Apple approves e-book after dirty words removed

Apple has approved a version of Knife Music as an e-book application after the author removed words Apple considered objectionable.

(Credit: Amazon)

An e-book submitted to Apple's App Store has been approved after the author removed language that apparently offended Apple.

CNET's David Carnoy wrote a book called Knife Music last year, and attempted to submit it to the App Store as an e-book. Apple rejected his application for containing "objectionable content," which appeared to be a couple of uses of that four-letter word that starts with F.

But Carnoy decided to remove that type of language from the book, which he said didn't amount to all that many words in the first place. Upon resubmitting the application, it was approved, and can now be found on the App Store.

"I decided to censor because it wasn't that big a deal. I changed it very little. It's more important to have people check the book out--along with the whole concept of ebooks on the iPhone. It's kind of virgin territory now, but it's going to be really big soon," Carnoy said in an e-mail.

There aren't a ton of e-books themselves on the App Store, but there are also e-book reader applications that let you read e-books purchased from another web site on your iPhone. Carnoy said he preferred the standalone application approach because it's much easier to find specific books on the App Store.

[jpmays]

What a friggin' joke! What does Apple get off censoring a book because of some objectionable language? What about some of the lyrics to the music they sell on iTunes... that's even more objectionable than the few instances of the F-word in a book!

This sounds like a double standard to me! I've heard worse on television!

[solitare_pax]

Consider this:
#1. CNET will censor your post, per their Terms of Use. It censored a post I put up with this observation:
#2. This story is about a fellow CNET writer. If the story was about a writer from Taco Bell, it would never be posted here.
#3. Shameless promotion for a co-worker/friend here.
#4. Good stories don't need expletives. Neither do posts. Use a thesaurus.

[mnogrady]

In response to the commenter:

1) what does that have to do with Apples censorship - that's CNEt's business policy, not a publishers duties - Apples and Oranges!
2) Any writer censored by a publisher that CNET found out about would be basis for a News Story.
3) Not even worth responding to!
4) There is a time and a place for expletives They are used in day to day language and are protected form of speech and writing. I agree excessive use shows certain character traits, but even Presidents use one now and then. So don't tell people how to speak and write, it only shows your desire to promote the nanny state we all live in now.

I am offended that the Author would fold so easily. I guess we all make compromises, but doesn't anyone have any backbone left?

[sartor1]

Nothing that the kids/teens wouldn't hear on a play ground!
Let's face it, kids interested in reading something like this would
be pretty mature anyway! In physical and emotional age!
Geesh!

[Psyc_Prof]

I did not realize that apple was in the business of censoring free speech. Perhaps they would prefer if we just take our "objectionable conduct" laden ipods and burn them in a large pile. Would this act bring a nostalgic tear to apple's corporate cheek? Remember when . . . .Or, a smile because they know we could not resist buying a new replacement ipod, as we are hopelessly addicted to their products and will accept whatever provisions they place on our rights.

[turnkit]

If you realize that software authors are producing a type of "speech" you'd realize pretty quickly that by Apple controlling which applications can and can't be published that they've already established themselves as serious censors.

OS X is based on Open-Source software but Apple has taken a dark, dead alley by creating a model that requires all iphone apps to be approved without allowing provision for users to choose themselves.

Expect Apple and the iphone to get really hurt by this mentality and see Android to rise dramatically over time.

[t3st3r`]

(reply to next comment actually)
> OS X is based on Open-Source software but Apple has taken a dark,
> dead alley by creating a model that requires all iphone apps to be approved without
> allowing provision for users to choose themselves.
Correct. You will be surprised to learn that this is a price of EXCESSIVE FREEDOM. Software taken by apple is a BSD and some other parts. Mostly under terms of BSD License (BSDL). This license grants such huge freedom that it even allows to REVOKE this freedom from anyone else by closing sources! And surely Apple (ab)used this right to harm others. So right now you can "enjoy" by sim locks, DRM, censorship and trojan-horse-like updates which are not FOR you but usually AGAINST you. And Apple on top of all this mess rules by censoring and whatever. If for example, Cnet or anyone else will deny my right to express my opinition, well, my browser is not locked to their site. So I can always stick to another site and too nasty censors will basically harm itself with too annoying censorship. Apple is not a case. I can not install apps from anyone but Apple so I have to live with their crappy censorship and cannot use apps not approved apple! What a totalitarian company! Even Microsoft did not gone SO FAR! Shame on Apple!

[t3st3r`]

Btw, that's why I prefer Linux and GPL. GPL does not allows others to revoke freedoms by requiring to publish source so I can modify it. This is a best guarantee of your freedom - once you can modify thing it makes little sense to put moron and nasty restrictions. That's one of reasons why Linux will rock the world =)

[Gardengirl5]

I don't see why you are all so upset. The author had a choice and elected to change the book VERY slightly to be able to reach a larger audience. If the author doesn't have a problem with it ("It wasn't that big of a deal." then why do you? If it were your book, it would certainly be up to you and you could get on your metaphorical high horse about it. Relax, people!

[barbose]

Wow, you really don't get the whole principle of censorship, do you.

[ajhoughton]

Er, yeah, actually, she *does* "get the whole principle of censorship". Apparently you don't, though.

In this case, the author decided that he could still say what he wanted without using the F-word. So everything is fine.

[DreadPR]

Er, no, actually the author didnt decide that they could still say what they wanted. The author decided that it was still more important for people to check the book out even if it was saying something slightly different now.

Sorry dude, how can you really think the author hasnt been censored?

Even if someone is fine with being censored (because it may make them more money or its not a big deal to them or whatever reason) they are still being censored.

[Perry_Clease]

"I did not realize that apple was in the business of censoring free speech."

From CNET's Terms of Use:

"Publish, post, upload, e-mail, distribute, or disseminate (collectively, "Transmit") any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, or unlawful content;"

[Mmmhmm]

The difference is... this is CNET's site. It's like someone saying you're allowed to visit our house and use our facilities as long as you play by our rules under our roof. People often fail to recognize that alongside free speech comes the right to allow or disallow someone on your property or use of your service for any reason, simply because it's yours. A business can refuse to do business with you and they don't have to have a 'good reason'. If I owned a shop and decided not to sell someone something, I'm within my right to deny it, because it's my business and my product until it's been bought from me. In the same way if I'm running a bookstore, I can choose what books I want to stock and not stock. Some may call this bad business, but regardless it is the owner's prerogative. Apple wasn't saying this person was not allowed to market their book, simply that Apple would not market it. Apple did not want their name connected to that type of content, and they're allowed to make that choice. It doesn't infringe on the author's rights, because the author may have a right to free speech, but they don't have the right to insist someone else endorse, promote, make available or sell their free speech :)

[Perry_Clease]

@ by Mmmhmm January 15, 2009 5:57 PM PST

I agree with you. I was pointing out pretty much the same thing to the Psych Prof

[Psyc_Prof]

I agree with both of you. Apple is well within their rights to choose the content it wishes to provide. I never said they could not do this, or that such a practice was not common place. I was simply commenting that their choice may be the wrong one. Particularly considering the content they provide with their music and movie services.

[definitelynotabadperson]

Not to mention the comment area here is public.

[Perry_Clease]

Go look up the book at the iTunes Store it is free, but it is an iPhone "App."

The story is about a 17 year old girl who commits suicide after describing in her diary a sexual encounter with a Doctor. The doctor is trying to clear his name.

So if the "F Word" is in there it could be considered, by some, to be child porn. There are explicit items on the iTunes Store so Apple is not censoring everything there.

[SeizeCTRL]

***? I can download R rated movies and gangsta rap all day long... why aren't those removed? Fracking double standards!

[Perry_Clease]

"***"

Why don't you spell that out?

[SeizeCTRL]

Because C|net has their silly little word filters they do not like. But at the same time, they are not selling R rated movies and gangsta rap with explicit lyrics.

It is rather ironic that they post about this being an issue, yet they are not allowed to print the offending word.

[t3st3r`]

> Fracking double standards!
Exactly. Apple simply granted self a excessive set of rights. They are ONLY authority which decides what you can do on iPhones. And even MS has not gone so far as to disable to download programs and content from anywhere except their site. So you can always download 3rd party apps and content. Unfortunately, Apple probably prefers hardcore totalitarianism and wants to rule the world on their own. So you can not legally and officially download something from anywhere but Apple's own stuff and therefore you're FORCED to "enjoy" by their censorship.

[cdotspace]

This made me think about the Apple television commercial that introduced the Mac. - I guess 1984 won't be like "1984" but 2009 will?

"Macintosh" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

"1984" - http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232075798&sr=8-2

[saunderscc]

Great marketing ploy IMO. Who would otherwise even know of this book without this story?

[johnqh]

The funny thing is, the original CNET story talked about the paragraph which Apple objected to, and said something like "we also cannot show you the paragraph either".

Hey, CNET, have some guts, show us the juicy stuff!

[kool_skatkat]

That's the way until they have a way to mark the app as "explicit". Removing a few words might be better than an explicit tag or banning.

[baisa]

The actions of a private entity like Apple are not and cannot be "censorship" -- censorship is only possible by use of force, and thus only (legally) possible to the government. Private actions are expressions of individual rights, including the right to not publish something one considers objectionable -- the author's choice is to accept the condition or not. If Apple has no legal ability to set standards, then IT has no rights.

Now, that said, I personally think that the author was wrong to give in, and I think Apple is wrong to complain about some swear words. The appropriate way to deal with this is to have ratings, and assign a more adult rating to works with adult language or situations, just like with movies and video games.

[pattrickd]

so does that mean classics like Catcher in the Rye or A Clockwork Orange will never make it to the eShelf? How about Shakespeare's, they contain 16th century nastiness!

[karenand]

I think people are not aware of how many channels routinely censor artistic expression. Major films that are shown on airplanes have edited to remove R-rated language ? I only found this out because I have a friend who his hired to do the voice of a particular Hollywood actor for this rewritten dialog! I don't have a problem with Apple setting these standards for the iTunes store, as long as there is a mention that a book is an edited iTunes version. I would have a problem if there was NO publishing outlet for free artistic expression. But there is, and people who prefer the story with Fwords are free to decide to buy there copy of the book there.

[t3st3r`]

Wow. Apple has gone too far. Does "think different" means "enjoy by our censorship, Luke" ? What a totalitarian company!

[AppleSuxLeo]

Apple IS a dirty word. Apple...the walled , overpriced garden.

[fmixell]

When I was reading this I couldn't seem to get past the fact that you can just write books and publish them in the Apple store. I bet within the next couple years as ebooks start to gain popularity the amount of useless garbage in the Apple store will become so large that they change there mind about that rule. I'm not saying anything about the book above I'm sure its a great book because it was written by a great source, but there are so many people out there that are going to think they are authors now. I could write my own auto-biography right now and submit it. Why would anyone want to buy that? I don't know about that Apple iThink (that was clever) that you need to rethink that rule. <a href="http://www.kindlestore.webs.com/">Visit My Website</a>

[protozee222]

Not good, he had to bow down to the big corportions whims. Soon they will have to write what they say and not use any of the words on apples black list, this is not good!!!
I guess theres a lot of rewriteing going on today!!!