# Profanity-scrubbing app *profanity in link*



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

Chuck Wendig has a post about this here: Page not found Ã‚Â« terribleminds: chuck wendig

I don't agree with Chuck. If you buy a copy of a book, you should be able to do whatever you want with your own personal copy. That includes electronic copies, so long as you're not doing anything illegal (like selling the work, pirating etc.). In the digital age, authors and publishers try to exert control they'd never have had over copies of books post-purchase. I don't like it.

Thoughts?

EDIT: looks like I can't link to the post because of profanity in the title 

Head to Chuck's blog at terribleminds.com


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 25, 2015)

the link is broken


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

Yeah. Ironically, because of profanity. You'll have to go to Chuck's site. It's his newest blog post.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 25, 2015)

This is almost funny  - if CleanReader weren't serious...
Their substitutions seem to be close to comical [and offensive - personally I know lots of very nice and not at all bitchy witches]
I kind of agree with Chuck. 
If a hypothetical author writes in a way I feel is unappealing [not usually because of profanity for me] then I'm free to stop reading and not read anything more by them. I don't think I should be free to change the words they use to make it more palatable to my tastes.
If said mythical author writes a PG and a XXX version of the same tale, then I am free to choose which I want to read, but the author has chosen the words they want to use.
What worries me is that there is a market out there for this App.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

I think the app is a stupid idea, and I'd never us it, but people who want to use it should be able to. For their own personal copy only. That's something you could always do with a physical book. You could shred it, read it backwards, cross-out every other word, or whatever. Silly, but you had the right to do it.

I found another post about this by Cory Doctorow, and I guess I line up with his viewpoint: I hate your censorship, but I'll defend to the death your right to censor - Boing Boing


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 25, 2015)

I don't care for most profanity filters, but then I swear all the time whenever my parents aren't within earshot. I notice some of them don't even filter out the few words that I _do_ consider offensive. You know your filter's priorities are skewed when it cuts out the old f-word (rhymes with buck) but _not_ the n-word (rhymes with trigger), like this old message board I used to frequent. But even then, many words only gain their hurtful power from the context. The term for female dog is conventionally used to address female jerks, but some morons out there seem to believe it's interchangeable for women as a whole (as is the word normally used as an adjective for breadth).


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm not really sure what this guys problem is with the app. It all comes down to what is the difference between this app and a reader doing it to a hard copy. 

That and I don't think that the way he portrays the agreement between author and reader is entirely accurate. to me the agreement is not one where the reader has to accept all content. It's that the author promises a pay-off and the reader gets that pay-off by reading the book. Swearing is not necessarily integral to that system. For example, if I write a book that promises to be a zombie apocalypse and then it veers off into an alien invasion I have broken my end of the contract. Swearing is just the gloss, perhaps important to character, but not important to the agreement.


----------



## Trick (Mar 25, 2015)

All in all, if there are people who buy and read more books because of this app, I'm for it. I don't want or need to use it myself but I know a lot of people who are offended by profanity (meaning I have to watch my mouth around them, out of respect). I wrote a story for Iron Pen that had the f-word in it. I had a few family members read it because I wanted their take. My dad, who is an old fashioned man but curses plenty in certain company, was really upset that I used it in print. He said it had a permanence in writing that it doesn't in speech and that I shouldn't need to use it in my writing. That's his opinion and this app would serve his purposes well. 

There are also instances where an adult might want their tween/teen relative to read a book but don't want to be the person who contributed to the young person's bad language. This app could be useful in that regard. 

Again, I don't have any use for it myself, but as a tool for recommending good books to people offended by swearing, I see it as an opportunity to increase readership.


----------



## Panda (Mar 25, 2015)

Jabrosky, you might like this article No Offense - Profanity is changing. For the better. It's about how our society is drifting away from finding sexual/religious words offensive and now cares more about words that insult minorities. I don't remember where I originally found the link to the article (might have even been on these forums), but I read this a few days ago and found it really reassuring. (speaking as someone who thinks it's absurd that so many people are afraid to say a four-letter word that means "to have sex," but see nothing wrong with terms that degrade entire groups of people.)


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm generally against any form of censorship, even if it's individual, as it is here.

There may be valid reasons an author chose a certain word, even a cuss word. Changing that word could change the meaning or feel of the sentence. It may no longer provide the author's intent.   

If you believe in the fundamental idea: 





> Not a wasted word.


...and I do. Then I'd be against any word changes, in any fashion, and for any reason.   

Would I go crazy and sue the application or rail against the user? No. You buy the copy, do whatever you wish as long as you're not distributing the altered form. However, I'd still be against it's use...quietly opposed.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

Yeah, I think the differences comes down to "personally opposed" versus "shouldn't be allowed." I don't think authors who feel like Wendig does would have much of a legal claim here, and I don't think they should have one. I don't like the app and wouldn't use it, and I'd encourage others not to do so. But if someone decides to use it, I think they should have the right to do so.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 25, 2015)

I hate the idea, in the end it's no different than political correctness or voluntary passive cencorship.  I mean if a govenment came out and decided to censor books for profanity everyone would be in an uproar about it.  However we have no qualms about doing it to ourselves, I just don't get it.  I think this harms the author more than it helps the reader simply because the reader is given a false impression, one that the reader imposes on the author involuntarily.  It becomes to easy for the reader to believe that the author doesn't swear after they forget that the censor is turned on, ok thats kinda a guess but probably highly likely.  That also leaves the whole problem about what exactly constitutes profanity, the word FCUK yeah ok, but what about words for the human body, who decides.  Or words that depend on context, bitch is the common word used to describe a female dog with puppies.  It becomes profane when used to insult someone.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 25, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, I think the differences comes down to "personally opposed" versus "shouldn't be allowed." I don't think authors who feel like Wendig does would have much of a legal claim here, and I don't think they should have one. I don't like the app and wouldn't use it, and I'd encourage others not to do so. But if someone decides to use it, I think they should have the right to do so.


If someone really does want an app to filter out swear words from their own e-reading, I say more power to them. Read what you like. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was against swear filters ever being invented, only that I personally don't care for them. There are plenty of things out there I don't like but, since other people do like them, I'm willing to tolerate.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

@ascanius - the reader doesn't really get a false impression. They purposefully scrub the book, so they're getting the impression they're seeking. They know that the author's original work will be modified as determined by the application's algorithm.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 25, 2015)

Ascanius,

The governmental comparison is not exactly the same as a person scrubbing out their own texts. Having the government scrub a text is more problematic since it is a form of imposed thought control and manipulation of the market place of ideals. A person doing so is them picking a product and manipulating it to fit their wants and needs. Is it the same product with these changes? Yes and no. But these changes are the purchaser's choice, which is just another way the market place of ideas operates.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 25, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> @ascanius - the reader doesn't really get a false impression. They purposefully scrub the book, so they're getting the impression they're seeking. They know that the author's original work will be modified as determined by the application's algorithm.



But thats it, they get the impression they're seeking, wich is a false impression.  



Brian Scott Allen said:


> Ascanius,
> 
> The governmental comparison is not exactly the same as a person scrubbing out their own texts. Having the government scrub a text is more problematic since it is a form of imposed thought control and manipulation of the market place of ideals. A person doing so is them picking a product and manipulating it to fit their wants and needs. Is it the same product with these changes? Yes and no. But these changes are the purchaser's choice, which is just another way the market place of ideas operates.



Think of it this way.  If you were to go to Italy and go through every single museum because you know you have lots of money and nothing else to do.  And lets say you have these special glasses that censor out all nudity, breasts, etc (by making it look like they have underwear on and blends seamlessly with the the work of art so you don't even notice).  After about the first few works of art you forget about the censor and you don't actually know which peices are being censored.  How can the viewer ever truely experience those works of art for what they are and what the artist intended for them to be.  How can you cloth the Venus of Urbino http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Tiziano_-_Venere_di_Urbino_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg and keep the integrety of the piece but also the vision of the painter.  Or what about Leda and the Swan http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Leda_-_after_Michelangelo_Buonarroti.jpg, I mean seriously how the hell do you censor that without completely changing everything about the piece.  Or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Scuola_di_fontainebleau%2C_presunti_ritratti_di_gabrielle_d%27estr%C3%A9es_sua_sorella_la_duchessa_di_villars%2C_1594_ca._06.jpg,  Barberini Faun, Apollo and Daphine by Bernini, and lets not forget the most famous sculpture the Davide by Michelangelo.  How can censoring such works of art not pollute the work, not change it.   You can go through every musium on the planet with the misguided idea that no one ever displayed nudity in art, You may know it's not true, but what you have seen surely gives the impression.  You know, seeing is believing thing.   Thus you the viewer don't have to think about the implications of showing the breast of the Modonna, or the political, social, implications of the painter of The room of Amore e Psyche, the banquet scene or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Jupiter-and-olympia-1178.jpg, nor those about the buyer, friends and family and the people who lived in the time period.  That painting alone has so much more going, allusions to greek and roman myth to name a few.  Yet this is the Gonzaga Palazzo, Imagine such a painting in the living room of the president.  It shows so much about the people who create these works of art.  The david with briefs isn't the statue of David....  The sistine chapel with clothed people, or an unskinned Michelangelo?    That is why it create a false impression, Because the view no longer sees what the artist intended but only what the view imposes on the artist.  Also a government comparision is the same because in the end does it really matter if it is imposed censorship or voluntary?  In the end it is censored.  Side note A lot of statues and paintings were cesored.  Some of those artests took risks against the standard, to willingly censor works of art renders those risks meangless.  Frankly if a person is so fragile that they are offended by nudity or profanity then maybe they shouldn't be reading such works.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

@ascanius - even if all of that's true, a person should have the right to do it.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 25, 2015)

To that end Ascanius, what is not reading a book due to content anything but censorship in its greatest degree? Does a reader not deprive them of the value of the work more so by not reading it than by censoring it? Would not a person who had the chance but never saw those works of art because of nudity deprive themselves as surely as if they had on those glasses and never realized they took them off?

Essentially is not reading a book an even greater deprivation than merely editing a word here or there? I tend to think it is. Because while the version they are reading may be "watered down" that does not mean they are not receiving some benefit from it.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 25, 2015)

@Steerpike.  On that you are right, people have that right, should we give them means, no we should not, should we allow it, no.



Brian Scott Allen said:


> To that end Ascanius, what is not reading a book due to content anything but censorship in its greatest degree? Does a reader not deprive them of the value of the work more so by not reading it than by censoring it? Would not a person who had the chance but never saw those works of art because of nudity deprive themselves as surely as if they had on those glasses and never realized they took them off?
> 
> Essentially is not reading a book an even greater deprivation than merely editing a word here or there? I tend to think it is. Because while the version they are reading may be "watered down" that does not mean they are not receiving some benefit from it.



No, I think they are equal, not reading it and censoring it are the same.  The meaning, effort, risks, importance and all other intricities are lost, it matters little the manner in which they are lost be it not reading it or self censorship.  How is not all importance lost by censoring Jupiter and Olympia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Jupiter-and-olympia-1178.jpg  or https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FabB00wEi6g/UTRtqvXwz6I/AAAAAAAAA60/_Fj91LMLR8w/w1000-h795/882916_281034075361466_1783569940_o.jpg  Tell me how meaning, political, historical etc, is not lost by censor these two works of art.  Look at that last piece really good and tell me nothing is lost or how is the piece not changed by censorship.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

I don't think anyone is arguing that nothing may be lost, or that the reader may well have a poorer experience. But those aren't reasons to prohibit someone from using an app like this. It's the difference between "I don't like that" versus "let's make that illegal."


----------



## ascanius (Mar 25, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that nothing may be lost, or that the reader may well have a poorer experience. But those aren't reasons to prohibit someone from using an app like this. It's the difference between "I don't like that" versus "let's make that illegal."



Ok, good point, my honest answere is....  I lean more towards making it Illegal, yet in a way that goes against what I said.  I don't know, it really upsets me that there is a market for such an app, that people don't want to go beyond and learn and experience.  But worse that people choose, it's very disheartening.  Why try when people can choose to simply pick only what they want to see or hear.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 25, 2015)

Something is lost by censorship, but not everything. However, covering up nudity in painting and statues is not the same as covering up swearwords in a written work. It is more akin to having TV stations edit the movies they get for swears. Generally, people know what swear is supposed to be said. Like when I watched Snakes on a Plane and Sam Jackson said, "I want these monkey fighting snakes off this Monday through Friday plane!" I knew what words he was saying. But some of the punch was lost. I get that. But it makes the movie more palatable for people to see. And the edit is rather inconsequential when taking in the whole of the work. Paintings on the other hand are fewer points of reference than a novel. So any change is a big change. Covering up nudity in the Sistine Chapel is huge. Saying fetch instead of f--- well not so huge in a 99k word book not so huge.

Also, what are we as writers to do when it comes to this issue. Sure we can piss and moan but it's not like we can enforce anything legally. Because, as I understand it, the app takes what was bought from a different market place and edits it. It doesn't edit the book and then sell it on its own.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 25, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> I think the app is a stupid idea, and I'd never us it, but people who want to use it should be able to. For their own personal copy only. That's something you could always do with a physical book. You could shred it, read it backwards, cross-out every other word, or whatever. Silly, but you had the right to do it.
> 
> I found another post about this by Cory Doctorow, and I guess I line up with his viewpoint: I hate your censorship, but I'll defend to the death your right to censor - Boing Boing



Yeah, this is how I feel about things. As an author, I probably wouldn't like it, but once you purchase an item, physical or electronic, IMHO you can do what ever you want to it so long as you're not making copies and distributing them.

I mean how is this any different than watching a movie while muting the sound. Or striking out every second word to the book. How a person experiences the book is entirely up to them.

If you think about this within the context of art, don't tell me how I should or shouldn't experience seeing the Mona Lisa. If I want to get pss drunk and stoned before I go see her, then that's my choice. If I want to do the same with a book, it's my choice, too. There are no laws, nor should there be, telling me how I should experience something.

If I want to experience a book without the profanity, and if I can find the means to do so, then I should be allowed to do it.


----------



## cupiscent (Mar 25, 2015)

I've been reading a little about this this morning, and the most interesting viewpoint I've found so far is the note that, actually, one of the rights that authors/publishers (usually publishers) own is the ownership of abridged editions. Altering the book in this way (in any way, in fact) makes it an abridged edition, and a violation of copyright.

And I believe it should be protected against, because if this is allowable, what's to stop other apps that further pervert the book as written by the author? Having agonised over every word that I put into my writing, I fully support a reader's right to dislike what I've done with any of them, but that doesn't change the fact that my work is as written. Those were my choices. That is the book.

NOTE: I have done what was originally suggested before - go through a hardcopy book and make hardcopy changes to the words. That was not respectful to the book or the author.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 25, 2015)

An abridgement is typically considered a derivative work. However, under traditional copyright law, the First Sale doctrine allows a purchaser to do what they want with their own copy without violating copyright. If I buy a physical book, I can go through and strike out passages, change words, destroy the book, etc. without violating the author's copyright. That's really what is going on here, except in digital form. Barring distribution of the work, the same policies that support the First Sale doctrine should apply here as well.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 25, 2015)

Coming at this from a gamer's perspective, I don't see this as fundamentally different from modding. For that matter, it's a much smaller change than writing fanfic where the characters you like don't die. Part of putting a story in the public eye is accepting that people will create transformative works in one way or another.


----------



## cupiscent (Mar 25, 2015)

I am not against transformative works - obviously not, I've never been shy about my fanfic habits  - but a transformative work is a separate thing from the work itself. To alter the work itself and say "this is the work" seems to me to be deeply disrespectful.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 25, 2015)

cupiscent said:


> I am not against transformative works - obviously not, I've never been shy about my fanfic habits  - but a transformative work is a separate thing from the work itself. To alter the work itself and say "this is the work" seems to me to be deeply disrespectful.



Then how about this famous alteration? Sometimes in art disrespect is the point.

L.H.O.O.Q. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 26, 2015)

cupiscent said:


> I am not against transformative works - obviously not, I've never been shy about my fanfic habits  - but a transformative work is a separate thing from the work itself. To alter the work itself and say "this is the work" seems to me to be deeply disrespectful.



I also think Steerpike was using the term transformative as it relates to copyright laws. However, the point still stands this is not much different than a person buying a hardcover book and blacking out the bad words. That and I don't think someone is saying the altered version is the work. It seems they would say that this is a cleaned up version of the work where there are less swear words.

And to me, I would feel more disrespected of the work if it was dismissed out of hand, no matter how good it was, rather than altered slightly to remove swears. But, I generally believe that some exposure, even if bastardized, is better than no exposure at all.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 26, 2015)

I suppose the most direct analogy would be to that Huckleberry Finn edition that replaces the n-word with "robot."


----------



## cupiscent (Mar 26, 2015)

Or altering old cartoons to take out the racist references. Which I believe is wrong. "Cleaning up" the past just sweeps things under the rug, it doesn't help us discuss how there are still problems today. Likewise, dismissing an author's reasons for including whatever the author believed was important to the story is taking away part of the point of a story. Removing the n-word from Huckleberry Finn diminishes the power of the setting and the context.

If an author chooses not to include profanity - or whatever - in their work in order to have a wider appeal, that is the author's choice. Choosing not to read a book because it contains matter with which you do not care to engage is your own decision. But stripping the author's decisions from the text because you want to experience part, but not all, of their vision, and because don't want to feel uncomfortable, is being a lazy reader, and I will never support it.

And I believe it's different from buying a physical copy and manually blacking out the words. That is an active choice that requires effort and engagement - and also you and anyone else who picks up the text can see that it has been doctored. This app would be a passive choice involving no effort and leaving no trace.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 26, 2015)

As someone who writes with a lot of profanity, I actually embrace this app in all its glory. Why? Because I find unintentional hilarity when really graphic movies are censored for TV. Such as "I'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane" or "Yippie ki-yay, melon farmer." Since my work is laced with profanity, violence, and other objectionable things, I would love to see what this app would do to it for comedic purposes. I write mostly comedic style fiction though, so if something can somehow make it funnier, I'm fine with that myself. However, writers that feel uncomfortable with it (Lillith Saintcrow for instance wrote them saying she wants her books removed from any kind of association with the product) should have their feelings respected in that regard. From what I understand, if you tell them you want nothing to do with it (which seems kind of a pain in the ass anyway), they'll make sure you're removed. So there's that.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 26, 2015)

Cupiscent,

I'm not certain about the passive-active distinction. To me getting an app that deliberately blots out swears is an active choice. Besides, for most e-books, I doubt people have the ability to transfer them or even the desire to. However, as an author I think I would request the app makers to make any word they changed from mine a different color and allow the reader the option to read the actual word, phrase, or passage that the app changed.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 26, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Cupiscent,
> However, as an author I think I would request the app makers to make any word they changed from mine a different color and allow the reader the option to read the actual word, phrase, or passage that the app changed.



Shut the front door. That's a moldy fingers great idea.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 26, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> Shut the front door. That's a moldy fingers great idea.



You just made me snort in the middle of class. Thank you. Shoot if it wasn't for people talking louder I would have really been embarrassed.


----------



## cupiscent (Mar 26, 2015)

"Shut the front door" is a phrase that never fails to leave me helpless with laughter.  (I once had an English teacher who used the phrase "motherfrogging". Also a good one.)


----------



## Terry Greer (Mar 28, 2015)

oops - min rant coming - please forgive me - but this makes my blood boil!

Don't like the language? - then don't read the book!

Profanity now, cigarettes later - what next - (sexes of characters so not to offend those unwilling to recognize anything but heterosexual love?). What about those that are offended by having the term god in a fantasy book - when it clearly isn't their god - so shouldn't exist?

Where does it stop?

By not objecting to this from the outset we start allowing censorship via the back door - even inviting in it as it seems harmless.
Then, just like a frog placed in cold water that's slowly heated up, we never notice when a really crucial line is passed.

It's not harmless. This is detrimental to free speech

It's also potentially a form of copyright theft - the author has NOT granted permission for their work to be made available in any other form - so it actually breaks copyright. There should be a legal challenge to this.

Key to freedom of expression is the right to offend - people can be offended of course - but they get the right to not read it. 

Life's too short to try and please 6 billion people without offense.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 28, 2015)

A continuation I can see of this in the future is to set the program up to allow for patches or to let it tweak variables - to allow for better control of modding of a book or a story.
For example, you could set up a special patch for The Hobbit, and it makes it so that some of the dwarves are female instead of male - to promote gender diversity. Or you could have a patch you could download for Lord of the Rings where Sam is really a girl. 
You could distribute all kinds of cool and interesting mods for a book - like a version of Lolita where the girl is twenty one.

It could be done, and it's not completely unthinkable that it'll happen. You'd have to start somewhere, and scrubbing for profanity is a start. 
How well would it work? 
I don't know.
Would anyone read it?
Possibly - but probably/hopefully not that many. (I guess that'll be the deciding factor).


Another question that comes to mind with automated software like this is: how do you know what's been changed? If you haven't read the book before and you're not familiar with the author, how do you tell how much of the story is their work, and how much of it has been scrubbed?


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 28, 2015)

Terry Greer said:


> Then, just like a frog placed in cold water that's slowly heated up, we never notice when a really crucial line is passed.



Side note, I understand the metaphor but this has been scientifically proven to be false. 
Boiling frog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Terry Greer said:


> It's not harmless. This is detrimental to free speech



Umm... not letting people do this is suppressing freedom of expression, no? This is not automatically being applied to all copies. It's one person's choice of wither to do this to their own personal copy. This is exactly like an author saying that you can't take a physical copy of the book, which you purchased, and mark it up. This is like the author saying you can only read the book from front to back. Don't you dare try to read it back to front because that's not how the author intended you to experience the book.




Terry Greer said:


> Key to freedom of expression is the right to offend - people can be offended of course - but they get the right to not read it.



Doesn't freedom of expression allow one the right to enjoy things how they want to enjoy them? If the creator of a TV show said you can't use a DVR to skip pass the commercials, because the commercials are integral to the viewing experience, what would you say?


----------



## Terry Greer (Mar 29, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> Umm... not letting people do this is suppressing freedom of expression, no? This is not automatically being applied to all copies. It's one person's choice of wither to do this to their own personal copy. This is exactly like an author saying that you can't take a physical copy of the book, which you purchased, and mark it up. This is like the author saying you can only read the book from front to back. Don't you dare try to read it back to front because that's not how the author intended you to experience the book.



That's not the same - reading in a different order (or skipping things or closing your eyes) is not changing the text.
What's changing the text is the app - and it's that which may be suspect under copyright infringement as the author has not authorised the 'translation'.

People are free to skip over offending words and phrases - or ignore them - hell individuals can tipex or cross out the words themselves and write what they want in their own copy - you're right. 

BUT - they're not free to alter them for others - that's a fundamental tenant of copyright - they're not free to make a changed version of the text for profit or otherwise) which is what this app is doing and why its so scary. 

No doubt the app is 'safe' because it's only an enabling bit of software that sneaks through the cracks - but it goes against my main beliefs that things should not be white-washed - and that we should be adult enough to see things for what they really are. And then either accept them or reject them.

I think its part of an insidious creeping over sensitivity that permeates a lot of society nowadays - we can't just accept things as they are we have to have them all customized to our own particular pint of view - and I really hate it.

(BTW - I know the frog thing has been proven false - but the metaphor is well known and it seemed easier to use it than explain


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 29, 2015)

Terry Greer said:


> What's changing the text is the app - and it's that which may be suspect under copyright infringement as the author has not authorised the 'translation'.
> 
> BUT - they're not free to alter them for others - that's a fundamental tenant of copyright - they're not free to make a changed version of the text for profit or otherwise) which is what this app is doing and why its so scary.



What do you think of Google translate or those apps being developed that can translate things on the fly from one language to another? One could say that those things infringe on language/translation rights, limiting an author's ability to sell their stories to foreign markets. 



Terry Greer said:


> No doubt the app is 'safe' because it's only an enabling bit of software that sneaks through the cracks - but it goes against my main beliefs that things should not be white-washed - and that we should be adult enough to see things for what they really are. And then either accept them or reject them.



I dislike it probably as much as you do. Hearing/reading a bit profanity IMHO isn't harmful. But to me this program falls in the ballpark of "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## Terry Greer (Mar 29, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> What do you think of Google translate or those apps being developed that can translate things on the fly from one language to another? One could say that those things infringe on language/translation rights, limiting an author's ability to sell their stories to foreign markets.
> "



I know what you're saying - but all copyright hinges on the amount being copied - whether it's substantive or not - and that's often subjective and depends on a host of other factors - hell I've even lectured university students on it on a game design course.
However, translating a sign or a phrase or a short paragraph is (even under current copyright law) nowhere near the same as doing it for a whole book. That does infringe copyright - so I'm interested to see how this pans out.

Besides laws are made by man - we define what those laws should be - they don't exist in isolation. So what do we want our elective representatives to push for?

Copyright started with only a 14 year term in the US - and has increased to it's currently obscene life + 50 years largely as a result of lobbying from large companies such as music and Disney to prevent their works leaving copyright.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 30, 2015)

A person generally is free to alter their own copy of a work. I can highlight, underline, or even black-out text in a physical book. It shouldn't be any different with an app like this, so long as it is operating only on a local copy of a book that a reader has already purchased. I suspect if they keep going with the app, that's the way things are going to end up. As I understand the app, it doesn't even alter the underlying ebook. It's just an overlay when you're reading it, and one that the end user decides for herself to use (and how to use it).


----------



## Terry Greer (Mar 30, 2015)

yep - it does depend on how it's interpreted by the law - and the law will probably allow it along the lines of what Steerpike says - but being a mechanical translation device - that's still not a certainty. There are similar parallels with devices developed for making video games easier to play - many of which do fall outside the law despite only allowing people to play things their way(similar to what's been argued).

Legal or not - it's reprehensable and in no way should be condoned. It's a way people can sanitise what they don't want to see - like sticking fingers in their ears or wearing blinkers - or listing to fox news.

On the face of it it doesn't seem that big an issue - 'let people do what they want' seems eminently sensible. But this sort of alteration goes beyond that. Software like this by default separates people from having the same experience, from sharing the same world - there's no longer a single version of the words of the text and therefore the meaning is changed.

I do see others point of view, honestly, and my rant on this may seem excessive and petty given that (currently) it's only about what some think as profanity. After all what meaning can be lost (well from all accounts a lot of subtly and detail regarding parts of the body and actions - a lot of which are grouped to generic terms such as 'chest'). To be fair - not much if it were just this app and just this one action - but it won't be - they'll be another step taken at some point. 

Yes - I have sympathy for the view that people should be able to enjoy things in their own way - but I don't agree with it.
I see it as a symptom of a far more insidious malaise in society that won't face up to reality and would rather not see what it doesn't like.   

But quite apart from whether it's legal or not - is the question do we LIKE it?

I vote no.

Ok rant over - I won't say anything else on the subject


----------

