The first two images do not appear ; however, no matter.

I am always amazed that some publishers consider that Amazon are worthy bedding partners whilst Google are a dastardly demon.

In my eyes, both corporations are control freaks who are looking to dominate the marketing place without paying a fair price for their "stock".

Me thinks that like most 600lb gorillas they will meet their day of reckoning in the jungle.

What about those horrendous wi-fi charges at Javits Conference Center, typical NY gouge.

Clive

Sorry about the pictures - another example of connectile dysfunction. Will try get them fixed remotely.

I think many publishers are suspicious of both Amazon and Google. The difference is that Amazon do deliver significant sales and are therefore commercial partners, whereas Google is mainly about threats to publishers' lifeblood, copyright.

Of course, if you really wanted to do something analogous to what Google is doing, you would have copied all the data from their computers onto flash drives before returning the machines and then uploaded the data to a public site for a month or so before removing it. I wonder how Google would have responded to that ;-)

Snort. Nick Weir-Williams was right -- this entry is exactly on point, as well as amusing.

Google is filled with smart and successful folks, so I continue to be amazed that they haven't found a way to reconcile their mission and desires with our need to defend the intellectual property rights upon which our livelihoods rest.

Charging ahead this way without thought for the social needs that have led to the creation of our current IP laws, as if several hundred years of legislation were driven exclusively by the evil, greedy corporate monopolists that we all see when we look in the mirror (um, well, maybe not) is foolish. Google has not been foolish very often before. Why now?

You should show more respect for the criminal law of your country. There is a difference between the civil law governing copyrights and criminal laws - we have criminal laws to protect the standards and interests of society _as a whole_ whereas civil laws protect only the interests of individual parties.

That difference deserves your respect and if you find that you are now treated like any common thief (or even celebrity thief) by the authorities then it will be because they want to use your case to encourage others to remember that there are very few reasons that can justify a criminal act in the eyes of the law.

Funny, although I always disagreed on the view that there is something like "intellectaul property" that someone can "steal". I think that is capitalistic bullshit

On the other hand Google follows that kind of bullshit when they feel like and they don't follow that bullshit if they don't feel like it.

You really are an idiot.

Just read the article at:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/04/book_publisher_google_laptop/

And agree with the asessment of most of the comments on that page:

Well done for standing up for authors' rights!

(Ar at least bringing the non-Google side of the argument into the limelight)

Well done! I strongly support this direct action against corporate arrogance. You could get your hands on some serial numbers for google professional products and post them on your blog. They give users your product for free, and you return the courtesy.

So my question is, if I'm looking for a book, how should I find it?
Certainly I browse bookstores, and even USED bookstores all the time, but if I need a book on, say, the Oral History of Race Relations of the American South from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, how in the world would you suggest I local such a book?

How about an out of print book, where doing a one-off isn't worth the time or money of your company to print?

Now here's a thought- why is Google offering this service? Perhaps because they see this as something that people want and need, which then raises the question, why aren't you doing this? If I was a shareholder of your company, that would be my first question.

If I where an author, I'd certainly want people to find my books.

Are you 12 years old or something? Way to get some free negative publicity for your company.

Why have you got Google Ads on your Blog?

If you wanted to give Google a 'taste' of their medicine, you would of have made digital copies of small parts of the laptops and provided a link to a retailer where the entire laptop could be purchased.

You old media guys just can't wrap your heads around the fact that Google is one of the best marketing tools you have - and it's not costing you a single penny.

Hayden: Because all old media is hypocritical.

I'm glad the google people had a sense of humor and did not have you arrested, since the lifting of the laptops is clearly a criminal offense, potentially a felony in NYC, where what they are doing, while perhaps objectionable to you, is not a felony violation of a criminal statute, and your remedies are civil, not criminal.
I'm sure it seemed like cheeky good fun at the time, but are there not more constructive ways to make your point?

Wow. I'll now make a note to check the publisher of every book I buy and make sure that Macmillan gets none of my business.

My word, there are a few high horses being mounted here. But at least the issues of the value and protection of intellectual property are being debated.

Well done, Love your reasons for it.
would love to see you elaborate more on Google's treatment of Authors and publishers.

Okay, everybody please calm down. Leave the red herrings out of it and look at the real issues:

1. There is a generational split. Fully digitized netizens with a question or a curiosity are not going to browse in a brick-and-mortar library or bookstore; they are going to start a search on Wikipedia or Google (probably not in that order). So suggesting to them that Google should not provide access to all the world's books looks to them like the dying gasp of a dinosaur. Nothing to be done about the perception. Let's move on.

2. Writers of long, integrated works, whether fiction or nonfiction, benefit by Google's posting of snippets, as this will make their work known to a wider audience and thus stimulate sales. I think most publishers have figured that out.

3. Writers of works that consist of valuable isolated passages (reference works of all sorts, technical manuals, poetry, songs) have a legitimate grievance that providing snippets actually shrinks the market for the book.

4. The precedence argument--that if Google does it with snippets, what is to prevent Google or others from posting longer passages and eventually entire works without any payment to publishers and authors--needs to be examined. How should the courts define unauthorized publication (copyright violation, in other words)?

One metacomment: To those of you throwing the brickbats, it is not clear to whom the pronoun "you" refers. If your comment is directed to Mr. [in the US, we use a period after Mr] Charkin, say so. If it is in response to someone in the comment thread, say so. If you want to call someone an idiot, at least make it clear whom you are calling an idiot so that you don't look like one yourself.

I am appalled at the lack of intelligence that you have shown towards the difference between intellectual property rights and tangible property.
Copywrite infringement is copywrite infringement, it is not theft! When you steal a tangible piece of property, you are removing the ability of the owner to use that piece of property again. When you commit copywrite infringement, you are potentially preventing the owner of the IP from producing a profit, but not removing their ability to use the property.

You should have been arrested and jailed. I would have literally thrown the book at you for your own stupidity.

I myself spend more money each month buying books to read for entertainment, than any other form of IP. However, next time I visit Borders or Barnes and Noble, which will be this weekend, I will be checking the publisher now. That includes books for entertainment or work, as I work in the IP NOC for a major internet backbone provider. I believe Macmillan is a tech industry publisher, well you will no longer receive another penny from me. I refuse to purchase anything from a company ran by someone who has a below average IQ.

Actually you did not commit a theft. What you did was called conversion. The computer was volunteered to your use and you simply used it beyond the scope the provider intended. If it had been set off from the display as part of their gear not intended for the public it would have been a theft. That it was free to be used was implicit and obvious. This difference is sufficient that in most states if you report to the police you loaned your car to someone and they did not return it when you expected they will require a waiting period before they take any action. So their sign you suggested should read something like: "This computer is intended for public use at our booth only. Permission for other use, removal or alternation is not granted."

The point is - copyright already states pretty much the same thing. My using it the author is saying - here is my intellecual property. The proper terms of its use are defined by the fact I have claimed the protection of copyright law. Other use is prohibited.
You should have no need to make a seperate statement. They do not have the authority to demand a seperate statement as if they are above the legally binding notice.

Somewhere along the line they need to be yanked up short and told they are not above the law. The law is your friend. It often is your protector as it will keep people from solving their problems with you in a manner older than law.

Brenda S- here's a little tit-bit for you.


Copywrite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copywrite may refer to:

Copywriting, the process of writing the words that promote a person, business, opinion, or idea

Copywrite, an underground hip-hop artist from Columbus, Ohio

Not to be confused with copyright, a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information

Hey Mr. Charkin, why don't you let me run your company for one day? You'd be famous! See my post that explains why I'd do a better job... http://livinginfirstlife.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/book-publishers-steal-laptop-web-20-hysteria-spills-over-into-old-media/

I've never seen such a clear example of wrongheadedness so proudly displayed and rarely have I seen such a clear lack of understanding of online media and the way Google allows the books to be used... I'm sure the people who support your company will be thrilled to know their CEO is nothing but a common thief. Cute. I wonder if Macmillan issues stock, I think I'll go check on that, I certainly wouldn't want stock in a company being run by someone this backwards.

At least Google are being more circumspect with their Google Interiors beta

http://exacteditions.blogspot.com/2007/06/google-interiors.html

;-)

This says it best...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070605/001005.shtml

It's too bad you cant see the good in it. It's not like their publishing your whole book. There just small small sections which will only increase authors profits.

If you don't think thats true then I say you're riding on the short bus.

Charkin, are you stuck in Junior High? Come on! This is the kind of behavior that adolescents undertake when they have been subjugated by the more intelligent. Rather than responding with some form of mental agility they resort to personal attacks and name calling.

I'm 33 years old and find that being able to read book excerpts online is an invaluable resource. I, like many of my generation, don't go to the library and can't spend all day in Barns & Nobble. Instead I use the greatest tool available, the Internet, to find what I need. If I like it then I go to Amazon.com and buy it. I also buy used books. Especially college books, when I was in college, because the prices for those books are outrageous! If anyone is taking advantage it is the publishers who create "new" editions every year for college texts. A small change is made and viola! Full price is charged for the new addition when in most cases the old addition is perfectly suitable for the course. How many college students are you ripping off every semester? Sorry to digress.....

Google is providing a service that is desired by the people. This is something that your company should have done a long time ago. Now you are caught with your pants down, claiming your livelihood is at stake, and are failing to see the true value. I have bought more books because of this service than I ever had before.

you appear to have had your blog defaced with lots of porn links - personally i'm not surprised that someone has taken offence to your lack of morals by pulling that cheap trick and stealing their laptop but you might want to remove the links - unless you like to have hardcore porn on your blog.

I think Dick Margulis put it very well.

You are an artifact of a time passed and need to make room for visionaries with foresight and intelligence to take your place. Being able to search for a passage in one of your books is FREE ADVERTISING!!!

What is your next move? Are you going to sue to close libraries because every time someone checks out a book they are depriving you of income? You and your publishing dinosaurs , like those at the RIAA need to either join the rest of humankind in the 21st century, or get out of our way.

Bryan,

Thanks for backhanded compliment. But I'd encourage you to go back and reread what I wrote. I'm interested in fostering a discussion that takes into account multiple points of view. For example, how would you address the need of society to ensure that creators in all media (music, art, writing) are compensated fairly?

As I said, it's clear that Google is benefiting the publishers of most books. But there are significant categories where it can be argued that they are hurting much more than they're helping.

You may see printing as an obsolete technology and the commercial publishing of printed books as a waste of trees. You may see publishers as the twenty-first century's buggy whip makers. But a lot of people--even young people--still would rather curl up with a printed book than take their ebook reader to bed or to the beach. Whether you share that particular aesthetic or not, you need to acknowledge that not everyone wishes to cleave to your vision of the future.

So what do you propose? Who will create the serious content of tomorrow--the stuff that only appears in books now, the long, well-developed arguments, the serious literary novels, the textbooks--if they know they will never be paid for their time?

Your thoughts?

Perfect--a prank with a point! Thank you, Richard!

And thank you, Dick Margulis, for giving voice to the facts of life where (real) books and authors are concerned. From the perspective of over two decades as a writer (and sometime-editor) I don't see technology making printing and commercial publishing obsolete any time in the near future.

Even if we are someday reduced to squinting at tiny screens on devices that get in the way of intuitive reading (which I doubt), there will still be a publishing infrastructure behind it.
--Mike

"close proximity"?

"CLOSE PROXIMITY"???!

Is Google stealing the internet? They index every website on the planet. I suppose we shouldn't have search engines.

Have you considered that Google might actually HELP you sell books? Book Search and similar services are possibly the most efficient sales channel ever created. And they're being developed at no cost to the publisher.

You should be thanking Google.

What's your next misguided stunt, Mr. Charkin -- stealing the Xerox machine from your local public library?

It's time to take up fly fishing. Full time. Oh, and you need to give back the money Macmillan has paid you, with interest.

I have removed the porn links.
It might be worth my pointing out that publishers (including me) have no beef with Google Book Search and we are working closely with them to develop ways of serving readers and authors through, for instance, http://www.mpstechnologies.com/bookstore.htm.
The argument (and lawsuit in the USA) is about the Google Library project where Google are insisting that they have the right to digitise books without the permission of the copyright owner. They recognise the right of an author to opt out of the scheme but that is an inversion of copyright (and property)law. The onus is on Google and all other organisations to ask permission not assume it. Hence my 'heist' which has upset many people but served to bring this important issue to people's attention (and incidentally did no harm to anyone). If the works of authors can be copied without permission where will be the creative incentive of the future?

I have to say I don't understand the hostility evident in this discussion.

My own view is that while I can see the value of Google's Library Project and Book Search they are foolish to engage in a project like this without getting copyright holders permission. Hell, I think if thye had asked before they started, they'd have gotten the okay.

I also think it is reasonable to worry about their future plans with their new digitised by google books available for download. There is nothing in the slightest wrong with publishers defending their livlihood and why the angry voices on this page can't see that I don't know.

Noen of that is toc hallenge the value internest search provides to book publishers and authors, but no new tool is without its complications. Not everything is black and white. Nor is every issue explanable as a Generational Thing!

Eoin

"If the works of authors can be copied without permission where will be the creative incentive of the future?"

Rubbish. This is the point, I think, at which this discussion divides, Richard, and where your commercial nature overrides the artistic temprament of many of the people who have commented.

Creativity is not about the money and I would argue that it's never been about the money. I write because I want to write - you might even say I'm compelled to write. I certainly don't do it for the money, because the publishing business doesn't afford the majority of writers a living, it barely offers a subsidy. And yet people still write - how many manuscripts are rejected year on year by publishing houses? They also blog for free and encourage people to link to their sites for no reason other than a bit of notoriety, a bit of discussion, a bit of contact with something bigger than themselves. People create and they do so for some reason they aren't always able to enunciate. The same can be said for most musicians, artists etc etc.

They create despite the fact that making money from art is often almost impossible for the artists themselves.

What you need is a new business model. Creativity is its own incentive.

Indexing books that the publishers decides to sell is not a service that needs doing- indexing orphaned books that publishers have decided are unprofitable is worth doing.

You call Google's actions stealing, and then pull a publicity stunt to get attention, but all you're doing is cutting your ties to the new generation of book readers. Even if they don't make a conscious decision to avoid your content, by not allowing Google (their main source of information) to show them your products, they are less likely to be exposed to them.

This is classic example of new media versus old media. It's the same battle raging between the MPAA/RIAA and file traders, printed newspapers and blogs, and now you and Google. You can't survive without the people who read new media, but you don't want to come to them on their terms.

Good luck.

Copyright is intended to be a balance between incentive for creators and the enrichment of the public domain, but copyright law is currently broken.

Copyright lasts far too long. Nearly all books still protected by copyright are out-of-print. A substantial chunk of out-of-print books are copyright orphans, where the rightsholders are unclear or unlocateable. These works, part of our culture, are going to be lost because they are no longer commercially viable yet are still protected as though they were. Every one of those orphans represents a failure of copyright law to enrich the public domain.

The best way to rescue our culture is to digitize it for eternity. While we're at it, we can make index it, link it, and make vastly more of it accessible to everyone. Digitizing our culture will rescue it.

Fortunately, this noble cause happens to be in everyone's financial interest as well: authors, publishers, readers.

Indexing books may be copyright infringement (though I think it should be perfectly allowable under the doctrine of fair use). Taking a computer is theft. Your prank's analogy is completely flawed.

I can’t believe a CEO did this, how completely juvenile. You sir, demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the future of your business. It’s funny to see those who have a vested interest in the status quo desperately cling to 300 year old business models. Your board of directors should be proud to have such a visionary at the helm. Here’s a thought genius – why don’t you figure out a way to partner with Google? Oh, wait, I forgot about the ancient distribution model which you have so much invested in...

There was no sign telling you not to murder the Google employees, either, was there? Frankly it surprises me you didn't shoot them dead...or any of a million other things you were not told not to do.

If you were to make a less than perfect copy of their computers and distributed it for people around the world to enjoy - then you would have had something. But you didn't and you're idiot because of that.

Don't forget book stores -- people can look at books they haven't bought. Then there's the libraries and folks who share books from their collections. Prank 'em all! Prank some sense into 'em!

(Apologies if double posted. I entered a similar comment four or five hours ago and don't see it now.)

Google should have pressed charges.

That was a criminal offense, and they showed real class by not pressing charges. You need to spend a little time in jail for your juvenile crimes.

I am not purchasing any books by your publishing company until they replace you. I wasn't able to tell if you were a publicly traded company, but I would hope your investors ask for your exit after such an irresponsible move.

I see.

Showing a couple sample pages from a book == stealing a laptop.

I am going to go to the nearest bookstore and rip off anything that isn't bolted down. They are letting people peruse books without having explicit permission from the authors, so they get what's coming to them.

Next, let's discretely steal all the books from the libraries! They don't have signs saying not to, and they are sharing content for FREE! Who would ever buy a book when they can just go and borrow it and read it for free? Nobody, right?

Dork. There's a big difference between a (supposed) civil offense and something criminal. If you had taken pictures of their laptops to help in case they ever needed to find them, that would perhaps be an equivalent thing.

I agree with Keith Ryan, "If the works of authors can be copied without permission where will be the creative incentive of the future?" is one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard. Was this meant to be rhetorical? What is the creative incentive for having others want to copy your work? Um, having others respect your work enough to want to copy it, share it, change it, build on it, discuss it, make it, distribute it, respect it...

I love books. I love buying books to support the authors. I buy more books because of the internet. There are too, too many books out there for me (thankfully). I need help in deciding what books to get. Initiatives like Google's Library will help me make better decisions so I can comfortably buy the book I want to read.

You should have downloaded everything on the hard drives and published it. You think Google would then scan it and publish it on the web???

Oliver

You've been BoinBoinged:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/08/publisher_steals_lap.html

GeekGirl

This prank might be better understood if the context were explained. I know I spent all of my time wandering the booths at BEA wondering, "Am I allowed to take that?"

But probably it wouldn't matter. It's like the entire internet has the most worthless opinions on copyrights. I'm totally with Google if their point is that, in order to make certain Mickey Mouse remains Disney's forever, private interests have narrowed the public domain and pillaged the public's interests. But this move by Google is so clearly in the wrong it's ridiculous. If you're going to profit off of someone else's stuff by transferring it to a new medium then you ask for the privilege and pay them for it. Denying anyone but the owner the right to profit off of their work is the entire point of copyrights. Saying "But you weren't using it" doesn't make it okay.

I believe the author forgot to compare Google to Jack the Ripper, and how it's killing the publishing industry.

This strikes me as remarkably immature. My five year old knows better than to take something that doesn't belong to her.

She also knows that two wrongs don't make a right.

There is a case for discussing the length of copyright, but though I have tried to open discussions on the matter I have still to read or hear a good argument either way. But this failure does not alter the point that the rights to any creative matter is protected under copyright law and convention and it is the right of the copyright holder to determine how their intellectual property may be used.

Once that is broken, as Google is trying to do, copyright protection ends. while this may not stop some from creating - both non-commercial and commercial matter - concepts like Harry Potter would probably not have existed. [Rowling was a broke single mother when she decided to try ot improve he finances this way. Now she is a billionaire - in GB pounds.]

Those who suport the Google concept of snippets and rescuing out of print matter trip up when they disregard law,even if it is 'only' civil.

As to Richard Charkin's act with the Google computer - since his intent was not to steal, and he remained close by and returned it on request there is no criminal act. But it has certainly made a lot of people declare their positions!

Google has tripped in china as well, over censorship and is showing signs of turning from true inovator to bean counting corporation.

Joseph Harris

This is terrible behaviour by an executive.

I think is very important to raise some awareness of this company's practices, specifically when they don't respect basic copyright issues.

Pablo
www.noticiasentuidioma.com
noticiasentuidioma.com

PD: Btw, I find ironic having some "google ads" in your blog... I guess it can't be stopped..

Hi,
Although I support the idea that knowledge should be public and free, I do understand you point of view and believe that Google should ask permission before publishing these books.

Anyway, what you did was great, an innovative way of protesting, you have all the right to defend your business just like they do..

Regards and Saludos desde Argentina....

This is my legal notice, published on a site that Google can index, that I specifically do not give permission for Google to index any words by me in books published heretofore or in the future, while I do explicitly give Google the permission to index my words that have been written to servers on the Internet legally.

Now if they're REALLY indexing everything, perhaps they'd like to read this note and ensure that my books (two of them so far) will not be included in their index.

Che baludo!

intelligent discussion in the comments here, it looks as if you are getting your wish about the broad readership.

http://ThunkDifferent.com

Trick? Nice rationalization.

Whiner. Doesn't all this remind me of that farce of a music industry? Won't all digitizable media be eventually be free to be shared by anyone (much of it already is)? Why don't you enjoy your much enhanced reach to exploit the many alternate income streams and quit whining? A good publicity stunt in any case.

Mr. Charkin and I are very far apart in our beliefs regarding the differences between real and intellectual property. But rather than confront him with the same arguments he's heard before, allow me for a moment to adopt his point of view and propose a hypothetical situation.

I'm an amateur trombonist with a keen interest in the music of Tommy Pederson. Much of Tommy's music was written for "Hoyt's Garage", an institution in the '60s that brought studio trombonists from throughout the L.A. area to play together and challenge one another during their regular gatherings in trombonist Hoyt Bohannon's garage. Some of Tommy's music was self-published, some was published by third parties, and a large body remains unpublished. Original and illicit copies of many of Tommy's works are in the possession of working trombonists today. Copies of these works are coveted by trombonists around the world.

Tommy is dead now, and so is his wife. The status of the copyrights for these works is unknown, and numerous attempts to gain permission to publish these works have failed. These are "orphaned" works -- titles for which the market is so small that there is little motivation for a publisher to maintain them in its catalog. Publishers who continue to list Tommy's works in their catalogs as permanently out of print do not respond to inquiries regarding republication rights.

If it's fair to say that Google is "stealing" from publishers, would it not also be fair to say that these publishers have "kidnapped" the works of Tommy Pederson and are holding them against their will? Would it be appropriate for me to "kidnap" one of Mr. Charkin's children (assuming he has any) for an hour or so to make my point? After all, he never explicitly told me *not* to kidnap his child.

If there are brownie points to be awarded in this misguided bit of theatricality, they most certainly go to Google for not having Mr. Charkin arrested and charged with petty larceny. Had they done so, perhaps Mr. Charkin would do a better job of discriminating between theft and misuse of intellectual property.

You made the NYT!

YOu should get a Digg button.

Richard: I think you made a valid point in a worthy way, and I applaud you for doing so.

I am really thrilled by the ‘interactive’ or ‘performative’ perspective of the somewhat surprising occurence: I think it is great to move that stubborn and redundand IPR/Google/publishers debate as far away from the lobbyist / lawyer / corporate communication routine where it got stuck.

Go for it from a user’s perspective: The next time you (or your kids) get sued for illegally ‘grabbing’ some stuff from the Internet, call it e.g. an experimental, yet recognized industry practice. Or think of the unholy controversy on open access and scientific publishing: It is probably just too simple to think that all academic exchanges can be fitted either into the costly scientific publisher’s baskets, or set up their open archives, yet with no money for the authors.

I guess what Charkin so convincingly demonstrated, is just this: We need more experiments in the rights sphere, and less legal cases. So I am just gratefully and curiously looking forward to his upcoming test runs indeed!

I do find it amusing that the people who are arguing most vociferously in favour of the internet revolution, in addition to being the ones who display the most appalling lack of irony, are the ones whose comments are the most atrociously written ("copywrite", their vs they're vs there, poor punctuation and grammar, etc.)

It's obvious why they don't lament the decline of the printed word: they already think they can get everything they need from the internet and have become so accustomed to absorbing the drivel they consume online that they don't even appreciate the value of the publisher.

Google has opened the door to a process that may well have adverse effects on the publishing industry, and that would be a great loss indeed. Free and open information is great and I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia for quick reference, but I would hope that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would think twice before actually relying on Wikipedia as an authoritative source.

My point is this: publishers are purveyors of content that has been rigorously treated for quality and, in the case of non-fiction, accuracy. They are also already a low-margin industry - no one enters it for the money. The potential erosion of already-negligible profits will hit hard, starting with the smaller independent publishers that most people who flatter themselves to be intellectuals appreciate and love. Which in the long run will mean less content for Google (in their selfless mission to serve humankind and in no way make any kind of profit, oh no) to make public.

The good thing is that now Copyright discussions are open.
Something years ago none mathers, now seems to be an important issue.
Thats was wrong Mr. Charkin. Editors should adapt and copyright laws must change for the help of the public.
We have Harry Potter someone says because of copyright laws, but how many others books have been missed cause editor didnt see the profit and now are sinking in dust?

sorry for my english, its a new language to me :$

Pablito,

Your English is great but your argument flawed. Copyright laws don't exist to protect the public; they are there to ensure that intellectual property is not stolen from the person who invested time and money into it. A product is not worth just the materials that constitute it, but also the labour and intellectual yield that went into it, and that is what allows publishers and writers to make just a little bit of money, if they are lucky. If someone can acquire the finished product without having had to put in the time and resources then they can resell it without having to cover any costs, and thus undercut the originator. This is why we have intellectual property rights.

Everyone talks about standing up for authors rights, but this is more about the publishers rights and controlling the books that are published.

It is my understanding that yes, they are scanning the books and will make excerpts available on a successful search, but will point back to a location that the book can be purchased or to the publisher's site.

What you and your colleague did was a criminal act, and should be punished as such. if joe average had pulled the stunt you did there is little doubt that he would have been hauled off by the police for theft (and if the value of the laptops were enough, felony theft, leaving him unable to vote, etc...)

I do not agree with the whole "opt out" idea that google is using, although they undoubetdly do not have the staff to contact every publisher about every book. I also do not have any idea of a fair system that would work in place of their flawed 'opt out' system.

中国人民支持你的做法

Well of course it's about publishers' rights too, Geoff - why should people be getting for free what has cost someone else time and money? And if publishers become increasingly unable to cover their costs because their finished products are being made available, in whole or in part, free of charge, then they will stop making them.

I also find it incredible that what was nothing more than a prank to illustrate a point is being met with such a gormless response. Yes, taking things that don't belong to you but to someone else is, in fact, wrong. Well spotted.

I think the luddites opposed to Google Books' work do not understand that Google does not make the full text of the book available.

Lawrence Lessig:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003791.shtml

"Google Books proposed to scan 18,000,000 books. Of those, 16% were in the public domain, and 9% were in copyright, and in print. That means, 75% of the books Google would scan are out of print but presumptively under copyright.

The publishers and Google already have deals for the 9%. And being in the public domain, no one needs a deal for the 16%. So the only thing the publishers might be complaining about is the 75% which are out of print and presumptively under copyright.

With respect to these, Google intends to index the books, and make them searchable. If a hit comes through the search engine, Google offers snippets of the text relevant to the search. The page includes links to libraries where the book might be borrowed; it includes links to book stores where the book might be purchased. And, I take it, if the “publishers” were to choose to publish the book again, it would also include a link to that publisher.

Finally, any author who wants to be removed from this index can be removed. As with Google on the net, anyone can opt out."

In other words, Mr. Charkin is a prat. And the lack of html permitted in comments only reconfirms that, with regard to the internet, he is a clueless prat.

真的很不错

Mr. Charkin is fighting the last war,, which by the way has been lost by the RIAA and MPAA because of their failure to embrace new technologies and build a sustainable business model around them The publishing industry, unless it moves quickly, is doomed to the same fate.

Silly pranks accomplish nothing.

I apreciate your criminal act at the book fair. And yes, it was indeed criminal. And they should arrest you for it! I suppose you were smart enough to leave the country before your coming out. That´s at least what Google does: acting illegal in one country and giving the publishers in the other countries no possibility to sue them. Your acting was in full consciousness of the criminal caracter. So it was a fine copy of the Google acting. They doubt no second about the illegal caracter of their library project.
I´m amazed that it took 12 days before famous Lawrence Lessig appeared in this blog. He is one of those Science-Clowns who live on the fact that they write funny things, even if no one takes them for serious (except of the glossy-eyed kids around his stage).
As a reader, I think every book should be on the internet for free. And every bit of music as well. This would be very positiv for education and the society. And every restaurant and supermarket should be open and free for everybody. This would be positive for our savings and nutrition! We all would be very healthy and die old and rich!

I really don't see whats the fuss all about. Maybe i unterstood something wrong, but isn't it true that he actually did not stole the notebook but only removed it and waited until this got noticed? As someone else pointed out, this is a prank, and its a prank with a point. Get over it.

I'm an author myself. I published articles, i published software, i contributed to books. I've given much of my stuff away free under e.g. GPL, CC or even PD. But even with that background I as the sole owner of the intellectual property of my work must insist that i'm also the sole person to decide what to give away and under which license.

The point made here is that this is what copyright actually means. I decide how my content is used. I have noticed that lately lots of people are totally ignorant to copyright which might be due to large scale abuse of copyright by large corporations. But these people not only harm (if one can say so) the big corporation but furthermore the small authors and copyright owners. Don't be a fool. Copy only when the author consents. Thats only fair.

Google sought to redeclare copyright: If you don't tell them they feel free to ignore copyright. This is neither fair nor legal (in my opionion). There is simply no excuse for this tactic. It might be true that copyright owners might benefit from things like google book search. But it is STILL the decision of the copyright owners if they want to make use of the google service and benefit.

This is what i as an author must insist on and everyone ignoring my copyright is in my opionion an A*. I love to give some of my property away for free, BUT I DECIDE. Not you, and certainly not google.