• dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wonder if there is any legal standing for users to sue Reddit for a fair share of those profits. That’d be nice if it could happen. But i suspect, probably not.

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Their TOS says they own your content in any current or future formats or derivative works.

      I’d say Reddit would win.

      • donuts@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Their TOS says they own your content in any current or future formats or derivative works.

        Their ToS could say they own you and your children and grandchildren, but that doesn’t make it enforceable.

        If I post a frame from the movie Akira on Reddit would any reasonable person suggest that they own not only that frame, but also the entire movie that it came from as a derivative work? There is a glut of second-hand data just like that all over Reddit, Twitter, and every other social media network, and I’m willing to bet that’s also part of what’s being sold.

        But hey… I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that the idea that they automatically “own” the things that people post on their website is ridiculous. It’s a bit like UPS or FedEx saying they own the contents of your package while delivering it.

        • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          It is true that Reddit does not hold a valid license to content that is

          1. Sufficiently long-form, unique etc. to be copyrightable, and
          2. posted by someone other than the copyright holder or someone with a sufficient license.

          However, as far as I understand it, the extent to which Reddit—a content provider and social network—is legally required to remedy this is to comply with DMCA requests and review reported content. Perhaps there is a higher standard that I am not aware of?

          • donuts@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            And yet that exact kind of data is all over reddit in ways that are impractical to enforce by case by case DMCA. How many memes are there using footage from popular shows? How much fanart?

            More importantly, is that stuff not included as part of the data that reddit “owns” when they sell their data to tech companies? Because whether a DMCA takedown has been requested on that kind of data or not, doesn’t change the fact that they don’t hold the copyright in the first place. How can they sell things that they don’t even own?

            Something smells. The logic of this entire industry doesn’t add up.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The TOS shouldn’t hold up in court. A contract must be an exchange of two things, eg money for a product or service. You can’t say “Our service is free of charge!!!” And then in the fine print “(((But also you agree to give us everything we can take free of charge)))”.

        The issue is how everyone does it. Facebook and Google started when data had no value, now they’re amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. Now, Microsoft have joined in, *even though you already pay for their products and services anyway!"

        However, the other aspect is that everyone is a victim. Lawmakers are the victim. They still haven’t quite yet realised how much is being taken from them (at least $50 per year, probably more like $1,000 per year if not more for prominent figures) but they are still being abused.

        It’s like that form of bank fraud, where the criminal takes pennies from accounts, hoping the user won’t notice and the bank will write it off. Do it to enough people and enough times and you can make millions. They do this to everyone and they make billions.

        Either the data is public domain and they don’t have to pay for it, but also cannot charge others for it, or the data is private and they must pay the author a fair share.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            No, it isn’t. The website is offered free of charge, regardless of whether you provide them data or content. The exchange for data/content is a second transaction tucked away in the terms and conditions, and the website offers nothing in return for that.

            The reason the 2nd exchange is hidden in the terms and conditions is to intentionally hide what the user is giving away, such that the user cannot make a fair value assessment. It is fraudulent and deceptive.

    • falkerie71@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yeah, probably not. When you sign up and agreed to their ToS, they don’t “own” your content, but you grant them a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use it without compensation.

      From their ToS:

      Any ideas, suggestions, and feedback about Reddit or our Services that you provide to us are entirely voluntary, and you agree that Reddit may use such ideas, suggestions, and feedback without compensation or obligation to you

      Source: A pretty good post on r/HFY, though it is on Reddit, so don’t click it if you don’t want to :P

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        But how many TOS have been shot down because they over reach? I don’t know. You’re probably right. It it’s still fun to imagine.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      There is legal standing, IMO. You can’t take something without consideration, and access to the website was granted free of charge while the data collection was squirrelled away in the fine print. That isn’t a lawful contract, the fine print is for technicalities about the main transaction of X in exchange for Y. You can’t say "we’ll give you X for free!!!” then sneak into the fine print “(((you also give us Y for free)))”. The structure is clearly deceptive in a manner that is designed to prevent a fair assessment of the value being exchanged.

      Insurers have to provide a “key facts page” where they summarise in plain English what you’re paying for. The fine print gives the detail, but the front page is still “we give you X in exchange for Y”.

      You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts. Tech companies have placed themselves amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world without paying for the nuts and bolts we provide.

      Hell, even Microsoft is in on it now, even though you pay for Windows and Office 365!

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Next question then: how do we mobilize into a class action against Reddit and google and Microsoft and whomever else?