Knife Music e-book approved for App Store after language modification
By Darren Murph 
posted January 16th 2009 12:37PM
posted January 16th 2009 12:37PM
posted January 16th 2009 12:37PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This kind of censorship is stupid. Apple doesn't need to be telling me what I can and can't read.
Or you could you know get the book and not read it in teeny weeny eye strain-o-vision.
I am still holding out for Terrance Mann books to be sold, then we'll know the fight is over.
I am still holding out for Terrance Mann books to be sold, then we'll know what's up.
Apple isn't telling you what you can and can't read. They are making an executive decision to provide a censored product. Whether the decision is a good one or not, well, that's where capitalism kicks in. But they certainly have the right to do so.
It's kind of like if you owned a company and had medical information about one of your employees which could dramatically your shareholders' assets and holdings decisions. Do you tell them everything, or do you black out certain information? (I'm just saying.)
Here is a first, I gave Zak a [+].
I think the end of the world will be happening in, oh, about 20 minutes.
NH - Yes they damn well are. They're telling me I am not allowed to read dirty words. Justify that all you want, but that is exactly what they are doing.
Nohone - just because you don't seem to be able to grasp why I respond to people here most of the time doesn't mean I'm a rabid Apple fanboy, contrary to popular belief.
@Zak:
Well, it sounds like a "you" problem then. I don't let Apple tell me that I can't read dirty words. I just use my wallet to get them from someplace other than Apple.
Well obviously you can go out and buy the book. How is that even remotely related to the point at hand?
In case you need a refresher, here is the problem: Apple is censoring content on the App store. That is not a "me" problem as I am not the one doing the censoring. Apple is. How do you not have a problem with that?
If Home Depot doesn't sell tampons, is that censorship? No, it's a decision made by a company about what it wants to offer as products.
@Fry-Guy
Since when did Home Depot start selling tampons?
...oh i see what u did there.
@Zak
Apple is not just telling you what you can and can't read. They are telling you what you can and can't read on their device, aquired through their distribution system. Although I don't agree with that, there's nothing wrong about it. NHAnimator's point was that if you disagree strongly you can always aquire the uncensored material elsewhere, because we live in a (mostly) open country.
Not exactly the big cut-n-dry 'Apple Censors Artist's Content' easy judgement everyone's looking for - his book could have gone uncensored if he stuck it in the ebook section, eReader, supported by iTunes as their offering to ebook readers, where books regularly use language to make dock workers blush if they want.
But the author instead wanted to differentiate his book from that cluttered and oft-ignored outlet by making a dedicated app of his book, probably a first for Apple, and they don't have a warning system to handle the type of content he was offering. So I blame the author too a little for this 'censorship' by conceding, and he clearly feels the trade-off is worth it.
The solution is for Apple to create a warnings/ratings system for their App Store like music, movies and games have.
if i owned a boutique music label i'd elect not to publish much of the gangsta rap that's out there. if i ran a small radio station i'd elect not to have some of those songs on my playlissts. what's the difference with apple's stance? you can get that content elsewhere, they just choose for it not to be part of the environment they created and manage.
i also think the author's decision to take out a few words proves the point that much of today's movies/tv/books could be just as significant without provocative content that's unrelated to theme or plot or characterization. bet you the author thinks that's the case with this book, or he wouldn't have done it.
@ NHAnimator: no fair that you got low-ranked dude.. I kinda agree with you..
Apple's problem is two-fold, and it all boils down to parental controls / empowering parents.
Right now, if a parent gives their 15-year old kid an iPhone, they have no control over the kid's experience unless they want to constantly supervise/nag their kid.
And Apple has no way of configuring an iPhone to recognize that it's owned by a kid, so only offer xyz content, don't offer wyz content, etc.
Apple needs to add infrastructure similar to say, the Xbox 360 account configuration and parental controls. Then, they need to add a system of rating content in the app store. Once that's done, if the app store content is flagged as mature, it shouldn't show up at all if the user is (declared to be) a kid. The account configuration could be done with ATT, where the parent can tell ATT, "this is a minor's accout".
Until they have this kind of infrastructure in place, I don't think Apple has any option but to continue these random acts of censorship. If they don't they'll soon get sued by some irate parent..
Their goal is there: 1 billion downloads, and it's only half way, they had no choice but to unbuckle the belt a lil bit.
Who unbuckled? Apple approved it after he changed the words.
Then how can you explain Apple's sudden approval of a cr*pload of browsers, all in once, just the other day?
I can't believe David Carnoy caved in. Money before integrity, I suppose.
The book is free though.
WTH is this? Cable? Can they print "damnit" but not "GOD damnit"?
Don't these apps have some sort of rating system anyway? Why is this not just given a higher rating and then we move on?
I found IPhone's 2.0-2.1 firmware the most objectionable content on the IPhone. I'm also offended by the number of not-free beer pouring apps that they've allowed on the app store.
I find it strange that they sensor this kind of thing but not app names. After my app iFight entered the top 100 list some dude decided to go an make the same app with same functionality and calls it iFight! with an exclamation point. What was the point of a two month review process?
If you don't stop plugging your shitty app into every post, I will use the tools in this lab to develop a way to reach through this monitor and punch you right in the mouth.
Why not put a ban on the countless stupid Fart and Beer apps, plus the pointless single dialer apps that are chocking the hell out of the store.
I know 5 year old kids that know every cuss word in the dictionary, so what's the big deal.
I wish Apple would get on it and just sell e-books on iTunes, where the last time I checked I could get music with explicit lyrics. Then they can just add an e-book reader app and get books from the store instead of putting the whole book in the App store.
That and a 7 or 8 inch tablet...
I agree... why deny an ebook with explicit language, but allow music with explicit lyrics?
Who in the hell would want to lug around a non-existent Apple tablet?
You want a real tablet, get one that actually exists and is nearly flawlessly implemented, a Windows based one.
Waiting for Apple to come out with a tablet is an exercise in stupidity and futility.
This is the Apple solution to this, it appears:
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/07/11/itunes-77-provides-ebooks-for-the-iphone-and-itouch/
I don't know, I'll just stick with my Kindle.
Let's get the terminology right, please. This is NOT censorship. Censorship comes from governments, not from private companies. What Apple is doing may be unpopular with part of the online community. It may be viewed as "wrong" or "restrictive" or "unfair", but it isn't censorship.
Apple, by means of being a private company can choose to allow or not allow whatever content they deem appropriate on their service. The term "censorship" is not applicable here because Apple is not part of our or any government. As private companies: Apple, YouTube, eBay, you name it...they ALL have the right to control what content is placed on the servers they own. There's a reason that big-name companies just don't allow offensive material: they are protecting their image. That's why you can't download adult films from iTunes. Apple just chooses to not go there and they have every right to make that choice.
Anyone who doesn't like Apple's stance has the right to start up their own company and place Mr. Carnoy's book on it with all the original words intact. That's perfectly illegal. It is Free Speech and it is protected from our government by the 1st Amendment whether they like the content or not. That same person displaying Mr. Carnoy's book has the right to draw the line wherever they see fit on what content they do and do not allow to be shown on the servers they own.
Now if someone, even Apple, wanted to place Mr. Carnoy's original book on their service and the government tried to step in and stop it, then THAT would be censorship.
I think apple is still trying to find a way to deal with the idea of an explicit app. There are a lot of kids that have the ipod touch, and the last thing apple wants to do is piss off a bunch of parents that just shelled out all that green.
they need to just add the rating, and then put the parental controls into effect on the phones and ipods.
Apple isn't telling you what you can and can not do, it is just telling you what it is willing to do, big difference.
You guys have totally missed the point. It's not about the novel and whether some words are banned or not. It's got little to do with censorship. It's about the concept of reading a novel on an iPod or iPhone. It's called proof of concept. If it takes off, then there will be a special area for adults only where one can download adult material. You want the full book with all the words intact? Go to Amazon. No Kindle edition there, I note, so the book will cost you $15.95 plus shipping. The App-version is FREE so you can see whether you like reading on that tiny screen.
A work around is to put your favorite book complete with dirty words in .pdf format on your computer, download one of the apps like "Air Sharing" that lets you treat your i-device like an external hard drive, and move the .pdf to your i-device and then read it on the small screen and see if you can finish the book before you go blind.
ask me if I give a Shi*
Why is this on Engadet?
Do u give a sh.....ill stop
censorship is not cool
#$*% right it's not!
If I put up a website where people buy/download ebooks, applications, music, or whatever, and chose to limit the offerings to those things I personally liked and thought worthwhile, nobody would give a damn about my criteria for choice or rejection. There are thousands of blogs out there that do basically that, linking to Amazon or wherever with some associate link so the blogger makes a couple of cents. Even if I got big enough that I had creators directly submitting things to me for review, not many people would care about my criteria (maybe I just happen to *like* iFight! better than iFight for some reason, whatever the hell they are).
However, when someone on the scale of iTunes gets into the business of content filtering or reviewing for "quality", then it's more significant, for a couple of reasons. If the only way I can get my application/ebook/music/whatever into that important a market is to follow that market's possibly arcane and arbitrary rules, then I am put into a position of being forced to choose whether the sales are important enough to alter my ideas of the product.
This has been a problem for years with Wal-Mart, because of the scale on which they operate. They sell such a large percentage of magazines and CDs, for example, that they can make demands on content limits. Even the threat of being unable to sell through Wal-Mart leads to self-editing with that market in mind.
Yeah, I know that *technically* the meaning of "censorship" applies to government restricting of content, but in common *usage* the meaning extends to private entities like iTunes or Wal-Mart, especially when they're market dominators. Further, if I as a writer, for example, know that some directions I could take with my writing may lock me out of major markets, I'm going to think pretty hard about whether that is worth it. That's effectively self-censorship. If the difference is leaving out a few "bad" words, I'd likely do it without more than a bit of grumbling. At what point, though, does a market's use of its power to influence content become intolerable enough for consumers and creators to reject that market?
The other reason it's problematic for iTunes to base acceptance or rejection on an internal review of content or "quality" is that it puts a stamp of approval on the product. So, if bad consequences come from a download of a product, iTunes has included itself in the lawsuit crosshairs. I dunno, maybe iFight or iFight! triggers epileptic fits when used, or the use of iFart is so infuriating to bystanders that fights break out.
Maybe sanitizing the language of Conroy's Knife Music softens the harshness of the story so the alleged rape and career-destruction that the book is apparently about don't really seem that bad, and somebody thinks it's a good way to get back at someone. That would be bad.
You make some valid points, DQKennard, but the fact still stands that the operators/owners of iTunes have the right to control what is on iTunes. Similarly, the owners/operators of Wal-Mart have the right to control what is on their shelves. Now, if giant companies are using their market share to unfairly influence content back up the chain (unfairly here means in terms of political views as opposed to nudity or profanity), then that's another discussion.
But, if Wal-Mart thinks this month's issue of Maxim magazine has too much nudity in it, then they have the right to NOT place it on the shelves. Maxim's sales will be hurt. Maxim can then choose to reign in the nudity or sell at places other than Wal-Mart. Nothing about that is unfair.
Another poster made the point as clearly as I've ever heard it made: there is a world of difference between my saying you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW that content and my saying I CHOOSE TO NOT SELL that content on my service.
In the end, the free market will (should) always win and drive the decisions of businesses. If enough people want to buy music with explicit lirics at Wal-Mart, then they will (eventually) reverse their policy and start selling it.
The idea of apps for each book is terrible. It'll work while there's a few, but when there's hundreds of books I think it's much better to do something like selling it to people using stanza. And then you can swear as much as you like.
There are dozens of Bible-Apps for the iPhone. Some are chok full of graphic depictions of violence, bigotry, torture. How many of them got censored?
I'm just saying...