We can't say that we'd recommend a CEO steal property from
Google in order to prove a point, but the head honcho of Macmillan Publishers pushed his superego aside and did just that at a recent BookExpo America in NYC. It's no secret that a number of publishers have been up in arms about Google's approach to digitizing their works, but Richard Charkin went so far as to recruit a colleague and
swipe a pair of laptops from a
Google Books kiosk at the event. About an hour later, the booth attendants actually noticed the missing goods and presumably began to panic, and the haughty executive then had the nerve to return the machines to their rightful owners whilst dropping the "hope you enjoyed a taste of your own medicine" line. He justified the bizarre behavior by suggesting that "there wasn't a sign by the computers informing him not to steal them," apparently referencing Google's controversial tactics when scanning books. That'll show 'em, Mr. Charkin.
[Via
TechDirt]
posted Jun 7th 2007 1:32PM
How old is this guy? 5?
That is some funny shit.
Charkin 1.
Google 4,000,000,000.
You can't really blame him... I'd be pissed too! At least the notebooks were returned.
couldn't Mr. Charkin just ask Google to remove any of his work? Or can Google legally scan any book?
Thats some funny stuff - even funnier if Mr. Charkin would have published a book consisting of all the files on the Google laptops.
Christ. What a tool.
Publishing companies need to be precise when they're talking about copyright infringement. It's not the same thing as stealing a physical object, and in the digital world this is even more true. It might be wrong, but it's not the same thing as theft.
Seems to me that Google isn't living up to their "Don't Be Evil" mission statement if they're pissing off people like that. Book search would be an awesome thing to have, but they need to have a deal with the publishers.
I'm not saying that he was right in taking the laptops, not at all. What I am saying is that if Google is doing something that makes him that angry, they must be doing something wrong. Now what I understand is that Google is going to allow you to search through text from books that they don't own the rights to. You could probably bring up the whole text if you wanted to. If Google doesn't own it, they shouldn't be able to have it their service. It's tricky, because I would think some websites have copyrighted information that Google can bring up, but for books, Google has to input all the text rather than search through existing sites.
kentavo said:
Besides, if anything the evil part is limiting people's access to books that are no longer protected by copyrights.
If this is the case, then I believe Google is OK with what they're doing, but I understood that if this CEO was doing it because they were putting up copyrighted work. Somehow I have to think Google is doing something wrong that we don't know about if it has this guy worked up so badly.
This should help frame the discussion.
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/newsviews/issue.html
Essentially, they are scanning books, but only making it searchable. They are not giving out access to the full book, or really much more than a few sentences at a time. I suppose in theory a really innovated person could copy the entire book by searching for the right combination of words and going through the book 2-3 sentences at a time. But it'd probably be much easier to go the library, check it out, scan it and bring it back.
And it was hilarious when Charkin and his colleague were charged for grand theft and hauled away to jail...
Wait... that didn't happen?
Oh well...
Exactly... that's what I thought google's reply should have been. "I hope you enjoy a taste of jail." Just because he returned it didn't negate the fact that he is a *thief*.
Interesting... I didn't know preteen adolescents who like to play childish games "to prove a point" can become CEOs.
what has made you NOT know that?
Then apparently you've never worked in a corporation.
Eh, I was merely expressing sarcasm in regards to the situation. I am more than aware of the absurdities that CEOs commit but this situation was especially funny and unique.
Wouldn't it have been more fitting for Charkin to have made a duplicate COPY of the laptop? Because... ya know... yeah.
There may not be any sign saying "Do Not steal this laptop" or whatever, but as far as I know that the inside of that convention doesn't happen to be outside the country that has LAWS. I dont carry around a sign saying "Dont murder me", yet it always remain illegal to do it.
Very immature stunt, attempting to get this level of attention. Not at all comparable, and he's stupid for thinking it is.
Which is exactly his point, Ben.
Copyright says you can't make or distribute copies (which is what Google is doing with their book scanning), unless you have the express permission of the rights holder.
Google says "If you don't want us to copy your copyrighted works, just tell us not to." When Copyright Law already says you can't unless you get permission.
So called "Fair Use" rights are not "Rights" per se, and don't give you a blanket right to make copies of copyrighted works. They are an affirmative defence against a charge of copyright infringement. Ie. If Copyright Holder A sues Google for Copyright Infringement, Google can attempt to argue in a court of law, that their copying is covered under Fair Use doctrines, and thus entitled to an exemption.
If this was turned around and Microsoft were the victim and not Google, all the comments would be how funny it was and that MS got what they deserved.
"I dont carry around a sign saying "Dont murder me", yet it always remain illegal to do it."
Uh-oh.
@eric...
should we all shed a tear for microsoft now? i think they're doing ok without having to try to get sympathy for them out of a story that has nothing to do with microsoft.
And google copying book text is legal because it's digital?
Google doesn't make the entire work accessible, only a few pages. You are allowed to see one or two pages relevant to your search and a few other random pages. The only thing Google book search is good for is discovering a relevant book and presenting a sample. The only reason I wouldn't want my book up there is if my book sucked and everyone could see how much it sucked before they bought it.
The only way to see an entire book would be to have a search term for every page. To do so would almost require an actual book at which point you have bought it or have already stolen it.
"Interesting... I didn't know preteen adolescents who like to play childish games "to prove a point" can become CEOs"
Dude...this skill is on line 2 on most administrators resumes...
Should we shed a tear for google? Just pointing it out is all.
US copyright law has exceptions for archives and libraries; google book search is an archive. It is quite likely that it is legal for Google to do what they are doing; it is most certainly not legal to steal a laptop.
Small point: Does anyone read novels on their computer? Are publishing companies that worried about throngs of people fleeing bookstores because they can now curl up with their laptop and read A THOUSAND SPLENDID SUNS on a bench somewhere?
Laptops no. PDA's and Tablet PC's yes.
As far as I am concerned most CEOs just steal blindly whenever they get a chance. This guy actually got his hands a little dirty, good for him!
Google copying works so people can search them, great fo us, and making a huge profit on said goods is evil, we just get the good part of it =)
So, brandon, is a library "doing something wrong" for letting you walk in, take a book off the shelf and photocopy pages out of it?
Uh, actually yes.
Most Librarians, who actually *know* their job and the law, don't allow you to photocopy pages.
Wrong. Photocopying of copyrighted material is allowed for "private study, scholarship or research." That's the law. A library (or anyone else) can't profit from the photocopying. Is Google? I dunno.
I didn't say that Google's actions werent at least in the "shady" area of the law. Obviously this is a matter to be settled by lawyers and discussions between the involved people.
If Google has done something "unlawful" then obviously it should be "punished" but this still needs to be undeniably proven!
I wont admit to know all the information about their scanning (if I tried, I would be labelled ignorant - and probably quite rightly). But doesn't it only provide very small segments of materials? Many arguements link to browsing in a book shop - You scan and search for the right material - even read a few lines or a paragraph - before you decide to buy or not.
Still I stick by my statement that the act of this was very immature, and likening the two is just daft.
@bobby d - "So, brandon, is a library "doing something wrong" for letting you walk in, take a book off the shelf and photocopy pages out of it?"
-i don't believe they will allow you to make copies of the entire book. i know i use to have problems at college where they would only allow me to copy 5 pages of any one book. i am most likely wrong though.
Stealing a laptop doesn't do anything. A better protest would have been if he came up with an innovative business model that made Google's business model obsolete.
...except you even say it yourself - Google is making a copy of the book.
Just because I do not make it available to anyone does not mean I'm free to duplicate copyrighted materials.
The page you link to references their partners - I didn't look at their partners page to see if the publishing house in question has a deal with Google but I'm going to assume they don't, based on this news story.
whenever I get into debates about copyrights I always use publishing as an example; physical distribution versus digital distribution. the costs of printing, binding, shipping and point of sale are reflected in the cover price, but then you look at how companies want to transition their business to digital distribution and they keep the same pricing structure, but have no costs. Look at the sony reader store, they try and sell public domain books for the price you'd pay in Borders (hello Gutenberg), or iTunes, where 10 tracks of crappy 128k aac costs as much as CD. My point is that this guy is not pissed at Google per se, he's just seen the writing on the wall. I'm all for paying royalties to artists, but I'm damned if I'll give 90% of the cover price of something as profit to some greedy corporate jackass. This is why people get into filesharing, because of the inequities of the old media. and they respond by lobbying government into criminalising anyone who doesn't buy their products.
No costs for digital publishing? ARE YOU OFF YOUR ROCKER?!
Let's see, all the things you would need to publish a normal book minus the printing...
Human Resources
Marketing
Editors
Artists
Authors
Office Space, Facilities Management...
Okay, now for digital publishing add the following...
Data storage, backup, transaction management, BANDWIDTH, custom applications, electric power, server farms, engineers, data security, network administration, hmmm...
I'm not going to do the math but I'm guessing the printing is a small fraction of the cost of publishing a book.
Matt W.,
That can't be true. Not having to buy pulp, run book factories, and ship physical books are all expenses that will be sucked up by maintaining servers? Me thinks not.
You know, the man at least had a point. I read in the news that Google just scans what it wants to, and puts it on the web. Only if a company or representative approaches Google about this, then Google would take it down or whatever. It seems Google is not living to that promise.
I personally like to use Windows Live Books. All of their work is certified to be allowed on there. They don't just snatch books and scan them without permission. At least they do it fairly. And all their books at least have some pages you can read, where as Google has some books with only a cover, and you just buy it on the internet. Plus, I think the Windows Live UI with their books is pretty good. It's still in beta, but pretty good.
Google's service is completely different. The reason you can't read most of the books is because they don't have distribution rights - it's a search service that enables you to find a book. You can't read the book - it just lets you find the book you're interested in and buy it. I have no idea why a publisher would complain about it, unless they are making substantial sums of money selling Shakespeare and other classics.
I work for a publisher, and our books are up on Google Book Search. At this point, I have no problem with their service.
However, I call HUGE GIGANTIC BS on their claim that "their goal is to improve access to books – not to replace them."
Their goal is to make as much money possible by being the first company to digitize copyrighted materials. They have STRONGLY encouraged us to make our books available digitally, for a much smaller price than we charge for a printed book. And guess what, they want a cut for being the middle man.
Because our books wouldn't really work in a digitized way (they are professional books), I doubt our company will be negatively effected by this. However, for some publishers whose work would work just as effectively digitally as in print, they will definitely feel a squeeze when Google 'forces' them to put their materials on their website and sell it for cheap.
I can't agree with the CEO's actions because rarely do the "ends justify the means". This, to me, is a dangerous path to walk. It won't be too long before we become victims of someone's interpretations of our actions as "illegal" only because they think so, regardless of right/wrong/innocent/guilty. Haven't you ever thought "There oughta be a law against..." What if everyone acted on that thought without consequence?
What this CEO did was profess a verdict without due course. In doing so, he brought himself down to the level of a thief, and should be ashamed -- that is, if he had a soul, which he certainly doesn't (rule #1 for CEOs in big corporations). My 5-year old has more common sense, and understands that there is a time for draconian measures, and this sure as hell wasn't one.
Macmillan will not be getting my money, I have no desire to give my money to that idiot. Shame on him.
I can go into a book store and read a book for free without purchasing it.
It's the same damn thing.
"Just because I do not make it available to anyone does not mean I'm free to duplicate copyrighted materials."
That's debatable, in my opinion. If you don't make it available to anyone, what's the problem? To make a copy for personal use, you'd need a copy to personally use (read: to copy) in the first place. If you aqcuired that copy legally, surely there is no problem with that?
There was a story on NPR yesterday about how the publishers are being to realize that Google Books is a get exposure for their books kinda like a 30 day SW trial. Supposedly visits to a publisher site referred from Google books are something like 5 times more likely to purchase that referrers from any other source. Just like you buy an album (CD for the kids) after you hear the song on the radio. Nobody wants to print a whole book thats downloaded off google. For reference books in which you might only be interested in a single chapter Google books might drop sales but for most other types until eBooks become a reality (if ever) the extra exposure can only help them.
Actually, most books that are ordered, bought online, etc. are not warehoused. Instead, there is in place technology that can rapidly print one-off copies, create a shipping label, fill the wrapper, and ship to buyer within hours of the order.
This aside, Google making text searchable while at the same time making it incredibly laborous to read an entire work through hundreds of searches is simply not going to be reality. This individual clearly needs care of the mental kind. Stealing a laptop and equating it to someone making a text searchable are two different worlds, and in two different legal camps.
I hope they press charges and he serves time. Steal my laptop and I'll shoot your ar$e.
It is absolutely not true that 'most' books use print on demand (POD), but as that technology does improve it is becoming more widely used.
However, it would actually be really stupid for a publisher to do that for a book that has ANY success. POD is expensive (with worse quality) compared to offset printing.
Definitely a tool... but does Google have to abide by Author/Publisher rights? (Do Authors/Publishers have any rights in this matter?)
Show of hands,... how many people think that Google actually gave two craps about this? I didn't either. Someone shoul dtell that guy that shooting the messenger doesn't accomplish anything.
I think the only point this guy managed to prove is that he himself is a moron that needs to grow up.
"Just because I do not make it available to anyone does not mean I'm free to duplicate copyrighted materials."
Annnnnnndddd we have a winner for the most inaccurate statement in a thread just full of astroturf.
In fact, and IAAL, you DO have blanket right (yes a right, the "affirmative defense" crap was a close second) to copy copyrighted content you have purchased for personal use in your home. It is one of the enumerated common-law fair use rights recognized in intellectual property law. In other words, if you were sued for violating copyright and this was your only action (ie, you didn't make it available for distribution or violate the authors rights in other ways) the lawyer filing the case would be sanctioned, as they would not have a valid legal cause to allege infringement.
Why not a "CE-Oh no he didn't! Part ..." title?
Yeah... except the thing is, the book publishers still have their books. When he took the laptops, Google no longer had the computers.
The "Intellectual" variant of propriety just isn't quite the same...
So stealing property is the same as making information public? I think one key difference is that the owners no longer have any access to their property when it gets stolen...