Jun 8, 2007 at 4:28pm ET by Danny Sullivan
Via Techdirt, Book publisher steals Google laptops from The Register covers the jaw-dropping action of Richard Charkin, CEO of Macmillian Publishing, stealing laptops from a Google booth at BookExpo America to try and prove a point about Google "stealing" books for its book search service. Blogged Charkin:
Our justification for this appalling piece of criminal behaviour? The owner of the computer had not specifically told us not to steal it. If s/he had, we would not have done so. When s/he asked for its return, we did so. It is exactly what Google expects publishers to expect and accept in respect to intellectual property.
As I’ve written before (see here, here and here), the legality of scanning in-copyright books without permission and presenting short summaries (rather than reprinting the actual books) remains very much in question. Some publishers say Google is stealing content; others disagree, including Google. That’s why we have on-going court cases to resolve the matter.
In contrast, there’s not a lot of fair use or intellectual property debate over taking a laptop that doesn’t belong to you.
A copyright statement does not give someone full rights to control content. It provides very specific rights, which are sometimes debated. While I’m not a lawyer, property law tends to be less debatable. If you don’t own the property, you don’t get to take it.
Perhaps Charkin can better understand the difference this way. Was it theft to read a book, then cite a short passage from it? Generally not. Was it theft to walk into a bookstore and physically take a book you didn’t buy? Yes.
FYI, Charkin’s blog lacks a robots.txt file, so I assume he has no problem with the thieving big G indexing all of his copyright-protected pages for the purposes of web search. To be consistent with his concerns over copyright, he really ought to put one up and block search engines from spidering his web site unless they call him up, send him an email, send him a letter or otherwise obtain his express permission.
Search Engines, Permissions & Moving Forward In Copyright Battles from me explains this issue in more depth. To be fair, I agree with Charkin that I’d like Google to stop scanning in-copyright books because unlike with web search, there’s no easy way to automatically ask for permission. But legally, the search engine might very well be found to be within fair use guidelines. Certainly the question is less clear-cut than stealing a laptop.
Share, Bookmark & Discuss This Article
More:
Keep Updated: News Via Email | News Via RSS Feed | News Via Twitter
See more stories like this in the Members Library! Check out the Google: Book Search, Legal: Copyright sections of the Members Library where this story is filed. Members also get access to exclusive video content, a members-only weekly & monthly newsletter, plus more. Check out all the benefits!
TOP STORIES
SEARCH NEWS BRIEFS
FEATURES & ANALYSIS
RECENT COMMNENTS
Stay on top of all the search news with our daily summary, the SearchCap newsletter. View a sample ›
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
SMX Web Site » | SMX Difference » | SMX News »
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Featured sites from our Blogroll
Become a premium member today and receive:
Wow, what a way to prove your point by taking the laptop.
There is a little problem with the demonstration (aside from the big one that it’s just dumb). When Charkin took the laptop from Google, he did not take a copy of the laptop, nor did he leave a replacement behind.
No, he removed total access to the laptop. That’s why taking it is considered to be far more serious than making a copy.
When you make a copy of a book, mp3 or movie, you do not at the same time go into the files of the company that owns it and delete all the copies. They still have the file. You have not prevented them from accessing, using or selling it. It’s still, in all measurable ways - theirs.
Copyright is not related to theft of an object, it’s related to interference of trade. There is a big difference between stealing money and causing someone else to make less of it.
Every time I run an ad, I cause my competitors to make less money (hopefully). That’s not the same as breaking into their stores and taking away their stuff so they can’t sell it.
Ian
Opps
Stealing is gross misconduct - good way to get the sack.