA. Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia . As you can see, even for infringing materials, precedent is shaky. Please cite your sources.

[TheRealGojoSatoru]

@Leebo さん、 I think you are mixing things here. Anki provides just the SRS, you can add anything you want into it. If you pay, you pay for the SRS, not the content, Anki doesn’t come with content by default. On the other hand, Bunpro comes already loaded with content mixed with external sources they don’t own. Bunpro doesn’t provide an SRS you can add content into, as far as I know, but maybe I’m wrong. So I think comparing Bunpro and Anki is not fair.

[seanblue]

I think clarifying the application’s intent/purpose would help. I do think it’s appropriate to reach out to the content providers in this case and explain this in the FAQ. If nothing else, this would provide assurances that content wouldn’t suddenly disappear because a content provider complained.

[anon63218666]

I think he is talking about ethically things change, not legally. I don’t think his opposition to their model is based on legality as much as it ethically as a consumer.

Legally it may be all well and good, but that doesn’t mean it’s ethically or morally right.

as a consumer, i can attest that everything does change when money comes into play. The standards expected, the way that they have conduct themselves and how they present themselves to the public becomes much more important when you are trying to take peoples money for access to free content.

using “ambiguous” language, having an incomplete system, “borrowing” from other peoples work to make a profit for themselves, all of these things get scrutinized to the Nth degree when money gets involved. And that is not a bad thing, as consumers we need to scrutinize these things to ensure we aren’t getting ripped off because regardless of how it positioned itself in this community, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t just be trying to take advantage of us and others with it’s practices.

It’s not a matter of legality, it’s a matter of if you want to invest in a program that is charging for free content without compensating the original creators, if you want to invest in a program that is NOT self contained and unfinished, if you want to invest in a group of people who choose to operate in this fashion, if you feel the SRS system in and of itself is worth investing in as opposed to finding grammar points and plugging them into ANKI for free.

if your answer to all of those questions is ‘yes’, then you should subscribe. Nobody is telling you not to, you know the risks, you know who you are getting into bed with, more power to you.

But for those who don’t wish to, they aren’t just “hating”, they just don’t agree with the concept, presentation or execution of the product/program. and that is ok too.

[conan]

I mean, I can’t speak for them, I’m just a user like you. I have no idea what conversations they’ve had with the website owners. I don’t want to assume. For all we know, they could’ve addressed all of this with those creators already, we can’t know unless they tell us.

@anon63218666

the key word IN THE PAST, i.e. BEFORE a paid model was made up. So it’s easy to presume that the content creators don’t know that their work is going to be manipulated into a system that makes a living for someone other than them.

The key word is also “it is something we will CONTINUE to do moving FORWARD” too.

They know that this is something to address. They know to deal with it. I really don’t think we need 50 more posts about it. They’ve already said they’re going to work on it. Let’s give them the time to do it.

[anon63218666]

Fair enough, but we can only go on what they tell us. I’m a little uneasy about them being forthcoming since now their livelihood rests on our perception of their business practices. So it’s either judge them on how I perceive them to be acting, or give the benefit of the doubt and give them the chance to prove that they are doing things correctly by us and the creators of the original content they intent to “borrow” as the core of the program.

[conan]

I understand that. I don’t think they meant anything malicious, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when I can. I think right now, we just have to wait and see where things go. If you want to, you can always contact the site owners yourself to get their side directly too.

[anon63218666]

True, but money makes people act in ways they otherwise wouldn’t, I like their responses to be here where they are open to everyone to see and scrutinize or accept accordingly. and once trust is broken, it’s hard to just take their word for it. and with the ambiguous language, tossing up a paywall on an unfinished product, and selling access to free information, I won’t say that i don’t trust them anymore. But it’s definitely shaken. But i’ll keep an open mind and see where it goes from here.

and i like there being a public record of everything that they say, leaves a way for them to be held accountable one way or the other. as opposed to just going above and beyond to quiet someone who is questioning their practices and program and financial endevours in a public forum. Not that they would do that, but this eliminates that possibility

[Annenjef]

Let me start off by saying I think Bunpro is great! It’s helped me a lot so far.

I’m sorry if this has been mentioned before, but one thing that I’d love to see added to Bunpro is an endless mode where you can keep reviewing. Like a Tetris marathon. I don’t feel like my current SRS allows me to get enough practice in. I feel like I need plenty more sentences to get the hang of something than just one per cycle. Pretty please consider it

[Leebo]

Anki does host content. Apparently they will remove offending things when they are reported, but you can go to their site and get the entirety of WK, with all items and mnemonics, etc. That’s what I was referring to.

[Abstormal]

@pushindawood

we have been in contact with outside resource content creators in the past and it is something we will continue to do moving forward.

This, so we can feel it is both ethical and not a risk of getting shut down for any reason, and a lifetime variation and it doesn’t mater if it’s not perfect yet. We can continue using it slowly now without having to pay for waiting for it to get better. I don’t mind a bit of grit that is being worked out as long as I know it’s a one time payment =)

[anon63218666]

again, because they have been in contact with them IN THE PAST, does not mean that they still are. and it does not mean they are acting ethically now that they are demanding payment for access to material they don’t own.

If they were acting ethically, then they would be paying the people whose content they are using at the core of their system and charging money for.

[Abstormal]

@anon63218666

because they have been in contact with them IN THE PAST, does not mean that they still are

Actually they do specifically say so…

@Abstormal

we will continue to do moving forward.

As long as they keep their word on this, and actually get approval BEFORE launch (of paywall), is all I’m asking =)

…it got quoted to myself since I quoted it from my quoting of them… eh…whatever =P

[Zenyaaa]

I think you’re confused. The content put up by those creators is public. You believe Bunpro simply takes that free content and then locks it behind a paywall. The content you pay for on Bunpro isn’t the links they provide to further your study, it’s the tools: SRS system, sentences, the website itself.

You’re acting like the entirety of Bunpro is built upon the work of others and so they have to be compensated. This is an absolutely ridiculous notion. If it triggers so many people that Bunpro is linking to other resources, then I seriously don’t know what to say. Would it make you sleep better at night if they removed the links? The content remains the exact same, but now you have to manually scour the web if you want to learn more. This is so pointless.

At best, I’d recommend that those links always be accessible and visible to everyone for free.

[seanblue]

@Zenyaaa

At best, I’d recommend that those links always be accessible and visible to everyone for free.

I think that would go a long way towards showing that you are not paying for access to the outside resources themselves, but rather you are paying for the collection of those resources, the SRS, the examples, and so on.

I would like Bunpro to work like this for free users:

• Full access to grammar list. When I was a free user on WaniKani, I actually think it was one of the greatest flaws of the site that you couldn’t at least see the items that were available, even though you obviously shouldn’t be allowed to see all the details.
• SRS for limited set of items (such as what they already said they plan to do)
• On a grammar page that is available to free members: Full access to all tabs and can add the item for review.
• On a grammar page that is not available to free members: Full access Meaning tab and Readings tab. No access to Examples tab or Self Study tab and cannot add the item for review.

[sirati97]

the reason why wanikani doesnt show the rest of their work is because its what they sell. the userinterface isnt the expensive part but to populate it. if wanikani showed information about unlearned and unbought items one could just write a script to download them and learn them somewhere else