Profanity-scrubbing app *profanity in link*

[ascanius]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[cupiscent]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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