Common Crawl doesn't own the content in its crawl, so no, our terms of use do not grant anyone permission to ignore the actual content owner's license.

We carefully preserve robots.txt permissions in robots.txt, in http headers, and in html meta tags.

We do publish 2 different url indexes, if you wanted to recrawl for some reason.

▲

nickpsecurity 6 days ago | parent [-]

I was talking about CC's Terms of Use which it says applies to "Crawled Content." All our uses must comply with both copyright owners' rules and CC's Terms. The CC terms are here for those curious:

https://commoncrawl.org/terms-of-use

In it, (a), (d), and (g) have had overly-political interpretations in many places. (h) is on Reddit where just offering the Gospel of Jesus Christ got me hit with "harassment" once. The problem is whether what our model can be or is uses for incurs liability under such a license. Also, it hardly seems "open" if we give up our autonomy and take on liability just to use it.

Publishing a crawl, or the URL's, under CC-0, CC-by, BSD, or Apache would make them usable without restrictions or any further legal analyses. Does CC have permissively-licensed crawls somewhere?

Btw, I brought up URL's because transfering crawled content may be a copyright violation in U.S., but sharing URL's isn't. Are the URL's released under a permissive license that overrides the Terms of Use?

Alternatively, would Common Crawl simply change their Terms so that it doesn't apply to the Crawled Content and URL databases? And simply release them under a permissive license?

▲

ccgreg a day ago | parent [-]

> Publishing a crawl, or the URL's, under CC-0, CC-by, BSD, or Apache would make them usable without restrictions or any further legal analyses.

This isn't true, and I can't imagine that any lawyer would agree with this statement. CCF does not have rights ownership of any of the bytes of our crawl, so we cannot grant you any rights for the bytes in our crawl. Nothing that we could say could have any relationship to this legal issue.

▲

nickpsecurity 20 hours ago | parent [-]

It's confusing to me that you say this. Your own organization claims in the Terms of Service that it has rights over the crawls, even restricting how they are used. Now, you are telling me you believe you have none or no lawyer would consider this. If so, why is "Crawled Content" and restrictions on its use in your terms of service?

Very simply, if what you say is true, then you need to change your Terms to reflect that. You have two options:

1. Take crawled content out of the Terms of Service. Put a permissive license on the crawls.

2. Modify your Terms to say "crawled content" can be used for any purpose and distributed free with no restrictions. You currently impose extra restrictions, though.

That's contract law maybe with copyright elements in it. Yet, you also appear to believe your crawls aren't copyrightable. That's a huge unknown because collections are copyrightable when sufficient creativity is put into them:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_compilation

Many collections claim a copyright or have a permissive license for this reason. Again, simply saying your crawls and URL databases are permissively licensed would solve that problem. It takes just one edit on a few, web pages.

If crawls and DB's are truly without restrictions, please put a permissive license on their respective pages. Also, please change your terms to put no restrictions on Crawled Content. Instead, it should say something like it's free to use and distribute with no warranty or liability on you. The usual stuff.

I'll emphasize again that a permissively-licensed list of all URL's you've crawled is one of the most valuable changes you could make.

	▲	ccgreg 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You made me sad that I attempted to reply. Edit: spelling