In a word, only if the course material is not put across adequately in the lectures.
In some IT modules like databases and SQL, I think it's common enough to basically cog a whole (well known) online course, transfer it to overhead transparencies and extemporize lectures over it in class.
Before the web, it was common for lecturers in physical sciences, and engineering particularly, for a lecture course to essentially follow the layout and example problems of one or other common textbook. From my experience in freshman economics lectures, a similar process was applied although with a much wider range of extemporizing and time distribution on the various concepts.
This works out fine where the plagiarized lectures/textbooks are well synthesized, structured and presented; yet predictably not so well when they are not.
I would regard some areas of physics to be hard to wrap one's head around and dumbly following textbooks and online courses may make it harder still were students to see the lectures as the furthest horizons of communication on these topics. To that extent a lecturer's own perspective and input is important - though so many renege on this aspect of their appointment.
In the latter case - and obviously in cases where the lecturer shows utter contempt for the task of lecturing - I would approve of the class (or a strong number of it) reporting the lecturer in question - not a single member of the class since cynical class members may try to avoid publicly supporting the complainant to curry favor with the poor lecturer.
But I can't see any benefit in reporting a lecturer simply because he/she uses an existing course of lectures and where they are adequate for purpose.