Alexa and copyright

[Clay Johnson]

This may sound over-accusational on Alexa's behalf, but has anyone checked
alexa's suggested sites, and their real relevance to the site visited,
relative to their placement in comparative categories in Yahoo?

For instance point your browser to http://www.humansearch.com , crank up
Alexa, and make note of the suggested 'where to go next links.' You'll
notice something odd, when you see that most of these links start with
numbers or letters at the beginning of the alphabet. Then, go to where
HumanSearch is listed in Yahoo,
http://www.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Internet/World_Wide_Web/Searchin
g_the_Web/Search_Engines/

Dare I say that Alexa simply searches through Yahoo for the domain of the
referring page, and gives the first few links in the category of which it
is in?


At 08:30 AM 3/27/98 -0800, Greg MacGowan wrote:
>At 03:25 PM 3/26/98 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>At 02:47 PM 3/26/98 -0800, Greg MacGowan wrote:
>>>If I may clarify your statement a bit, market effect is only one of the
>>>four factors to be considered under the "Fair Use" section (sec. 107) of
>>>the copyright act.
>>
>>That's why I mentioned two more of the tests.  The fourth, for those who
>>desire completeness, is the nature of the work.
>
>Yes, but these are the tests under a Fair Use analysis, and I hope that
>Alexa is not claiming fair use, which is "for purposes SUCH AS [emphasis
>mine] criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
>copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (section 107). While
>this language does not exclude commercial activity, I do think (IMO)
>commercial activity falls outside the scope and intent of ss. 107. In any
>case, if Alexa were to use fair use as their defense, I think it would be
>extremely risky. They would probably have a better chance of demonstrating
>that the works were not copyrightable or had thin copyrights (e.g., factual
>compilations). Also, in your original message, you said:
>
>>The primary test of copyright
>>infringement is the effect that the copy has the market value of the work.
>
>and this is the comment that I was most interested in correcting. The
>primary test of copyright infringement, as I understand it, is the copying
>of a work of original expression. Market effect only comes into play in the
>fair use analysis (which I hope we can agree is going down the wrong path)
>and assessing damages, but is not a consideration for whether an
>infringement actually took place. (I hope I am not beating a dead horse
>here, but I think too many people get caught up in the monetary aspect of
>copyright.)
>
>>>... the fact that
>>>Alexa is making a profit from these works suggests that they do have market
>>>value, the fact they are usually given away notwithstanding. For example,
>>>if I take a photograph of a public sculpture, and then sell that
>>>photograph, I have infringed the copyright on that work.
>>
>>No, you've got this wrong.  Alexa is not selling the works.  More to the
>>point, the fact that an infringer generates revenue (regardless of whether
>>or not it is profitable) from the copied work is not related to the
>>question of infringement.
>
>I hope I am not being argumentative, but if Alexa is not selling the works
>(more accurately, the intellectual property contained in the copied works),
>how can they generate revenue from the copied works? Please clarify. More
>importantly, the fact that the copier is a for-profit enterprise engaged in
>copying, regardless of whether the copying is directly related to revenue,
>is relevant. See American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, 37 F.3d 881 (2d Cir.
>1994).
>
>>  In fact, courts may find that
>>giving away infringing copies does more harm to the market value of the
>>work than selling them.  For example, imagine if you publish a work that
>>you sell for $10.  I unlawfully copy it and give it away for free on the
>>Internet.  Joe unlawfully copies it and sells it for $100 on the Internet.

>>Who has done more harm to your work's market value? Me, clearly, by
>>undercutting your price.
>
>Interesting idea. Do you have any case law to support it? But both you and
>Joe have infringed the copyright, right?
>
>I feel like I am stepping dangerously close to giving legal advice, so one
>more time:
>
>Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice and should not
>be contrued as authoritative.  All opinions expressed are solely my own and
>are not necessarily those of my employer.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg S. MacGowan
>Information Technologies Coordinator (and Webmaster)
>Brandeis University Libraries
>Brandeis University
>Waltham, MA  02254-9110
>
>phone: (781) 736-4690 (W)
>fax:    (781) 736-4719
>email: macgowan at Brandeis.edu
>
>
>"You will know when you are calm ... at peace ... passive." -- Yoda
>