Direct action

I'm not sure if I've ever come across an example of a corporate bigwig engaging in direct action on behalf of their company. Richard Charkin, the CEO of Macmillan Nature, was understandably annoyed at Google's approach to digitisation of publishers' intellectual property.  Rather than engage some lawyers or write a letter of protest, Mr Charkin seized the bull by the horns and took a visit to Google's stand at Bookexpo America where he and a colleague half-inched a couple of laptops.

I confess that a colleague and I simply picked up two computers from the Google stand and waited in close proximity until someone noticed. This took more than an hour.

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.

'If you don't tell us we may not digitise something, we shall do so. But we do no evil. So if you tell us to desist we shall.'

I felt rather shabby playing this trick on Google. They should feel the same playing the same trick on authors and publishers.

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but one can't help but have a sneaking admiration for Mr Charkin. We might even quietly wish Macmillan well in its unlikely role as the David to Google's Goliath.

Comments

[Living in First Life Dos]

This is absurd on so many levels. It was a lame prank and not a good way to prove a point. Furthermore, it wasn't even a good comparison (copyright infringement vs. theft, hmm...).

Check out my post on it http://livinginfirstlife.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/book-publishers-steal-laptop-web-20-hysteria-spills-over-into-old-media/

[Bishop Hill]

I think we share the view that two wrongs don't make a right, but as a publicity stunt it was quite effective, I think.

In your post you say that copyright is not the same as ownership of physical property, and this is clearly correct. You don't really explain why the fact that intellectual property is non-rivalrous allows others to help themselves to it.

If a major newspaper copy and pasted one of your blog postings would you shrug your shoulders and console yourself with the fact that your story was non-rivalrous property? You might even try to leverage its publication in a newspaper to your advantage. But I think you'd be the first not to complain.