The Other Search Engines

**Michel Samuel** · 05-19-2007, 02:14 PM

I made 1 change and that was to attempt blocking out the Alexa toolbar users.
My file stopped working...
I removed the change and I must of messed something else up too.
Because it still won't work.

Forgive me I'm a photographer not a technical genious....
Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong because I can't see my fault.
(Does all of this have to be on 1 line or something like that ?)

Quote:

#RemoveHandler .html .htm
AddHandler application/x-httpd-php .php .html .htm
<Files 403.shtml>
order allow,deny
allow from all
</Files>
deny from 209.200.29.36
deny from 64.255.175.11
deny from 72.37.190.67
deny from 209.200.44.20
deny from 67.15.133.7
deny from 66.216.26.119
deny from 74.52.65.162
deny from 64.213.200.100
deny from 207.241.233.58
deny from 207.241.233.253
deny from 216.122.105.22
deny from 64.151.83.185
deny from 216.109.112.135
allow from all
Options +FollowSymlinks All -Indexes
RewriteEngine on #RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Alexa\ Toolbar [NC,OR] #RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} alexa\.com [NC,OR]RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} archive\.org [NC]RewriteRule .* - [G]

**Learning Newbie** · 05-19-2007, 07:32 PM

Do you have the old version? I could tell you if you were asking about IIS, but not Apache. Still, I see a lot of stuff referencing Alexa in there. What does "order allow, deny" mean?

**Michel Samuel** · 05-20-2007, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Do you have the old version? I could tell you if you were asking about IIS, but not Apache. Still, I see a lot of stuff referencing Alexa in there. What does "order allow, deny" mean?

I got it working again.

This was the final product

Quote:

AddHandler application/x-httpd-php .php .html .htm
Order Deny,Allow
Deny from 209.200.29.36
Deny from 64.255.175.11
deny from 209.200.29.36
<Files 403.shtml>
Allow from all
</Files>
Options All -Indexes
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !/403\.shtml$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Alexa\ Toolbar [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} alexa\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} archive\.org [NC]
RewriteRule .* - [F]

Order deny, allow bans or permits certain IP addresses.

As far as the stuff on Alexa...
Well they are ilegally cataloging my traffic on my sites and making it publically accessiable. (Long story not to be discussed for now)

But I have:
1) Blanned their IP addresses. (order deny, allow)

2) Blocked the refer agent for anyone comming from their sites. (RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} )

3) Blocked all users of the Alexa toolbar. (RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Alexa\ Toolbar )

and finally...
Killed their robot in my robots.txt file. (But it still comes back despite being told to get lost forever)

**stOx** · 05-20-2007, 02:12 PM

Just to clarify, They are legally cataloging how many of thier toolbar users visit your site. Theres nothing illegal about it.

**Michel Samuel** · 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

Just to clarify, They are legally cataloging how many of thier toolbar users visit your site. Theres nothing illegal about it.

Peace to you and I am not looking for a fight or a flame war.

I'm not a technical person but I am a commercial photographer/videographer and entrepeneur. So I have had my share of legal disputes and I have talked to legal counsil on this. The only question I am asking myself is if it is financially to my advantage to push the issue.

Therefore with all due respect it's not legal.
At best I can say that it might be grey zone.

They are...

1) Gathering information of private indivduals, privately owned business without prior consent or permission and making it available to the general public for the purpose of obtaining a profit.

2) via their Internet archive they are collecting copyrighted material and effectively re-publishing it for the purpose of obtaining a profit.

3) under civil law I have the right to be compensated if someone is
in any way profiting from somthing that is the result of my efforts
and labour. I am the person that created the site, drives traffic to
it, pays for the banner ads, etc.

If you are re-publishing my content or collecting data relating to it and using it in your publically database as a feature that attracts the online public and generates a profit....

Well it is my data, my content and my right to compensation.

-----------
In the United States

The traffic issue falls within the boundries of several laws.

A. No one is allowed to count the number of people entering or leaving
a business or residence. (Save police or other govermental body
during the course of an investigation or for tax fraud purpose.)

If your intention are to gather an estimation of traffic flow in general area and
cross reference it with similar areas to obtain an estimation.
Thefore you are only allowed to count the number of pedestrians or traffic in the
general area. Not the actual people comming or going or in this case accessing a site.

B. Like the Telephone caller display this infringes upon a person's
right to certain amount they he/she may consider private. Therefore,
like call display, you can not create the tool without providing a
free way to block it's use.

C. Be sitting and watching laws. Claiming that they are only collecting information from their Toolbar users is not an excuse. Their argument is they are not trying to spy on any one person or entity in particular. However they do not provide a method to be excluded from thier efforts. Thefore this can be a mild form of on line stalking or harrasement.

The other analogy that has been made is of mall security cameras. But potential consumers are warned before entering that the mall is under security survalience and the patron has the right to avoid entering. Again this is not an option being offered by Alexa.

Granted these are based on American law but since Alexa is located in the United States...
They are the only laws that matter.

**stOx** · 05-20-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

1) Gathering information of private indivduals, privately owned business without prior consent or permission and making it available to the general public for the purpose of obtaining a profit.

I don't know if this is actually illegal, But given the vast number of companies that do it, I would hazard a guess and say it's legal. Otherwise we would have had numerous court cases.

Quote:

A. No one is allowed to count the number of people entering or leaving
a business or residence. (Save police or other govermental body
during the course of an investigation or for tax fraud purpose.)

That isn't what alexa are doing. They are counting how many of thier toolbar users ae visiting a site.

Quote:

3) under civil law I have the right to be compensated if someone is
in any way profiting from somthing that is the result of my efforts
and labour. I am the person that created the site, drives traffic to
it, pays for the banner ads, etc.

Two words. fair use. I believe google were taken to court over this very issue with thier cache, A judge ruled it to be fair use.

**vangogh** · 05-20-2007, 08:30 PM

Michel I agree that there is probably a very gray area where the law is concerned with all of this, but Matt is right in that Alexa is only tracking people who use the Alexa toolbar. Google, Yahoo, MSN all do the same thing as do a variety of other sites.

I think trying to block Alexa users by IP isn't going to be very efficient. If someone with an Alexa toolbar is on dial up they would have a new IP every time they logged in.

I'm not trying or wanting to argue with you, but if you put something online you have to accept that other people may repurpose it. It sucks. There are plenty of sites that scrape my content and republish it as their own. But by making sure I link to other pages on my site in all my content I end up getting links into my site that help my pages rank a little better in search engines.

I know it's a hard pill to swallow and you're certainly within your right not to want Alexa users to visit, but I think in the end you'll get more letting them visit the site than you will by trying to ban them all.

**Michel Samuel** · 05-20-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

I don't know if this is actually illegal, But given the vast number of companies that do it, I would hazard a guess and say it's legal. Otherwise we would have had numerous court cases.

That isn't what alexa are doing. They are counting how many of thier toolbar users ae visiting a site.

It's all legal until someone makes a big stink about it.

1975 a company created and distributed pre-paid credit/gift cards. As part of their market research they counted which stores the cards were used in. They then made this information publically accessiable.

Quin vs. BNA Holdings. Court upheld that their right to catalog this information did not include making it publically accessiable.

1972 an enterprising young man opened a store and gave out bright red t-shirts so he could easily count the number of people going in and out of his competitor's store;

Tyler vs. Bromberg. Court upheld that this was in effect a form of passive stalking.

1996 an electronics engineer purchased a cell phone for his wife. He then modifided another cell phone so he could monitor when she used it. (Not listen in but know how long and how often)

Lester vs Lester. The defense argued that the cell phones were not covered by privacy laws because they were used public frequencies and by their nature do not afford the same privacy as a fixed line. Whereas the court agreed in principle this was still considred an infraction of Mrs. Lester's privacy.

In short....
Unlike the above, their business is the catologing of information on other businesses, people, etc for profit. And there is a huge list of comparable case laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

Two words. fair use. I believe google were taken to court over this very issue with thier cache, A judge ruled it to be fair use.

1. Google had to provide a means that content could be removed and de-indexed at the request of the owner.

2. Google's does not actively archive entire sites and then generates a profit from allowing people to apercu the site how it once looked. (Copyright infringement.) Unlike the archive.org

3. Google's cache is very passive and provides information in a very vague general sense. It is not specifically compiling data and content of sites and allowing people to input the name of a domain and receive a host statistical data.

My complaint really comes down to that I just want Alexa do let me opt out of their program. I never asked to be part of it.

**dionak** · 05-20-2007, 11:21 PM

Hm. This sounds pretty sticky.

Michael, are you watermarking your images that are available on the WWW? I'm sure you are, but in case you're not...it's definitely a wise practice.

I hope you're able to resolve this issue.

**stOx** · 05-21-2007, 12:32 AM

Quote:

1975 a company created and distributed pre-paid credit/gift cards. As part of their market research they counted which stores the cards were used in. They then made this information publically accessiable.

Quin vs. BNA Holdings. Court upheld that their right to catalog this information did not include making it publically accessiable.

That would have been done to protect the information of the card user, Not the shop owners. Same with every other example you gave. None of them was done to protect the privacy of the shop owner or company. Otherwise this would make surveys illegal. This would make it illegal for me to ask 10 random people if they prefer burger king or mc donalds.

Alexa users have agreed in the EULA that thier browsing activity is to be monitored, logged and used in public statistical data. You don't have a say in how Alexa use statistical data they have obtained through toolbars installed on thier users computers which thier users have agreed to.

If you still think it's illegal, take them to court.. But make sure to tell me when the trial is, Id love to have a bet on the outcome.

**Michel Samuel** · 05-21-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dionak

Hm. This sounds pretty sticky.

Michael, are you watermarking your images that are available on the WWW? I'm sure you are, but in case you're not...it's definitely a wise practice.

I hope you're able to resolve this issue.

Of course.
I realize it is probably a personalit flaw on my part but as fars as i stand...

If I do the work...
I get paid.

If you profit from my work...
I get paid.

And I am protected by copyright laws that ensure this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

That would have been done to protect the information of the card user, Not the shop owners. Same with every other example you gave. None of them was done to protect the privacy of the shop owner or company. Otherwise this would make surveys illegal. This would make it illegal for me to ask 10 random people if they prefer burger king or mc donalds.

Alexa users have agreed in the EULA that thier browsing activity is to be monitored, logged and used in public statistical data. You don't have a say in how Alexa use statistical data they have obtained through toolbars installed on thier users computers which thier users have agreed to.

If you still think it's illegal, take them to court.. But make sure to tell me when the trial is, Id love to have a bet on the outcome.

People and companies get sued over stuff like this all the time.
There are literally thousands of similar cases.
And I am certain that Alexa has had its fair share of legal matters.
You have to understand the nature of business....
Litigation is part of the game.

If you can make 10 million prior to a lawsuit and the estimate is that a settlement will only cost you 3 million. You're ahead of the game.

And to be blunt I am at that stage now where I am considering what I might do against Alexa. It's a question of my financial resources vs. theirs vs. my time and labour vs. potential benefit.

--------
As far as Quin vs BNA holdings..
It was specifically done for the store owners.
The credit card owners were never personally identified.

Asking random people on the street a question about if they prefer Burger King or McDonalds is different from distributing a recording device to monitor which resturants they visit.

By doing so you are interfering as a 3rd non-invited party to a transaction.
If your monitoring is between two legal corporate entities it is basically corporate espionage and a big kettle of worms.
If it involves individuals it is an infringement of personal privacy.

There multiple sides to "ownership" laws.
1) A company owns all things connected to their lawful endevours. That includes records, ledgers, etc. Both the tangable and intangable elements.

2) A person who patrons, visits, etc holds similar rights to their endevours. IE. When did they visit the business, how often, etc.

3) An entity or person, with or without consent of the above parties, that enganges in the collection of data of the above has right and ownership to that data as well. The bottom line depends on what an entity can do with that information depends on how it was collected.

Therefore, if an entity has permission or has compensated the parties involved, they can pretty much do what they want with it. However, if permission is not expressed or implied (legitimate expecation) they are really limited in what they can do. And in some cases can be considered ilegal activites.

**vangogh** · 05-21-2007, 08:01 PM

Michel I'm curious what damages you think Alexa is causing you. Again I'm not trying to argue, I just want to understand. How can it hurt you if someone knows what the trends are with Alexa users visiting your site.

I could understand if Alexa was republishing your images, but I'm really not following how the traffic data causes any damage. Again they're not cataloging your traffic. They're cataloging how many of their users visit your site.

**Learning Newbie** · 05-21-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michel Samuel

1) Gathering information of private indivduals, privately owned business without prior consent or permission and making it available to the general public for the purpose of obtaining a profit.
-----------
A. No one is allowed to count the number of people entering or leaving
a business or residence. (Save police or other govermental body
during the course of an investigation or for tax fraud purpose.)

Where did you get the text from Exhibit A? It sounds like the type of thing the government would be prohibited from doing, but not private enterprise. Much like the president can't infringe your right to free speech, but your parents can.

**Michel Samuel** · 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

Michel I'm curious what damages you think Alexa is causing you. Again I'm not trying to argue, I just want to understand. How can it hurt you if someone knows what the trends are with Alexa users visiting your site.

I could understand if Alexa was republishing your images, but I'm really not following how the traffic data causes any damage. Again they're not cataloging your traffic. They're cataloging how many of their users visit your site.

This is the beauty (or ugliness) of the law.
It all comes down to the strength of

1) Argument
2) Pushing the issue further than your opponent
3) Having the money or resources to push the issue far enough
And in business you can add...
4) Is there more money if I admit I'm wrong or win the case ?

Ok having said that...
Alexa IS re-publishing via their Internet Archive. (Archive.org)
It doesn't matter if it is a glimpse of my site 3 months ago or 10 years ago.
I still hold the copyright on those images.

Google does it in a very general sense. I can type in a genre, theme or even a website name and get a ton of images from all over the place. That is "fair use." But Alexa has set up the "wayback machine" and you specifically type in a domain name and get to surf it on how it looked 5 years ago.

And Alexa has set up an explanation on the "wayback machine" to explain how to stop them from doing it. However they don't ask permission prior and if you're a newbie or just don't know about Alexa.... Well someone is infringing on your copyright without your knowledge.

--------------------------
As for the catalog of the traffic.
Suing for damages do factor in to any equation.

However under the law if someone is doing something that directly or indirectly involves me. I have the legal right to demand they cease and leave me in peace. After having made such demand. (And I have made this demand to Alexa) They are now breaking the law on a criminal and not civil level.
This is the basis of restraining orders, peace bonds, etc.
IE. Court order that says "leave the person alone!"

-----------------
As for me...
I'm a photographer and film maker.
And the polemiques to my industry are shall we say... unique ?

It is a very competitive field and one of my image brokers (non-internet) stopped doing business with me and referenced Alexa ratings as reasons why. Simply put another photographer, one of my competitors, had a higher rating and used that against me to his advantage.

I am well established so it hasn't killed me. But that was one of my better resources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Where did you get the text from Exhibit A? It sounds like the type of thing the government would be prohibited from doing, but not private enterprise. Much like the president can't infringe your right to free speech, but your parents can.

Well your parents technically can't either. Freedom of speech is designed to keep gouverment accountable to the citizens and has its most significant impact of law to published mediums. On the indivdual level it tends to become very lax and the courts recognize this as natural.

Look at Exhibit A from a different perspective.

If you sat outside your girlfriend's home and took note of how many people were entering and leaving. If she called the police you could find yourself with a lot of explaining and possible problems. And the law doesn't care why you are doing keeping track. IE: It doesn't matter if it's a university research project or you're a jealous boyfriend.

Now the way it is legal is if you sit at the end of the street for 2 hours. Count everyone in the neighbourhood you see and devide it by the number of houses.

As for a business...
Under the eyes of the law a business is a legally defined entity and to some extent or another given legal presence and afforded many rights similar to that of a person. (Note I said "many" rights. Not "all" rights)

There is a greater amount of laxitiey with business in some areas.
But at the end of the day...
A business has the right to choose who it wants to associate with or not.

I choose not to associate with Alexa. Yet they persist to harrass my business and in doing so, me.
--------
PS. I'm not trying to argue or insight any kind of conflict on this forum.
If anyone has taken offense to this dialog I convey my apologies.

**chrishirst** · 05-22-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

But Alexa has set up the "wayback machine" and you specifically type in a domain name and get to surf it on how it looked 5 years ago.

Yes BUT it does NOT cache the images, if they have moved or changed in the intervening period they will simply fail to appear.

The answer is very very simple!

Password protect your site then only people YOU want on your site can get on.

**Michel Samuel** · 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

Yes BUT it does NOT cache the images, if they have moved or changed in the intervening period they will simply fail to appear.

The answer is very very simple!

Password protect your site then only people YOU want on your site can get on.

1) There are sites that are no longer on line and perhaps not all but many of the images still appear. (only need 1 to appear for copyright infringement)

2) I do not have to change the method of my legal endevours to accomodaite the actions of some unknown 3rd party.

3) In the real world you never see Walmart password protect their premises to keep someone standing outfront their door and count how many people come in.

And like Walmart...
When someone surfs my site they are on my property. They are there because I invited them to do business with me.

And again, just like Walmart, I did not invite anyone to stand there and count how many people enter and leave... Then later profit from that information without a dime of compensation.
(The toolbar is Alexa's agent standing on my property. And I don't care if they did hitch a ride in the same car as a paying customer.)
-------------------

When the Internet was young we all believed that it would replace traditional mediums. The television would go the way of the 8-track in favour of the new and superior technology. But it has not happen anywhere near the level we had expected or hoped.

Now I am not putting anyone down or taking a cheap shot at another person's endevours or opinions.

I'm just a independant business man and I can only say that when it comes to future endevours on the net. I am going to be very cautious because the Internet is still much like the wild west. There are a lot of ilegal, grey zone and things without precedent occuring on-line every day. Until it becomes more "legally" organized, I'm going to favour traditional and quantifiable business venues.

**vangogh** · 05-22-2007, 11:34 PM

As far as I know Alexa doesn't own archive.org. Here's what it says on their about page

Quote:

The Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that was founded to build an Internet library, with the purpose of offering permanent access for researchers, historians, and scholars to historical collections that exist in digital format. Founded in 1996 and located in the Presidio of San Francisco, the Archive has been receiving data donations from Alexa Internet and others.

Alexa donates data, but they don't own the site.

I also don't think you could win a case against them for publishing the stats. Again they're not collecting data from you, but from Alexa users. They're also not presenting anything that's not fact (it's not particularly useful data, but it's real data), nor are they the only site that presents similar data. There are many sites that collect site stats and republish the results.

The company that chose to go with another business because of Alexa rankings doesn't understand what the rankings are showing or where they come from. That's not Alexa's fault. I'd think someone doing business with you would be more interested in the quality of your images than Alexa ranking. If they're more interested in the ranking then either they're complete fools or there's more to the story than we're hearing.

If I were to stand across the street from Wal-Mart and count how many people walked into the store I really don't think they could legally prevent that. I also don't think they'd care.

I don't think anyone ever seriously thought the television was going away. I know I never did. I see the internet as another medium. It's different than TV and radio and print. It has it's pros and cons and I think the pros far outweigh the cons.

I don't think the internet should become more legally organized. That would essentially lead it to serve only the least common denominator. One of the pros about the internet is the freedom it gives. True with that freedom comes the possibility for misuse like stealing content, but still what's gained outweighs what's lost.

I think you're so focused on one bad business dealing that you're missing out on what you gain. You're upset that your Alexa ranking cost you a resource, but you seem to be forgetting if it wasn't for the internet that resource might not exist. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your business so maybe that resource would exist, but if Alexa data is being referenced there's a tie to the internet in some way.

if you weren't online at all would you have gotten that resource?

Will you sue Google, Yahoo, MSN, and Ask next because your competitors pages rank better than yours? Or because your competitors ads get more clicks? They're all collecting the same kind of data Alexa is and using it or will be to influence who ranks where.

You're certainly within your right to sue Alexa for the damages you think they're causing. I'm almost certain you won't win. More likely you'd spend more money in trying to fight them than you would in working to get a higher Alexa ranking. (By the way it's fairly easy to manipulate)

You're also welcome to favor traditional business venues offline. There are and will continue to be many successful business ventures with no online presence. But it sounds like you're letting one bad business dealing blind you to what you can gain.

**Michel Samuel** · 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

As far as I know Alexa doesn't own archive.org. Here's what it says on their about page

Alexa donates data, but they don't own the site.

I also don't think you could win a case against them for publishing the stats. Again they're not collecting data from you, but from Alexa users. They're also not presenting anything that's not fact (it's not particularly useful data, but it's real data), nor are they the only site that presents similar data. There are many sites that collect site stats and republish the results.

.

Doesn't matter if it is fact or not.
My images...
My copyright...

If even a non-profit community newspaper re-printed my images without my permission or compensation. To the court it makes no difference at all if the images where donated from a fan of my work. It is ilegal! And I sue over stuff like that and have. (I tend to be kind of neurotic about legal stuff)

The only person who has the right to use, give away, etc...
Is the creator/owner of the work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

The company that chose to go with another business because of Alexa rankings doesn't understand what the rankings are showing or where they come from. That's not Alexa's fault. I'd think someone doing business with you would be more interested in the quality of your images than Alexa ranking. If they're more interested in the ranking then either they're complete fools or there's more to the story than we're hearing.

Nothing more to the story than that. Every industry has its share of unique problems and politics. Normally the bigger the industry you have results in tougher competition and that results in more politics.

As for my former client...
I don't care if my clients are idiots that can't tie their shoes. If their money is good and they pay me. I treat them like saints, tell them they are smarter than Albert Einstien and happily deposit their cheque in my bank.

It is NOT my responsibility to explain to them how Alexa ratings don't mean my work won't sell.
------------------
Alexa is a non-invited 3rd party collecting data from a privately owned business and making it available to the general public. Yes they are responsible. Most businesses, under the law, have the right to protect their assets and informations from exposure to potential damage.

To this effect we have such things as:
1) Hold over clauses 2) Non-competition agreements 3) Non-disclosure contracts 4) etc etc etc

And the courts are filled with similar real-world cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

If I were to stand across the street from Wal-Mart and count how many people walked into the store I really don't think they could legally prevent that. I also don't think they'd care.

Standing across the street is not the same as standing out front of their doors. And just because a company doesn't care does not mean it is legal. It just means they have chosen to not exercise their right to take action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

I don't think anyone ever seriously thought the television was going away. I know I never did. I see the internet as another medium. It's different than TV and radio and print. It has it's pros and cons and I think the pros far outweigh the cons.

I don't think the internet should become more legally organized. That would essentially lead it to serve only the least common denominator. One of the pros about the internet is the freedom it gives. True with that freedom comes the possibility for misuse like stealing content, but still what's gained outweighs what's lost.

I think you're so focused on one bad business dealing that you're missing out on what you gain. You're upset that your Alexa ranking cost you a resource, but you seem to be forgetting if it wasn't for the internet that resource might not exist. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your business so maybe that resource would exist, but if Alexa data is being referenced there's a tie to the internet in some way.

if you weren't online at all would you have gotten that resource?

Will you sue Google, Yahoo, MSN, and Ask next because your competitors pages rank better than yours? Or because your competitors ads get more clicks? They're all collecting the same kind of data Alexa is and using it or will be to influence who ranks where.

You're certainly within your right to sue Alexa for the damages you think they're causing. I'm almost certain you won't win. More likely you'd spend more money in trying to fight them than you would in working to get a higher Alexa ranking. (By the way it's fairly easy to manipulate)

You're also welcome to favor traditional business venues offline. There are and will continue to be many successful business ventures with no online presence. But it sounds like you're letting one bad business dealing blind you to what you can gain.

What we are getting into now is the traditional clash of paradgym. I'm the late 30s male that has been in business for apx 15 years vs. the new generation. (Granted my generation was the first real exploiter of the net.)

I readily acknowledge the potential ofthe net but like most traditional businesses I want to see certain things in place. Like protection for my work.

Business is really kind of boring stuff because it really comes down to math. We tend to not like surprises, deal with people we know and get really angry when someone we don't know messes with out stuff.

As for me...
My online endevours are really a way of me staying current and exploring the medium. If I had to take a guess I would say it is less than 2% of what I do and at this time isn't really a huge money maker. Unfortunately there is a ton of technical books on the net and I have yet to find one that gives me a C.M.A. breakdown. Same with support people, I can get tons of tech services on the phone but good luck finding a media buyer.

At this time I really don't have a ton of interest in making a big investment. I do this when footage is compiling or when I get to put my feet up. As for google and the others... They are a lot easier to deal with than Alexa.

**Michel Samuel** · 03:41 AM

Just an interesting side note to this conversation.

My latest dialog resulted in this information.

Quote:

-----snip-------
If you have any further questions of a legal nature, you may contact our
legal department directly at:

Amazon.com
Legal Dept.
P.O. Box 81226
Seattle, WA 98108-1226

Fax: 206-xxx-xxxx

We hope to have the opportunity to serve you again in the future.

Best regards,
Alexa Internet Customer Service

Of course I did NOT quote the entire letter for obvious reasons.
And before some troll flames me, a P.O. box to a legal department is not re-publishing of private corporate information.

**vangogh** · 05-23-2007, 04:05 PM

Michel this has been an interesting conversation for me and I hope you know I haven't been trying to argue and that I'm really trying to understand more. I think you do know that's my intention, but I just wanted to mention it again.

I mentioned Alexa not owning Archive.org because you had mentioned taking action against Alexa over republishing your content. I wanted to clarify that it's not Alexa that's publishing your images and if you were going to take action over copyright infringement that case would have to be against Archive.org. Be aware though that Google seems to be winning very similar cases. I think a lot of it falls under fair use, though I could be mistaken about that.

I still don't see how Alexa is doing anything wrong. Again they're not collecting data from you. They get it from their users. That's fundamentally different. It would be one thing if they were accessing your servers in some way and taking your data, but they're not.

Point taken about Wal-Mart not caring having nothing to do with legality/illegality. I'll use them as an example again though in a different context. I think what Alexa is doing is to survey a bunch of people and ask them if they are Wal-Mart shoppers. Then also asking the same people if they shop at Costco/Target/Sears/etc. There's nothing illegal in that or in publishing the results. Alexa isn't doing anything to your data. They're simply finding out where there users spend their time online.

With respect to it being or not being your responsibility to explain Alexa I think it's less to do with responsibility and more to do with smart business. You're trying to gain or keep a client so it's in your best interest to point out all the benefits of going with you and point out why the objections against you might be invalid.

It's not Alexa's responsibility to educate your client either. Your client is the one misunderstanding things. Alexa isn't misrepresenting anything with the data. If your client misunderstands that's your clients responsibility not Alexa's.

I think it's irrelevant who's responsibility it is. But if it's in your best interest to explain it to them why not do it.

I agree with you that there are copyright issues online and that the laws are often hazy. I don't like seeing my content taken any more than you do. But I think sometimes it's important to pick and choose your battles. I think trying to fight Alexa and Archive.org isn't going to prove worthwhile and the energy spent in the fight could be put to better use elsewhere.