4 ms·

Ask HN: Legality of archiving/re-hosting Reddit content

25 points by dom96 3y ago

For content hosted publicly on reddit.com, what is the legality of downloading/scraping that content and re-hosting it on a separate website? I am aware that the Archive Team is currently archiving Reddit[1]. As far as I understand what they do is legal. But I would like some reassurance. Are there any good articles on this topic? Contact details for lawyers specialising in this area of the law also welcome. 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254172

neovialogistics 3y ago
It depends entirely on what nation you're operating in. (And additionally state/territory, if the answer is the United States)
- dom96 3y ago
  Personally I'm most interested in the United Kingdom (since that is where I reside). But I would guess HN would be mostly interested in California (and I would be too since that is where Reddit is based).
- pyeri 3y ago
  Isn't it true that most implementations of copyright laws (irrespective of country/region) will likely have fair use exceptions for things like parody, journalistic reporting and archiving?
  - codingdave 3y ago
    Well... no. Some jurisdictions will have fair use exceptions for some scenarios. I don't think we can assume "most", "likely", or "irrespective of country/region", although it can feel like that if you happen to live in an area where such things are commonly allowed.
- anonu 3y ago
  This is probably bad legal advice (above and following...). The EULA clearly states reddit content is owned by reddit. If you break their agreement you break it - and the Governing Law section says you would be put in Federal or state court in California, even if you are a foreign national. Does a California court have jurisdiction over a foreign national. Probably not - which is entirely possible that Reddit would take a lawsuit to whatever court is closest to the person. As I stated above, this isn't legal advice either, just my layman's view.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I'm also not a lawyer. My reading of the user agreement[0] is that it distinguishes between "content that belongs to Reddit Inc." (things like the CSS and up/down vote icons) and "content licensed by Reddit" (what users post). But yeah, lawyering is hard, don't just trust random internet comments like this :) [0] https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Are EULA even enforcible? Also, AFAIK you can never completely revoke your rights to content you yourself created in the EU.
BunnyOSteele 3y ago
From https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement > Except and solely to the extent such a restriction is impermissible under applicable law, you may not, without our written agreement: > - license, sell, transfer, assign, distribute, host, or otherwise commercially exploit the Services or Content; Even without being a lawyer that seems pretty clear that it is not legal. Unless you have Reddits written permission, which I guess the Archive Team has
- dark-star 3y ago
  on the contrary, I read this as "it is allowed, unless your local laws allow us to restrict you from doing it" ;-)
- 3np 3y ago
  That "except and solely" is what makes it very much not clear at all. They're basically saying "we make these demands iff applicable law allows us to do so".
- TazeTSchnitzel 3y ago
  I would guess that Archive Team don't ask for permission before acting, and certainly don't wait. The sad truth is that copyright law is not on their side. They preserve cultural memory because they believe in it, and they get away with it only because they're a disorganised collective of volunteers, so there's little to gain from suing them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Cloudef 3y ago
What's with the bunch of reddit crap on the front page recently?
- caturopath 3y ago
  https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/147fcdf/whats_going_on_with_subreddits_going_private_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/147fcdf/whats...
  - raldi 3y ago
    Why are we still posting links to claims they are "raising the price of access to their API from being free to a level that will kill every third party app" when they've made completely clear that over 90% of reddit apps won't have to pay a penny, and neither will the remaining 10% if they fix their inefficiency problems? https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/145bram/addressing_the_community_about_changes_to_our_api/ https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/145bram/addressing_...
    - dewey 3y ago
      > when they've made completely clear that over 90% of reddit apps won't have to pay a penny Because the distribution of Reddit apps is not linear and if 90% of the long tail of Reddit apps (that nobody uses) are not affected that doesn't really change things.
      - raldi 3y ago
        Besides the difference between "all" and "10%", there's also the difference between "kill" and "require to fix gross inefficiencies".
        vlakreeh 3y ago
        These apps aren't grossly inefficient though, they've been substantially lower than the 84k per user per day API limit that reddit has held in the past for these applications, typically being below 500 requests per user per day. Even reddit's official app uses more API requests per day.
raldi 3y ago
For what it’s worth, Reddit’s TOS reads: You may not: Access, search, or collect data from the Services by any means (automated or otherwise) except as permitted in these Terms or in a separate agreement with Reddit (we conditionally grant permission to crawl the Services in accordance with the parameters set forth in our robots.txt file, but scraping the Services without Reddit’s prior written consent is prohibited)
- dzek69 3y ago
  TOS is not a law
  - chrisshroba 3y ago
    But in some (not all!) cases it is a lawful contract, so it's worth consideration.
    - super256 3y ago
      What if I crawl reddit comments without ever clicking on „agree“/signing up?
      - raldi 3y ago
        Then the same law would apply as if you recorded a movie in a theater and distributed it without signing anything.
        gremlinsinc 3y ago
        How do you figure? In a movie you bought a ticket, that ticket is your contract with the theater, whereas scraping content while logged out is more like filming a police beating.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
linuxftw 3y ago
There are separate terms for the API, which seem to indicate to me it's legal to use their API to download user content: https://www.reddit.com/wiki/api-terms https://www.reddit.com/wiki/api-terms According to these terms, the content is owned by the users, and you're not to modify the content. However, if the content is owned by the users, then IMO Reddit cannot really say what you do or don't do with the content, as long as you're not building an application that acts as a proxy to Reddit. The license is revocable to accessing their API, but they're not licensing you the user content, only the ability to download it. What you can do with that content is likely up to the laws in your jurisdiction. I'd say most content would qualify as public domain, though obviously some content will have copyright protection. I would do the downloading now before they start charging for the API if you're serious about the project.
- dom96 3y ago
  > as long as you're not building an application that acts as a proxy to Reddit. Presumably you mean an app which displays Reddit.com as-is (i.e. with their logos/icons/UX). But what about a service which acts as a proxy to the Reddit API? If content is not owned by Reddit and API design cannot be copyrighted then this seems legal, right?
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    IMO, the API terms look like they're written by a teenager, and you can do just about whatever you want. They admit the content is owned by the users, so not sure what they could actually enforce other than disallowing you to use their API. Once you have the content, it's none of their business at that point.
tssva 3y ago
When someone posts content to Reddit under the Reddit terms of use they grant Reddit a license to use and distribute the content but ownership rights of the content remains with the poster. If you scrape Reddit and post the content in theory you open yourself up to copyright violation claims from the original poster of the content. The odds that someone is going to sue you for redistributing without permission content they posted to Reddit is likely extremely small but it is not zero.
CM30 3y ago
Given the users own the content, it'd presumably be up to them whether it can be rehosted or not. Reddit gets a license to display the content, but they don't really have any control over what third parties can do with it. Personally I don't care if anyone reuses stuff I've posted on Reddit or other forms of social media (forums like Hacker News included), but there's always the possibility that someone might. And if you remove their posts when asked, I doubt most of them will take it any further than that.

25 points by dom96 3y ago

neovialogistics 3y ago

It depends entirely on what nation you're operating in. (And additionally state/territory, if the answer is the United States)

dom96 3y ago
Personally I'm most interested in the United Kingdom (since that is where I reside). But I would guess HN would be mostly interested in California (and I would be too since that is where Reddit is based).
pyeri 3y ago
Isn't it true that most implementations of copyright laws (irrespective of country/region) will likely have fair use exceptions for things like parody, journalistic reporting and archiving?
- codingdave 3y ago
  Well... no. Some jurisdictions will have fair use exceptions for some scenarios. I don't think we can assume "most", "likely", or "irrespective of country/region", although it can feel like that if you happen to live in an area where such things are commonly allowed.
anonu 3y ago
This is probably bad legal advice (above and following...). The EULA clearly states reddit content is owned by reddit. If you break their agreement you break it - and the Governing Law section says you would be put in Federal or state court in California, even if you are a foreign national. Does a California court have jurisdiction over a foreign national. Probably not - which is entirely possible that Reddit would take a lawsuit to whatever court is closest to the person. As I stated above, this isn't legal advice either, just my layman's view.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I'm also not a lawyer. My reading of the user agreement[0] is that it distinguishes between "content that belongs to Reddit Inc." (things like the CSS and up/down vote icons) and "content licensed by Reddit" (what users post). But yeah, lawyering is hard, don't just trust random internet comments like this :) [0] https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement
- kaba0 3y ago
  Are EULA even enforcible? Also, AFAIK you can never completely revoke your rights to content you yourself created in the EU.

BunnyOSteele 3y ago

From https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement > Except and solely to the extent such a restriction is impermissible under applicable law, you may not, without our written agreement: > - license, sell, transfer, assign, distribute, host, or otherwise commercially exploit the Services or Content; Even without being a lawyer that seems pretty clear that it is not legal. Unless you have Reddits written permission, which I guess the Archive Team has

dark-star 3y ago
on the contrary, I read this as "it is allowed, unless your local laws allow us to restrict you from doing it" ;-)
3np 3y ago
That "except and solely" is what makes it very much not clear at all. They're basically saying "we make these demands iff applicable law allows us to do so".
TazeTSchnitzel 3y ago
I would guess that Archive Team don't ask for permission before acting, and certainly don't wait. The sad truth is that copyright law is not on their side. They preserve cultural memory because they believe in it, and they get away with it only because they're a disorganised collective of volunteers, so there's little to gain from suing them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Cloudef 3y ago

What's with the bunch of reddit crap on the front page recently?

caturopath 3y ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/147fcdf/whats_going_on_with_subreddits_going_private_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/147fcdf/whats...
- raldi 3y ago
  Why are we still posting links to claims they are "raising the price of access to their API from being free to a level that will kill every third party app" when they've made completely clear that over 90% of reddit apps won't have to pay a penny, and neither will the remaining 10% if they fix their inefficiency problems? https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/145bram/addressing_the_community_about_changes_to_our_api/ https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/145bram/addressing_...
  - dewey 3y ago
    > when they've made completely clear that over 90% of reddit apps won't have to pay a penny Because the distribution of Reddit apps is not linear and if 90% of the long tail of Reddit apps (that nobody uses) are not affected that doesn't really change things.
    - raldi 3y ago
      Besides the difference between "all" and "10%", there's also the difference between "kill" and "require to fix gross inefficiencies".
      - vlakreeh 3y ago
        These apps aren't grossly inefficient though, they've been substantially lower than the 84k per user per day API limit that reddit has held in the past for these applications, typically being below 500 requests per user per day. Even reddit's official app uses more API requests per day.

raldi 3y ago

For what it’s worth, Reddit’s TOS reads: You may not: Access, search, or collect data from the Services by any means (automated or otherwise) except as permitted in these Terms or in a separate agreement with Reddit (we conditionally grant permission to crawl the Services in accordance with the parameters set forth in our robots.txt file, but scraping the Services without Reddit’s prior written consent is prohibited)

dzek69 3y ago
TOS is not a law
- chrisshroba 3y ago
  But in some (not all!) cases it is a lawful contract, so it's worth consideration.
  - super256 3y ago
    What if I crawl reddit comments without ever clicking on „agree“/signing up?
    - raldi 3y ago
      Then the same law would apply as if you recorded a movie in a theater and distributed it without signing anything.
      - gremlinsinc 3y ago
        How do you figure? In a movie you bought a ticket, that ticket is your contract with the theater, whereas scraping content while logged out is more like filming a police beating.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

linuxftw 3y ago

There are separate terms for the API, which seem to indicate to me it's legal to use their API to download user content: https://www.reddit.com/wiki/api-terms https://www.reddit.com/wiki/api-terms According to these terms, the content is owned by the users, and you're not to modify the content. However, if the content is owned by the users, then IMO Reddit cannot really say what you do or don't do with the content, as long as you're not building an application that acts as a proxy to Reddit. The license is revocable to accessing their API, but they're not licensing you the user content, only the ability to download it. What you can do with that content is likely up to the laws in your jurisdiction. I'd say most content would qualify as public domain, though obviously some content will have copyright protection. I would do the downloading now before they start charging for the API if you're serious about the project.

dom96 3y ago
> as long as you're not building an application that acts as a proxy to Reddit. Presumably you mean an app which displays Reddit.com as-is (i.e. with their logos/icons/UX). But what about a service which acts as a proxy to the Reddit API? If content is not owned by Reddit and API design cannot be copyrighted then this seems legal, right?
- linuxftw 3y ago
  IMO, the API terms look like they're written by a teenager, and you can do just about whatever you want. They admit the content is owned by the users, so not sure what they could actually enforce other than disallowing you to use their API. Once you have the content, it's none of their business at that point.

tssva 3y ago

When someone posts content to Reddit under the Reddit terms of use they grant Reddit a license to use and distribute the content but ownership rights of the content remains with the poster. If you scrape Reddit and post the content in theory you open yourself up to copyright violation claims from the original poster of the content. The odds that someone is going to sue you for redistributing without permission content they posted to Reddit is likely extremely small but it is not zero.

CM30 3y ago

Given the users own the content, it'd presumably be up to them whether it can be rehosted or not. Reddit gets a license to display the content, but they don't really have any control over what third parties can do with it. Personally I don't care if anyone reuses stuff I've posted on Reddit or other forms of social media (forums like Hacker News included), but there's always the possibility that someone might. And if you remove their posts when asked, I doubt most of them will take it any further than that.