Forum Moderators: open
[pages.alexa.com...]
Would Google go down this route?
All of our websites contain a clear masthead and a brief copyright statement that says distributiion of all the material is strictly forbidden without our written permission. This statement is there to protect our own intellectual and creative properties as well as our authors' (lots of high quality photos, articles). We also "copyright protect" the compilations of our web directories as all descriptions, titles etc. are individually written by us and our editors.
- What google does:
Google stores a local cache copy of all our sites - free to view, to browse to click. They don't sell it to the user, they offer it the same way, we do.
- What alexa does:
They distribute our content - in clear words: they SELL it - without having our written permission. They make profit from selling our content and don't pay neither us nor our authors. They clearly ignore and violate the written copyright.
Tell me what you want but imho what alexa does is illegal and really pi**es me!
Hell, allhtough websites are free to view they're not automatically free to redistribute. No matter if the websites' content is free or pay per view.
trillianjedi,
Let me give you a quick example. If I take a free daily newspaper, spend time and money and use my expertise to scan it and put it on a CD-ROM and sell it, then I am able to sell that CD without a breach in copyright.
By doing so you're breaking laws as long as the free newspaper doesn't print a permission to redistribute the content! Free is not free-for-all-and-everything!
I think we'll see Alexa in court sooner than we expect.
PS: Just because I said there are important differences between Google's and Alexa's use of archived web content, doesn't mean that what Google is doing is 100% legal.
Let me give you a quick example. If I take a free daily newspaper, spend time and money and use my expertise to scan it and put it on a CD-ROM and sell it, then I am able to sell that CD without a breach in copyright. <<
As far as i know most copyright rules and their basis do not make a distinction between "free" and "paid". Indeed its very difficult to define what is free and paid. Is a magazine as part of a subscription to a professional society free or paid? Why is there any difference between a mag that is completely funded by advertising that has no cover price, and on that has no advertising but a hefty cover price?
The basic principles are those of intellectual property rights and the basic principles enshrined in the Berne Convention. I dont think at any stage they get as crass as relating "value" to "cost", in term of determining what is copyright and what is not.
I dont think at any stage they get as crass as relating "value" to "cost", in term of determining what is copyright and what is not.
chiyo, that perfectly hits the nail!
[archive.org...]
/claus
added: there's even a policy for archiving and removal:
[sims.berkeley.edu...]
[edited by: claus at 7:07 pm (utc) on Aug. 7, 2003]
User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /
On my sites since years - alexa returns my sites though - go figure. So, i'm not sure if they'll not be in their sold data as well.
The robots.txt file will do two things:1. It will remove all documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
2. It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.
How to remove a site from Alexa is still a mistery.
Aahhh, i looove all alexa related discussions - sorry for going a bit ot though:
Whenever you see/join a discussion about Google's privacy, remember: alexa's watching ALL your steps, records EVERYTHING you click in your browser and sends ALL collected data to somewhere. It's the most established spy software imho. People just like it more than Google's "spy ware" 'cause they can profit from it more. Damn!
It's no surprise to me that they now sell "their" data.
It's been allways a surprise to me that Google lets them use their search solutions.
Sorry for the rant.
The main point that everyone seems to be ignoring, and I don't understand why as it is the fundamental point to the whole argument is this:-
What is your loss?
There's been some interesting points made here, and those are the ones to concentrate on.
Chiyo said:-
I dont think at any stage they get as crass as relating "value" to "cost", in term of determining what is copyright and what is not.
I applaud you Chiyo in your moral position on what is right and what is wrong, and perhaps even what is correct as a *principle* of law. But, when you fight a legal principle, and show that someone has done you wrong, what is your remedy? Well, the main commercial remedy is damages for loss suffered.
So in a commercial sense, the value of a copyright is *precisely* it's commercial value.
Ultimately, that's what decides the *damages*. And if your damages are zero in terms of $$ but you felt "creatively raped" then I am afraid you will have nothing from the judge but laughter.
So I think the most important issues to concentrate on are the commercial ones, as would be perceived by a judge.
What happens about advertising etc?
TJ
trillianjedi, you're wrong, really.
Just have a quick look at what Google tells you about intellectual / creative property [google.com]. You will hardly find any mention of commercial damage in first place. It's really a different thing and is well protected by law!
$$$ only come into play if you sue somebody and have to specify the monetary damage. If you can't it doesn't automatically mean, you have to no rights and everybody can redistribute your work!
I'm a publisher of special interest magazines (printed). I run websites and publish *parts* of the magazine's content - including pictures and articles from my authors. I have the written permission to publish them but - on the other hand - i have to protect their work from third party redistribution. It has been the case that my (therefor their) content hase been copied ("stolen") and published at other sites. Fortunately not yet reprinted, though. It also has been the case that authors called me and said they'd sue me if i'd don't let the thiefs remove the copyright protected content.
Now the $$$ question: i didn't loose any (significant) money through the theft of my content. The authors in fact did loose money 'cause they sell redistribution rights of their material. Beside the fact that there's also a - not or hard to measure - loss due to violation of their intellectual / creative property rights.
You see, i never can allow anybody to redistribute ANY of our material or i will get sued by my authors. Have fun to sue alexa then. :(
BTW, that's the worst thing of the net: it's there - it's free. :/
The robots.txt file will do two things:1. It will remove all documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
2. It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.
How to remove a site from Alexa is still a mistery.
UA-based cl**king with giving ia_archiver
<html></html>
$$$ only come into play if you sue somebody and have to specify the monetary damage. If you can't it doesn't automatically mean, you have to no rights and everybody can redistribute your work!
That's still not the point I'm trying to make - I agree with your statement, you're right (and I also agree with Chiyo 100% that Alexa are out of order here, although personally I'm happy for my content to be "redistributed").
I'm not saying that you have no rights, I'm saying you have no rights to damages if you have suffered no financial loss.
Are you telling me that you would fight Alexa through the Courts (and this one would go all the way) on a principle, and seek an injunction?
You would not get your costs back and you would obtain no monetary damages. You are suffering no financial loss.
What's the point of throwing all that money at an action that ultimate will realise no commercial benefit?
This is where commercial reasoning and principles have to take two seperate paths.
I'm on the commercial path, because I cannot afford to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at an action that will be dead money. I may win the battle of principle, but it's a pyric victory.
If you can afford to fight those principles then good for you - but I'm looking at the ROI, or loss suffered in $$ terms.
That's the part I'm interested in with this discussion. I think that there are financial losses that can be suffered, as Chiyo has touched on. And if you really want to stop Alexa, those are the things that will scare the hell out of them.
But what are they? Can we take a look at it and work them out?
You have a point with your particular situation - you're under an obligation to ensure that your reproduction of others content does not get reproduced and you would be in breach of that obligation, and possibly your licensor would suffer monetary loss.
What are the others?
TJ
You can bet your hairy a** that i'd first read all the infos i could find using the mentioned google search. ;))
I think i gonna take some brake tomorrorw to do so allthough ia_archiver is disallowed everywhere at my servers!
Thanks for the really valuable - allthough controversial - discussion, trillianjedi - way to go!
There's lots of libraries that micro film newspapers, books, articles, etc. Alexa is doing it for the internet.
AND Google's cache feature rocks! Use it all the time.
I'm saying you have no rights to damages if you have suffered no financial loss.
Wrong- statutory damages may apply.
[gigalaw.com...]
Alexa was sold to Amazon in 1999 for $250 million, but Kahle was already rich before then. Alexa has a certain amount of independence from Amazon, written into the deal, despite the fact that Amazon got all of the stock.
The Archive paid Alexa $1.7 million in 2002 for web hosting. But then, the Kahle/Austin Foundation donated $2.4 million to the Archive in 2002. While the Archive is a legally-recognized private foundation, and even got a $174,000 donation from the Library of Congress in 2002, the tight arrangement with Alexa/Amazon means that there are commercial motives at work. There are enough interconnects so that the for-profit/nonprofit issue gets rather clouded.
In April 2001, Alexa/Amazon settled a class action privacy lawsuit by agreeing to pay up to $1.9 million to its customers who used the toolbar. They also agreed to strip out a lot of the personal data that their toolbar had collected, and which their privacy policy failed to mention. "We don't think we did anything wrong," Alexa chief Kahle was quoted as saying at the time.
I'd put Brewster Kahle in the same category as Google -- ambitious, greedy for more data, insensitive to the rights and privacy of others, and all the while enjoying a reputation of public service and devotion to higher ideals. They both need to be watched closely (along with Yahoo and Microsoft, of course).
Libraries PAY for the license to do this, or must come to an agreement with the publisher whenever they copy material beyong that covered by "fair use" including conditions of use (eg. personal use only, educational/academic use only)
Re photocpying the law in my part of the world in very clear. One copy only for personal, research or educational use, and in the case of books, no more than one chapter or 10% of total.
Those laws exist in the "physical world" not to frustrate people wanting a cheap read, but to make sure that those who create and develop the information are paid for it, by purchasing it, or whatever. Until these laws are confirmed in the virtual web/electronic publishing world as well, the WWW will fail to attain the respect it needs as a fair and safe publishing media.
TJ curiously wrote something about me being concerned about being "creatively raped"... and also praised my "morals" but seemed to suggest they were getting in the way of objectivity. TJ, my opinions here are based on 40 years in the publishing field. Ive been sued and ive sued countless times. I can assure you what i say is based on experience rather than wishful thinking. What i dont know is how experience in print publishing extends to the virtual world.
And finally
Let's just say Im less concerned about being creatively raped, as I am in being paid a good price for it! ;)
[edited by: chiyo at 2:59 am (utc) on Aug. 8, 2003]
Yes i can turn off the copying machine by suggesting through robot.txt that i am not crawled.
But i disagree that by not "turning it off", I am by defualt handing over ownership of the material to anybody who wants to do with it what they want. All im doing by putting it on the web is giving people the right to read it and use it for personal use within the fair use provisions of the Berne Convention.
What you are arging sounds like its my responsibility to make sure my home is secure with double locks, burglar alarms, etc etc (which is reasonble), but it is not reasonable that once someone **does** steal something from my house, because maybe im not aware of the latest security device, it is theirs.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
You guys are starting to sound a lot like MP3 downloaders who say because I CAN do it easily, therefore its suddenly legal to copy material circumventing any payment/royalties at all to artists, producers, and all who developed it so you could enjoy it.
Im still curious how people who download lllegal MP3's are so ignorant that though it was really easy to do, and there's little chance of being caught and all their mates are doing it, that in fact they are no more than a common thief, who has stolen property from others.
Wrong- statutory damages may apply
No. Statutory damages only apply if you can show you suffered *financial loss*.
Chiyo,
I thought you were fighting a principle, but if it's just about getting your fair share of $$ then it's even more important to analyse financial loss.
TJ
I see you can also buy the 'so called' top x sites from alexa. I lost faith in their top sites rubbish when I found out that a site sitting at 10,000 had 20 hits per day!
Dave
You guys are starting to sound a lot like MP3 downloaders who say because I CAN do it easily, therefore its suddenly legal to copy material circumventing any payment/royalties at all to artists, producers, and all who developed it so you could enjoy it.
Now you're getting warm.
It's "circumventing any payment/royalties" to the artist/ record company and that's why those parties suffer *financial loss* as a result. They are not selling their CD's because their music is available for free on the internet (illegally put there).
Relate that to a website. Show me the possibilities for financial loss, someone, please....
TJ
>>There's lots of libraries that micro film newspapers, books, articles, etc. Alexa is doing it for the internet.<<Libraries PAY for the license to do this, or must come to an agreement with the publisher whenever they copy material beyong that covered by "fair use" including conditions of use (eg. personal use only, educational/academic use only)
Correct. Most of the time, however, reproduction and redistribution of copyrighted content by public libraries is explicitly allowed by copyright laws.
TJ... not a web site but several years back a client with whom we had an agency agreement poached one of our staff members who was working on their account and under contract to us. We sued, amongst other things for "loss of future earnings". I beleive it also applies to compensation payments for accident victims and victims of violent crime.
So i guess somewhere in the law there is something that covers an asset that is not at present making verifiable income but could do so in the future.
not a web site but several years back a client poached one of our staff members who was working on their account and under contract us.
In your example there is direct financial loss - your client made a financial gain, at your expense (the difference between them hiring your firm, or employing your firms employee).
I'm really trying to work out losses as they relate to a website. The internet is a unique medium, real world examples will only help if they are similar in pattern.
But rather than try and do that, it'll be a lot easier just to work out how webmasters will lose cash. That's what I'm interested in, as would be the judge, but so far you're the only person to have thought of one (your point about advertising) and without that kind of ammo, I think Alexa are holding all the cards.
TJ
you have every right to turn off the photocopying machine by opting out of the robot scans. By not doing this you are inherently saying go ahead and copy.
Wrong. The "silence = assent" rule is not valid in this case. Copyright law says you must obtain written permission from the copyright owner.
PS: About Google VS. Alexa and my "rose-coloured glasses", please reread my post #62. Thank you.
