# Clean Reader. What do you think of it?



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/03/25/[expletive]-you-clean-reader-authorial-consent-matters/

(Warning: Wording in article designed to offend clean readers.)

The app CleanReader is designed to scrub the profanity from ebooks. Their tagline is "Read books, not profanity."

What do you think?

_*ETA - to get to the article you have to replace [expletive] in the URL above with the F-word._


----------



## William Meikle (Apr 19, 2010)

I agree with Chuck. I use profanity in my books for a reason and to deny the existence of it is to deny some of the heart of the book.

Also, it's telling that their 'cleansing' also whitewashes names of body parts. It's book reading for people ashamed of their sexuality and I think that psychologically damaging, especially if they're using it as a learning tool for kids.

And thirdly, it's telling that their suggested replacement word for 'b*tch' is 'witch' - this smacks of puritanism to me.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

First, technically, if it's a pass-through app that actively censors as you read, we don't really have a say in the consent thing. It's no difference from some nutball going through their paper book with a magic marker.

That said, the whole thing is patently stupid. For one, if you don't want to read books with 'bad' words, DON'T READ THOSE BOOKS. Don't go and mangle them to be 'acceptable'. For another, the app is actually terrible. Much like forum censorship software, it employs a simple string replace, resulting in 'blind idiot' censorship that would for example, censor the url for the Pen Island website.

But most importantly, the app creators aren't blind idiots, they're dangerous idiots. They replaced the string for 'female sexual organ' with 'bottom'. Think about that a second. They think it's perfectly reasonable to say that babies come out of bottoms. This is the kind of thinking that should come with mandatory mittens to keep you from manipulating fine objects out of fear that you might jam them in your eye.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

It's a f*&!#ng abomination.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

It does seem a bit sacrilegious to omit the swearing.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Also, "He stuck his whole groin in her bottom".

So much less dirty! Thanks CleanReader!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

FYI, Mark Coker has decided Smashwords will not allow its books to be "Clean-Read." I imagine Smashwords is how most of us get to PageFoundry, so I guess we don't have to worry about this: http://www.smashwords.com/about/beta

The Cory Doctorow article Mark cites is good: http://boingboing.net/2015/03/25/i-hate-your-censorship-but-i.html I also appreciate the points Joanne Harris makes about the app's religious bias.

I need to consider this a little more (just heard about it this morning), but I think I agree with Doctorow: once a reader buys/licenses a book, I'm fine with their doing whatever they want to their personal copy. That includes doing stuff I think is silly/counterproductive, like blacking out or replacing bad words. When I read paperbacks, I regularly correct punctuation errors and typos (because I can't help myself), and when I teach or write about books, I mark them up heavily. This is my right -- I don't own the intellectual property, but I own that physical copy of it.

Things are less clear to me legally with ebooks because they're licensed, not owned. But my tendency is to think of them the same way -- once you license it, you have your own personal copy, and you can fiddle with it as much as you like.

To my mind, Clean Reader isn't behaving like former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who covered up a bare-breasted statue at the Department of Justice (I know, I know ... embarrassing). When Ashcroft did that, he affected everyone's engagement with the artwork because there was only one copy of it. But making alterations to your own copy of a book doesn't affect anyone else's experience of the book. It's not at all like "censorship," IMO, because you're not imposing your omissions/changes on anyone else.

I have a feeling my position on this isn't going to be the majority one -- and, FWIW, my novels contain a fair amount of profanity. I bet Clean Reader would make several hundred changes to each of them.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> First, technically, if it's a pass-through app that actively censors as you read, we don't really have a say in the consent thing. It's no difference from some nutball going through their paper book with a magic marker.
> 
> That said, the whole thing is patently stupid. For one, if you don't want to read books with 'bad' words, DON'T READ THOSE BOOKS. Don't go and mangle them to be 'acceptable'. For another, the app is actually terrible. Much like forum censorship software, it employs a simple string replace, resulting in 'blind idiot' censorship that would for example, censor the url for the Pen Island website.
> 
> But most importantly, the app creators aren't blind idiots, they're dangerous idiots. They replaced the string for 'female sexual organ' with 'bottom'. Think about that a second. They think it's perfectly reasonable to say that babies come out of bottoms. This is the kind of thinking that should come with mandatory mittens to keep you from manipulating fine objects out of fear that you might jam them in your eye.


I taught biology in high school. You would be surprised at how much students don't know about their own bodies. One teenager actually asked how you "pee out a baby." By the end of class, everyone knew how babies were born.

I agree that if they don't want to read offensive words, they should not read the book. Or watch TV. Or send their kids to public school. Or go out in public.

This was mentioned on PG a while ago. If I remember correctly, the idea was to keep kids from reading books with bad words.
I was an avid reader as a child and I don't recall ever reading a book written for my age group that had bad words in it.
I actually learned all about bad words from the kids on the bus. (And I was pretty sheltered as a child).

I did read S. King when I was a young teen and was surprised by the language- but his books weren't written for a teen, so again, I don't see a problem.

So are they going to censor the Bible too? I don't particularly care for incest in the Bible. Or the acceptable rape or threesomes/orgies. Yes, it's in there. The Bible is probably the dirtiest book I ever read. And I write erotic romance!!!


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

I stand with Chuck and Lilith Saintcrow on this one.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, "He stuck his whole groin in her bottom".
> 
> So much less dirty! Thanks CleanReader!


That's a much more disturbing image than the original text. Yikes!

We need a clean reader for the CleanReader.

Let's just wipe out all the words and go back to grunting.

Or do like the smurfs: make most words Smurf or smurfy.

Have a Smurfy Day!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Also, if you read Wendig's blog, there's mention that this thing was 'inspired' by their kid coming home from school 'sad' that a book she liked had profanity in it.

Sad.

That there was profanity.

In a book.

I'm not even sure if the process in a Clockwork Orange can do that to a kid. It's just... GAH.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, if you read Wendig's blog, there's mention that this thing was 'inspired' by their kid coming home from school 'sad' that a book she liked had profanity in it.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> ...


I wonder what the profanity was. I wish I knew the name of the book.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, "He stuck his whole groin in her bottom".


Profanity aside, am I the only one thinking that this sentence could probably have done with some improvement long before it went through the app?


----------



## Accord64 (Mar 12, 2012)

I read Mark Coker's SW update and I don't agree with his stand against Clean Reader. I don't have a problem with the concept, so long as it only affects a personal copy and doesn't change the original content being sold through the retailer. 

One of my novels (and an upcoming release) contains profanities. However, I understand that there are readers that don't like the use of obscenities in book they read. I can respect that. I can get over some four-letter words being censored in my book if it leads to more sales. Punishing (and belittling) a reader for their personal preferences seems like a poor business decision to me.


----------



## 75910 (Mar 16, 2014)

What's sad is that the creators of this app have given words in a book this much power over their lives that they felt an intervention was necessary. It's a book. A story. It has words and *ideas *in it. One would think that the ideas would have the power but they don't see that.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Personally I don't want people who would use this app to read my books. I'm not the writer for them.

[Edited to remove D2D response about PageFoundry and Clean Reader because PageFoundry has pulled their catalog from Clean Reader. Thank you PageFoundry!]


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

When I add profainty into my stories, it's for good reason.

Got an issue with that? Then maybe stop reading it.

Also the kid being "sad" because of curse words is just down right weird. They also most likely were put in there for a reason.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Yeah, I'm not even bothering to look at the article.  I am not offended if someone doesn't want to read certain words.  Whatever floats your boat.  Really don't care.  I hope the app reaches its target audience, works properly for them, and makes books more enjoyable.  Don't like?  Don't use.  No pearl clutching here.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> ...I think I agree with Doctorow: once a reader buys/licenses a book, I'm fine with their doing whatever they want to their personal copy. That includes doing stuff I think is silly/counterproductive, like blacking out or replacing bad words. When I read paperbacks, I regularly correct punctuation errors and typos (because I can't help myself), and when I teach or write about books, I mark them up heavily. This is my right -- I don't own the intellectual property, but I own that physical copy of it.
> 
> Things are less clear to me legally with ebooks because they're licensed, not owned. But my tendency is to think of them the same way -- once you license it, you have your own personal copy, and you can fiddle with it as much as you like.
> 
> ...


This is my position on it, too.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I'm not against it because I don't think people have a right to cross out words or add commas. I'm against it because it's fear-based. First it's words, then it's ideas.


----------



## lthanlon (Sep 26, 2014)

Could this work in reverse? Just imagine a version of "Winnie the Pooh" in which instead of "Oh, bother!" he declares "Bite me!"


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Do I like it?  No.
Am I losing sleep over it? Also no. 

Heck, I'm almost tempted to grab it myself just to see what nonsense it turns my books into.  Being that my main series is comedy, this might actually make some of the stuff in it funnier - from a WTH standpoint. 

Honestly, if this makes a few folks feel better about sanitizing their lives, I couldn't care less.  

But boy won't they be surprised if they ever show up to a book signing and I greet them with a "How the f*** are you doing?"  Try using an app to censor that.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

lthanlon said:


> Could this work in reverse? Just imagine a version of "Winnie the Pooh" in which instead of "Oh, bother!" he declares "Bite me!"


I want this. Would someone please make this?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I want this. Would someone please make this?


We should start working on a translation glossary.

Like =
Love = 
A friendly handshake =


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> We should start working on a translation glossary.
> 
> Like =
> Love =
> A friendly handshake =


This is Pooh we're talking about. Maybe we should start with "honey."


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

MyraScott said:


> What do you think?


Fuck censorship.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, if you read Wendig's blog, there's mention that this thing was 'inspired' by their kid coming home from school 'sad' that a book she liked had profanity in it.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> ...


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Was just reading an update on Wendig's blog and PageFoundry sent a tweet that they've pulled their catalog from Clean Reader:

https://twitter.com/pagefoundry/status/581160159352889344


----------



## Holland d&#039;Haas (Mar 11, 2015)

One of the reasons I'm against this is the same reason I'm against trigger warnings on general fiction: What is offensive, what is traumatizing, is so different from person to person that there is no way to appropriately warn of or censor it all. Instead, they take a bias from one or two popular perspectives regarding what is considered profane and bleep it out. It only just so happens that this couple considers swear words profane. What's censored would completely change depending on the person making it, and I don't think this concept is sending a good message for this very reason.

The program they have is just a simple search-and-replace with a few different word lists and a quick reader. It would take those of us with an ounce of programming experience a half hour to make, maybe a few hours on Google without it.

So if this is being popularized and used and considered acceptable, _there is nothing to stop a hundred other loons from making their own versions_ that censor out different "explicit" concepts. Perhaps one would remove sex scenes altogether? The other could remove any gore leading up to a character death. No big deal, right? But you could also replace one religion with another, or even remove it altogether. Yes, you could even completely censor certain races out of books. Don't like minorities? No worries. A few days of programming can make an app to white-ify all the characters for you! Or, like this has levels of profanity, you could choose which races to remove to suit all levels of racism. How exciting.

It's no big deal, right? It's not their fault they find it offensive, and it should be up to the parents what their kids are exposed to, right? It doesn't matter to us because the books are already sold and out of our hands. The money's in our pockets, so who cares what kind of message our books could be twisted around to give to impressionable young children? It's just a harmless little app!

I'm not saying this is going to happen - just that having an app which censors books in this manner has the potential to set some very bad standards.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I think trigger warnings are a good thing  especially if one is describing a rape or domestic violence in very graphic details. 

Now as far as cleaning up profanity in a book, it might be fun to do a p0rn book just to see how hilarious it sounds.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

" The Maughans earn a small commission from books purchased through the app."

"The idea came to them when they were trying to find books for their precocious fourth grade daughter. "In order to challenge her as a reader," Jared says, "we had to present her with books that were a little bit older." But after starting a book she had checked out of the library, she told her parents, "It had some pretty significant swear words in it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/03/06/this-freaking-app-can-sanitize-the-heck-out-of-any-book/

So THEY chose an inappropriate book for a 4th grader and the solution is to create an APP to fix it, instead of, I don't know, finding an age appropriate book?

Smurfin' smurfs!

By the way, Thanks to Mark Coker for removing Smashwords books from being included in that app.

I don't think 4th graders should be reading my erotic romances anyway, though I would LOVE to see the substitutions.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Jim Johnson said:


> [expletive] censorship.


This says it all. We can't even express our thoughts here on the KB, and people complain about this?

How about Americans do something about the American obsession with "bad words" to the point of being blind to the major issues dealt with in books?


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

This is the best article. It has the substitutions listed:

http://www.romancenovelnews.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1167:my-clean-reader-app-experience&Itemid=53

the slang word for ejaculate is "juice"
and a BJ is "pleasure"

And they really seem focused on "bottom" sex since a woman's genitalia is replaced with the word "bottom."

All about the guy's pleasure but not so much for women. When will the 1950s go away?

I am concerned with fact that they are changing the words and getting paid for it. Sounds like copyright infringement to me. But I'm no lawyer.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

williammeikle said:


> I agree with Chuck. I use profanity in my books for a reason and to deny the existence of it is to deny some of the heart of the book.
> 
> Also, it's telling that their 'cleansing' also whitewashes names of body parts. It's book reading for people ashamed of their sexuality and I think that psychologically damaging, especially if they're using it as a learning tool for kids.
> 
> And thirdly, it's telling that their suggested replacement word for 'b*tch' is 'witch' - this smacks of puritanism to me.


I use mostly mild profanity in my books--stuff that appears on broadcast television. One F-bomb in my 400,000+ word series, but I have no problem reading it in other books if it fits. I just watched Netflix's Bloodline, which played out more like a novel than a TV show, and it had a ton of F-Bombs and they totally fit. I couldn't see that show without them.

As far as cleaning up the sexy parts, that would make for some awkward reading. Personally, I don't care for many of the terms in some of the more risque books, but that's just me. They don't offend me, they just aren't very sexy to me.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

dianapersaud said:


> And they really seem focused on "bottom" sex since a woman's genitalia is replaced with the word "bottom."


They really are, aren't they? They've actually managed to make sex ruder.


----------



## fantasy-writer (Dec 12, 2014)

Becca Mills said:


> I want this. Would someone please make this?


Not Winnie the Pooh, but it's with the Count. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Wd-Q3F8KM


----------



## HAGrant (Jul 17, 2011)

MyraScott said:


> http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/03/25/[expletive]-you-clean-reader-authorial-consent-matters/
> 
> (Warning: Wording in article designed to offend clean readers.)
> 
> ...


Horrible. It makes me want to invent a reader that will insert swear words in ebooks. Rude Reader.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Ella Summers said:


> Not Winnie the Pooh, but it's with the Count.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Wd-Q3F8KM


Brilliant.


----------



## Iain Ryan (Jun 25, 2014)

dianapersaud said:


> the slang word for ejaculate is "juice"


Hah, this is heaps more offensive.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

If people want to read books without swear words or other "offensive" content, that's their privilege. I have a good friend who closes a book at the first swear word and won't read any further, and doesn't like sex or violence in the books she reads either. If they want to choose books that don't have that content, that's their right.

But, as a writer, every word in my books is there for a reason. I have a grand total of 1 f-word in all my published books so far (and a rough draft with one), and it's there for a reason. It's used in its correct meaning, not just as a swear word, and shows something important about the character who uses it and his attitude. In the rough draft, it's there for a reason - again used in its correct meaning, and because it's the best word the character can use to describe what the man she thought loved her did to her. Replacing the word with something milder will ruin the impact and characterization I was going for.

The funny thing is, this app would completely miss my character's favorite insult from the series I'm working on right now - "sheepknocker" ("knock" being this world's equivalent of the f-word).


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

When someone buys a book can't they do whatever they want with it? That's their choice. I don't see what the big deal is. If they want to go through their copy of Twilight and replace Bella and Edward with Hillary Clinton and Jabba the Hutt, more power to them.


----------



## 67499 (Feb 4, 2013)

When I first started reading this thread, I thought we were talking about a Lewis Black joke.  Too bad we aren't.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I think they should replace ALL mentions of sex organs with "part."

"Please...please put your part in my part," she moaned.

In fact, I'm going in RIGHT NOW and adding that sentence to the new book.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Monique said:


> It's a f*&!#ng abomination.


And Monique wins the Internet.

In my opinion, it has a problematic religious bias and it's anti-woman. There's no reason aside from some good old misogyny over icky sticky girl parts to not replace the C and P words with the medically correct and technical term "vagina."

Call it "The Christian's Clean Reader" and stop erasing female sexuality completely, and I would hate it a smidge less. Though, I would still hate it.

I don't like people erasing vaginas, and erasing women's sexuality. Calling every single bit between a woman's legs "bottom" is outrageous.

I also would much rather have my child (who is now almost 19, but let's pretend she's younger) read something with the F, C, P, C, P, A and other words in there than something ridiculous like "bottom" to try to make her feel ashamed of her own body parts and sexuality, and teach her that people's bodies have acceptable parts and unacceptable parts, and that human adults can be that GD ignorant as to be that horrified at reading a _word_. And yes, I know how harsh that sounds. I mean it to be.

Jesus, I'm appalled.

What's next, "The White Reader?" Every mention of color and nationality is changed to white and USA. "The Pacifist, Conformist Reader." Tyler Durden kicked the skyscraper as he passed and said, "Shucks, I wish I could do something about all this corporate greed, but ho-hum."

May this fizzle out with an impotent pop, soon.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Christopher Bunn said:


> When someone buys a book can't they do whatever they want with it? That's their choice. I don't see what the big deal is. If they want to go through their copy of Twilight and replace Bella and Edward with Hillary Clinton and Jabba the Hutt, more power to them.


It isn't just about replacing "Bella" with "Hillary."

If you look at the word replacements, it's gender biased.
the slang for a man's ejaculate is "juice." (I would LOVE to see a guy offer a Clean Reader user some Juice.)
BJ = "pleasure"

woman's genitals are ALL now "bottom."

Did you know that you came out of your mother's bottom?
Did you know if you place a groin into a bottom, a woman might get pregnant?

As a former science teacher, I find this VERY disturbing. It's not about replacing words. Words have meanings. And in this case, they are changing science fact into fiction. For that reason alone, this app should be banned.

They also replace "sex" with "love."
Seriously? I know I'm pretty naive, but even I never confused the two.

So Hookers are selling love, what's the problem? I just don't get it!

By the way, I write about "vanilla" sex because that's what I wanted to write about. This app would change it to "bottom" sex, which is NOT my intent. This app would make my book "dirtier" than it already was! Oh, the irony.


----------



## CelinaGrace (Nov 20, 2013)

It's a load of wankery bollocks, quite frankly, and reminds me of nothing more than this Harry Enfield clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmRTUNh1vPo

"Suck my knee, muddy funster!"


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Totally against it. Fortunately, my books are no longer available through this since Page Foundry pulled it's catalogue. Although the fact that PF didn't even send a damn notification email is pretty shady itself.



Patty Jansen said:


> This says it all. We can't even express our thoughts here on the KB, and people complain about this?


I don't think that's quite the same thing. When we're on KBoards, it's the equivalent of being a guest in someone else's house and when you're going into someone else's house, you respect their rules. With our books, that's our own work that's being changed without our permission.


----------



## CelinaGrace (Nov 20, 2013)

Actually, given that my previous post was not censored in the slightest, just use British swearwords in your books and all will be well.


----------



## CelinaGrace (Nov 20, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> I think they should replace ALL mentions of sex organs with "part."
> 
> "Please...please put your part in my part," she moaned.
> 
> In fact, I'm going in RIGHT NOW and adding that sentence to the new book.


And this just made me spit wine across my keyboard*

*not a euphemism


----------



## Robert Dahlen (Apr 27, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> I think they should replace ALL mentions of sex organs with "part."
> 
> "Please...please put your part in my part," she moaned.
> 
> In fact, I'm going in RIGHT NOW and adding that sentence to the new book.


We should combine this with the earlier suggestion of "smurf". And Pokemon-speak.

"Oh, baby!" she moaned. "Smurf my part! Smurf my part with your pika-pikachu!"
"PSY!" he screamed.


----------



## Holland d&#039;Haas (Mar 11, 2015)

Robert Dahlen said:


> We should combine this with the earlier suggestion of "smurf". And Pokemon-speak.
> 
> "Oh, baby!" she moaned. "Smurf my part! Smurf my part with your pika-pikachu!"
> "PSY!" he screamed.


I lost it at psy. This is the most beautiful thing. Maybe there'd be less backlash if they just made censors full of nonsense and pop-culture references... It could be like the second dub of _Ghost Stories_ in erotica form.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Robert Dahlen said:


> We should combine this with the earlier suggestion of "smurf". And Pokemon-speak.
> 
> "Oh, baby!" she moaned. "Smurf my part! Smurf my part with your pika-pikachu!"
> "PSY!" he screamed.


Is something wrong with me? Cause I love that!


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Robert Dahlen said:


> We should combine this with the earlier suggestion of "smurf". And Pokemon-speak.
> 
> "Oh, baby!" she moaned. "Smurf my part! Smurf my part with your pika-pikachu!"
> "PSY!" he screamed.


I think you are on to something. I would SO buy a book like this.


----------



## Johnny Dracula (Feb 20, 2015)

My books would be totally, and utterly "groined."


----------



## Tommy Muncie (Dec 8, 2014)

My two cents: I don't like the idea behind Clean Reader but I'm not worried about it having much influence, and the responses in this topic are a perfect example of why: writers and readers alike are already against it and laughing about it. The language police never win and this will soon be yet another loss consigned to history.

I seem to remember that there was once a website called 'Pornalize' which basically did the reverse of Clean Reader: you could type any URL into it and it would filthy the whole site up with profanity. I wonder what would happen if the kid who inspired Clean Reader ever discovered that!

Also I just thought: one of my characters lives on a farm and in one line talks about an arable crop called 'oil-seed rape.' I'd love to see what clean reader does with that line!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I think trigger warnings are a good thing especially if one is describing a rape or domestic violence in very graphic details.


Trigger warnings are extremely good things, but they're also done voluntarily by courteous and responsible authors.

This thing has nothing t do with trigger warnings and both ignores the author completely and does its censorship in a horrifically shoddy manner.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Tommy Muncie said:


> Also I just thought: one of my characters lives on a farm and in one line talks about an arable crop called 'oil-seed rape.' I'd love to see what clean reader does with that line!


Given its anti-woman slant, Clean Reader would probably call it "oil-seed pleasure."


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Trigger warnings are extremely good things, but they're also done voluntarily by courteous and responsible authors.
> 
> This thing has nothing t do with trigger warnings and both ignores the author completely and does its censorship in a horrifically shoddy manner.


What is a trigger warning? Hinting that tough scene is coming up? And if that's it, how does the reader know how many pages to skip?


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

This all begs the question...why?









Are there really people out there, dying to read certain stories but won't because of profanity







...who suddenly find they are happy to support that author by purchasing their work if they can have it autocleaned?









As to letting your children read adult books with wordswaps... why? Why is this a good thing?







Adult content is still for adults, even if you swap in Pikachus.

I think the whole thing is linkbait.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Alan Petersen said:


> What is a trigger warning? Hinting that tough scene is coming up? And if that's it, how does the reader know how many pages to skip?


Usually it's mentioned in the blurb before you buy the book. Or at least in the summary at the beginning of the book.
I've only seen it once in one of the books I read.

Laurann Dohner's "Slade"


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Tommy Muncie said:


> My two cents: I don't like the idea behind Clean Reader but I'm not worried about it having much influence, and the responses in this topic are a perfect example of why: writers and readers alike are already against it and laughing about it. The language police never win and this will soon be yet another loss consigned to history.
> 
> I seem to remember that there was once a website called 'Pornalize' which basically did the reverse of Clean Reader: you could type any URL into it and it would filthy the whole site up with profanity. I wonder what would happen if the kid who inspired Clean Reader ever discovered that!
> 
> Also I just thought: one of my characters lives on a farm and in one line talks about an arable crop called 'oil-seed rape.' I'd love to see what clean reader does with that line!


Um... the character should say "rapeseed oil." Rapeseed is a plant named after the Latin "rapa" meaning "turnip." I knew about rapeseed oil due to my past research on commodity trade, but just learned something new about it. It's called canola oil now. The name "rapeseed" was dropped due to the reputation of the oil's toxicity; it was originally used only for industrial purposes. Today there is a modified form of the rapeseed plant which produces oil safe for human consumption. Farmers decided to call the product "canola oil" to distinguish it from the old type of rapeseed oil.

http://www.naturalnews.com/034733_canola_oil_rapeseed_food_labels.html
Here's a good article about rapeseed oil and the name change to canola.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Trigger warnings are extremely good things, but they're also done voluntarily by courteous and responsible authors.
> 
> This thing has nothing t do with trigger warnings and both ignores the author completely and does its censorship in a horrifically shoddy manner.


I was answering the poster above me.
As to the Clean Reader, I can think of a few books I have read that it would make them go from nice erotica to dirty p0rn.


----------



## Adrian Howell (Feb 24, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/03/25/[expletive]-you-clean-reader-authorial-consent-matters/
> 
> (Warning: Wording in article designed to offend clean readers.)
> 
> ...


Though I rarely write profanity, I do swear fairly constantly. Probably even in my sleep. So no, profanity doesn't bother me. In fact, compared to my usual language, Chuck's article is positively peaceful. I find the bleeps on TV far more annoying than the actual swearing. So of course I would never use Clean Reader myself.

But am I against Clean Reader's existence? No, I most certainly am not. There's an app for just about everything these days, so I see no reason why there shouldn't be something like Clean Reader for people who want it. (It appears that not many people actually want it, but that's another issue.)

Chuck's argument seems to be that he makes no apology for his writing and that readers can either take it whole or reject it whole. In his words, "Your consent as a reader is being able to pick up the book or not. Your consent as a reader comes into play as to whether or not you put down that book at some point throughout because something within it was objectionable."

As entertained by Chuck's rant as I was, I nevertheless must disagree.

I recently bought a camera. It was being offered in three colors: red, gray and black. But what if I wanted a blue one? Once I have bought the camera, it is mine. I can paint it blue should I feel inclined to. I can take it apart and modify it. That might void my warranty, but I still have the right to do whatever I want with it. I don't have to take pictures with it. I can turn it into a flowerpot if I want. (True, there are certain things you are legally banned from altering, such as the color of the brake lights on your car, but even then only if you drive on public roads.)

The same is true of a book. Once I buy it, it's mine. I am in no way obligated to read it "right" or not at all. I can read it any which way I want. If I feel so inclined, I can read it backwards, or just read every third page, or only read the words that begin with the letter G. And if I really wanted to do those things, however ludicrous, why not have an app for it? How I read a book is MY choice, no matter how wrong the author thinks it is.

IMO, an author telling me that I must read his book properly (profanity and all) or not read the book at all is not so different from an author telling me that I'm not allowed to skim through his book, that I must read his book at no more than 250 words per minute or not read it at all. This makes no sense to me.

I understand that it's easy to equate Clean Reader with censorship, that terrible monster that we free-world people feel obligated to battle. But Clean Reader isn't censoring books for the masses, only for readers who CHOOSE to use it. To me, the ability to choose to use or to not use something like this is the very definition of freedom, not restriction. If someday the government tries to make Clean Reader the national standard reading app, that's when I'll join the torch-and-pitchfork crew.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Adrian Howell said:


> Though I rarely write profanity, I do swear fairly constantly. Probably even in my sleep. So no, profanity doesn't bother me. In fact, compared to my usual language, Chuck's article is positively peaceful. I find the bleeps on TV far more annoying than the actual swearing. So of course I would never use Clean Reader myself.
> 
> But am I against Clean Reader's existence? No, I most certainly am not. There's an app for just about everything these days, so I see no reason why there shouldn't be something like Clean Reader for people who want it. (It appears that not many people actually want it, but that's another issue.)
> 
> ...


Just want to say that if someone told me how I had to use something one way and one way only, I wouldn't support them financially. 
The only exception might be some knives or other dangerous objects.


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

my books will be like 5 pages long if they remove the profanity


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Adrian Howell said:


> I understand that it's easy to equate Clean Reader with censorship, that terrible monster that we free-world people feel obligated to battle. But Clean Reader isn't censoring books for the masses, only for readers who CHOOSE to use it. To me, the ability to choose to use or to not use something like this is the very definition of freedom, not restriction. If someday the government tries to make Clean Reader the national standard reading app, that's when I'll join the torch-and-pitchfork crew.


I agree with this. In another thread, someone posted a link that discusses Amazon's obsession with customer service. This app reminds me of that. It's not censorship if it's an app used by one individual on one book in the privacy of their own home. I don't have a problem with this app at all--if it improves the customer experience. If the customer is happier using the app to read my book, I am fine with that.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Monique said:


> I'm not against it because I don't think people have a right to cross out words or add commas. I'm against it because it's fear-based. First it's words, then it's ideas.


And then certain people.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Why all this turmoil and hulabaloo over something we tolerate here on this forum?

If you don't want to extend this antiquated practice to your writing, then DON'T do it.

Jeeze!  Don't get so excited about software you wouldn't go near.


----------



## Shei Darksbane (Jan 31, 2015)

I really *hate* the mindless despise some people have for particular words they've chosen are "naughty".

I don't care if my 8 year old says s-word, d-word, f-word.
I only care if she is being NICE or not.

*dies in a video game* "S-WORD!!!" I don't care. Not in the slightest.
"Piece of SWORD!" you are in so much trouble. (She never does this because I taught her to be kind!)

And I don't understand people who put more emphasis on the d-word WORDS than on the d-word INTENTIONS. 

*bleep*


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Adrian Howell said:


> Though I rarely write profanity, I do swear fairly constantly. Probably even in my sleep. So no, profanity doesn't bother me. In fact, compared to my usual language, Chuck's article is positively peaceful. I find the bleeps on TV far more annoying than the actual swearing. So of course I would never use Clean Reader myself.
> 
> But am I against Clean Reader's existence? No, I most certainly am not. There's an app for just about everything these days, so I see no reason why there shouldn't be something like Clean Reader for people who want it. (It appears that not many people actually want it, but that's another issue.)
> 
> ...


There are a few problems with this, though.

First, this is not the equivalent of a reader buying a book and taking a sharpie to the dirty words. The reader is not then selling that book in mass quantities to other people. Clean Reader is. And up until recently, they have done so without securing the author's permission or even notifying them that this is happening.

Second, readers aren't choosing which words they find objectionable. Clean Reader is. According to CR's FAQ, there are three settings-Clean, Cleaner, and Squeaky Clean. They don't specify what they consider profanity, but as has been pointed out, even medical terms like penis and vagina are considered "profanity" by Clean Reader. So is "Oh my God." This isn't the reader deciding which words they object to, CR is doing it. And making a profit off it. Without author consent.

Third, when you buy an ebook, you are buying a non-transferable license. It's not the same thing as buying a print book. That's why you can't re-sell ebooks, because you don't actually own them.

Fourth and most importantly, I'd have zero objection to Clean Reader if Page Foundry had come out the door in advance and sent an email to everyone who publishes with them, saying, "Just so you're aware, we're going to launch a new app called Clean Reader soon. This app will cover up profanity in books. If you wish to opt out of inclusion in the Clean Reader app, please let us know." If they had done that, I'd have no problem.

But they didn't. It wasn't until after this backlash that PF made the decision to let authors choose for themselves if they want to be included.



Okey Dokey said:


> Why all this turmoil and hulabaloo over something we tolerate here on this forum?
> 
> If you don't want to extend this antiquated practice to your writing, then DON'T do it.
> 
> Jeeze! Don't get so excited about software you wouldn't go near.


Once more, we weren't given a choice.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

Years ago, one of my computer professors, who was famous for his...ahem!...colorful language, was told he would no longer be allowed to use vulgar language for his files (this was when you had to key punch every line of code).  He was very sympathetic....he just asked the computer department to send him a list of all the vulgar words he and his students were not supposed to use. He would, he said, be VERY happy to post that list prominently, with proper credits to those who created it, so no one used those terrible words again.

Needless to say, the powers that be decided not to argue with his file naming protocols.

Unfortunately, something like this is intended for those who have, very firmly, declined to exercise their right to think for themselves. (There are a lot of folks lining up to let someone else do their thinking for them. Always have been, always will be.)

What do I think of it? Can't stop stupid. Not worth trying.


----------



## MacMcAdams (Dec 25, 2014)

> The same is true of a book. Once I buy it, it's mine. I am in no way obligated to read it "right" or not at all. I can read it any which way I want. If I feel so inclined, I can read it backwards, or just read every third page, or only read the words that begin with the letter G. And if I really wanted to do those things, however ludicrous, why not have an app for it? How I read a book is MY choice, no matter how wrong the author thinks it is.
> 
> IMO, an author telling me that I must read his book properly (profanity and all) or not read the book at all is not so different from an author telling me that I'm not allowed to skim through his book, that I must read his book at no more than 250 words per minute or not read it at all. This makes no sense to me.
> 
> I understand that it's easy to equate Clean Reader with censorship, that terrible monster that we free-world people feel obligated to battle. But Clean Reader isn't censoring books for the masses, only for readers who CHOOSE to use it. To me, the ability to choose to use or to not use something like this is the very definition of freedom, not restriction. If someday the government tries to make Clean Reader the national standard reading app, that's when I'll join the torch-and-pitchfork crew.


Well said.


----------



## Linda Acaster (May 31, 2010)

First, l'll state that I'm from the UK.

Most people, on here and in the media on both sides of the Atlantic are concentrating on the substitution of certain words/phrases considered unsavoury *by two people who live in Idaho, USA*. The words being substituted are decided *by two people who live in Idaho, USA*. And they are doing this for ebooks going out into the world, not just in Idaho, not just in the USA.

This app is a first generation. The creators, the *two people.... *[you get the idea] have stated that it will be "revised", "updated", "improved". To what? To blank out or rewrite anything that smacks of more than just, say, "a kiss"?

Does this not remind you of anything?

A couple of days ago one man decided 'for the good of humanity' to take 150 people into a mountain with him in the Alps.
Only slightly further east an entire region is being 'put to the sword' for not following a minority's take on its own religion.
In Hong Kong books by authors who have said/written anything in support of democracy are being returned from shops.

And you think that this app will fizzle out because 'we' think it's ridiculous, because it can change entire characterisations, tone and balance between forestory, subplots and theme?

Because I'm in the UK I use Smashwords to distribute to all e-retailers other than Amazon. I read up about the app. I don't use a smartphone so couldn't test it, but I blogged about it. And went into Smashwords and removed my books from distribution to Page Foundry. Smashwords has since stated that it was 'surprised' to find its catalogue available for this app - ie it wasn't consulted - considering it contravenes its agreement with PF, and has since had its catalogue removed. For which I salute it for taking a stand.

Since starting to write this post I have found a Tweet from Page Foundry stating that it has pulled its catalogue from use by this app. It reads like a 'let's praise authors' damage limitation exercise. I've just found one from Clean Reader itself "In response to authors wishes that we not sell their books, we have asked @pagefoundry to remove the bookstore from our app."

Tip of the iceberg. And it will happen again. And think on, it is much easier for an estore to only supply ebooks meeting its content criteria, than having all its ebooks added to an app. If you don't think it will happen you didn't read my line about Hong Kong above.


----------



## Michael Cargill (Sep 12, 2011)

I don't really have a problem with this app as it stands.

The people using it are making that choice themselves and the original books are still available for those that want to read them.  No-one is saying that authors can't litter their books with swear words and no barriers are being raised to make it harder to buy the original books.

So it's not censorship.

A hifi allows me to adjust the bass, treble, etc. of a song to my personal tastes.  There are countless applications that will allow me to automatically put a drum n bass backing beat to a David Bowie album, or crop a music file to remove an overly long intro section.


----------



## Julian Bray (Feb 26, 2015)

What a hilarious app. If someone wants to use it, let them. If they wish to have a lesser engagement with a text simply because they are delicate little petals blown by the big bad wind of modern life, then their loss. I have to say I utterly and totally would not care if someone used this on something I wrote, though to be honest, if they didn't like the odd cuss word here and there, not totally convinced my book would be on their kindle in the first place given it is Dystopian Fiction, and I can't imagine that's a genre for the faint hearted


----------



## terribleminds (Apr 4, 2013)

Adrian Howell said:


> I recently bought a camera. It was being offered in three colors: red, gray and black. But what if I wanted a blue one? Once I have bought the camera, it is mine. I can paint it blue should I feel inclined to. I can take it apart and modify it. That might void my warranty, but I still have the right to do whatever I want with it. I don't have to take pictures with it. I can turn it into a flowerpot if I want. (True, there are certain things you are legally banned from altering, such as the color of the brake lights on your car, but even then only if you drive on public roads.)


Except here, imagine that your desire to have a blue camera means that you don't paint it but, rather, Target offers to paint it for you. And they start selling Canon cameras in non-licensed colors. That would violate the relationship between Canon and Target, and you can bet Canon would object rather stridently to Target choosing to modify their cameras before or at the point of sale.

One can do whatever one wants with a book. But a third-party marketplace cannot.

I can buy a PC game and mod it. I cannot then sell that PC game to others with unlicensed mods.

Clean Reader was a marketplace that programmatically edited the books and sold them to you. As a third-party.

Which is in legally gray (and morally gray) territory, and gray enough that Clean Reader has presently shut down its store.

(Never mind the fact they were selling books they had no right to actually sell. That is a whole other pickle.)

Maybe you don't mind having your books edited by a third party. I do, and so I reject any claim Clean Reader has to do so.

-- c.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Okay, hold on. I saw this mentioned upthread and had to find the reference for myself.



> The Maughans earn a small commission from books purchased through the app.


So...they're offended enough by bad words to write an app to clean them up in a book because OFFENDED and CHILDREN, but they're totes okay with gaining a 'small commission' from the book pre-censored form.

Right.

Okay.

Got it.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Michael Cargill said:


> I don't really have a problem with this app as it stands.
> 
> The people using it are making that choice themselves and the original books are still available for those that want to read them. No-one is saying that authors can't litter their books with swear words and no barriers are being raised to make it harder to buy the original books.
> 
> ...


Are you then allowed to sell those altered Bowie albums without Bowie's permission?


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> Are you then allowed to sell those altered Bowie albums without Bowie's permission?


But they're not selling the books in the censored form so I'm not sure this is equivalent.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

a_g said:


> But they're not selling the books in the censored form so I'm not sure this is equivalent.


Neither is the initial comparison made.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> Neither is the initial comparison made.


I think it is, though. When we get music, in whatever form, we're allowed to adjust the levels on our equalizer. Or to mash them up with mp3 altering programs.

How is that different from taking out 'naughty' words from a book on your own ereader?


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

a_g said:


> I think it is, though. When we get music, in whatever form, we're allowed to adjust the levels on our equalizer. Or to mash them up with mp3 altering programs.
> 
> How is that different from taking out 'naughty' words from a book on your own ereader?


Because the entire reason Clean Reader is making any money is because they're advertising the censored forms of the books. Censoring that they're deciding to do without author permission. Once again, if Clean Reader only stocked books that authors agreed to have censored, there wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what they did. They're making the decision for authors whether or not their books should be censored and they're making the decision for readers what words are considered offensive.

If you're okay with that being done to your work, then no problem. I'm not and I should have at the very least been notified before this happened and given the option to opt out.

No one is downloading Clean Reader because they want uncensored books. Clean Reader has built this business on censorship.


----------



## Accord64 (Mar 12, 2012)

Perry Constantine said:


> Because the entire reason Clean Reader is making any money is because they're advertising the censored forms of the books. Censoring that they're deciding to do without author permission. Once again, if Clean Reader only stocked books that authors agreed to have censored, there wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what they did. They're making the decision for authors whether or not their books should be censored and they're making the decision for readers what words are considered offensive.


Am I missing something? I thought Clean Reader was an app, not a book reseller. From my understanding of this app, it provides a filter between the original (unaltered) book file and the reading device. Anytime a "bad" word is detected, it displays an alternate word on the reading device that the_ reader chooses_. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> Because the entire reason Clean Reader is making any money is because they're advertising the censored forms of the books. Censoring that they're deciding to do without author permission. Once again, if Clean Reader only stocked books that authors agreed to have censored, there wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what they did. They're making the decision for authors whether or not their books should be censored and they're making the decision for readers what words are considered offensive.


I'm not debating that this is something authors don't want. I'm not debating that authors have the right to be upset by this app.

But Clean Reader is not selling books. They are not a storefront. They are not stocking anything or providing server room to hold books. They are making commission from people buying the books through their apps. Are you also offended by affiliate income? Because it's the same thing.

In fact, my comment above was finding that rather amusing. They are willing to provide a service to clean up language in the form of an app but seem comfortable with making the money from the book in the 'pre-censored' form. I find that hypocritical.

But they are not, in fact, reselling books. At all. So if we're going to be upset, let's be upset about something they're actually doing.



Perry Constantine said:


> If you're okay with that being done to your work, then no problem. I'm not and I should have at the very least been notified before this happened and given the option to opt out.


No need to be disingenuous about what I'm okay and not okay with when I'm choosing things that are actually happening to be upset, thanks.



Perry Constantine said:


> No one is downloading Clean Reader because they want uncensored books. Clean Reader has built this business on censorship.


I have not once disagreed with this. And I am opposed to the idea. I find, actually, that I'm most aligned with Joanne's thoughts as expressed in her email exchange with Clean Reader.

But I still do not see anywhere in this conversation where Clean Reader is selling censored books. They are selling the ability to censor books for the reader's own private use.

That's what I've objected to in your argument so far. That buying an album, adjusting the levels for personal listening pleasure is totally NOT the same as reselling the track with the new levels set. And that censoring a book on their own ereader is NOT the same as reselling that censored book. Especially since Clean Reader allows the reader to turn it off completely.

*EDIT TO WAFFLE A BIT:* Because I refuse to even go to the app page (I don't want any more traffic/hits than is necessary), can someone clear up some confusion (relevant links to discussion or screenshots or personal experience are good)? Are they ACTUALLY selling books from their site? As in it is actually a store front for ebooks? Or is it, in fact, a portal to another site to purchase and they get a commission?

Because if they ARE selling censored books, that is a huge NO and inviting all kinds of legal ramifications. Most specifically, where's the money due to the author?


----------



## Accord64 (Mar 12, 2012)

a_g said:


> Because I refuse to even go to the app page (I don't want any more traffic/hits than is necessary), can someone clear up some confusion (relevant links to discussion or screenshots or personal experience are good)? Are they ACTUALLY selling books from their site? As in it is actually a store front for ebooks? Or is it, in fact, a portal to another site to purchase and they get a commission?
> 
> Because if they ARE selling censored books, that is a huge NO and inviting all kinds of legal ramifications. Most specifically, where's the money due to the author?


I checked their FAQ about copyright concerns. From their website:

Q: Is Clean Reader legal or does it break copyright law?

A: We've discussed this with several lawyers and they have all agreed that Clean Reader does not violate copyright law because it doesn't make changes to the file containing the book. All Clean Reader does is change the way the content is displayed on the screen. The user has the option of turning off the profanity filtering tool if desired. No changes are made to the original book the user downloads when they buy a book.

So, NO. they are not reselling altered books.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

This issue is not the app. The issue is that Clean Reader has no right to alter my work before it sells it. It is not an after-market app that lets you go in and change the words you want to change. It is a retail store that is going into MY BOOK, editing MY FILE in ways I did not intend, and selling it. 

If this was an after-market app that allowed the reader to set their own word substitutions, then I wouldn't care. But it is editing my story in ways I did not give them permission to do and then selling it for profit. No. Just no. Vendors who are refusing to sell through Clean Reader are 100% correct in doing so, because the authors and publishers did not grant permission for their books to be edited and resold. They can call it a "filter" if they want, but they are changing words in my story in ways that are fundamentally screwing up context and meaning. 

Someone mentioned game modding. I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and modder. But the games I buy are the original games, and then I use after-market tools (often offered by the publishers themselves!) to mod the games myself to suit me. Steam doesn't mod the game first and then sell it. It sells the game as the publisher intended, and then I am free to play around and mod.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Accord64 said:


> So, NO. they are not reselling altered books.


I didn't think so. However, conversation elsewhere is suggesting that books that shouldn't be available for sale, are available for purchase through them. I'm not sure which distributor it is they are using.

It had been my original understanding this was an app that overlay on the ebook. I don't know how the technology works but this app only works on books bought through a specific seller?

Seems like this is causing such a stir that good information is getting lost in all the shouting.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This issue is not the app. The issue is that Clean Reader has no right to alter my work before it sells it. It is not an after-market app that lets you go in and change the words you want to change. It is a retail store that is going into MY BOOK, editing MY FILE in ways I did not intend, and selling it.


Has anyone verified this personally? At this point, I don't trust a lot of the information out there because there is a lot of emotion wrapped up in it.

Geez. I really don't want to download the app to see what it is doing to the ebook.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Lydniz said:


> They don't seem to have taken account of British swearwords, so I suggest using them as a workaround (best not click on the link if you've got any nuns round for tea):
> 
> http://www.youswear.com/index.asp?language=British#.VRR3TfmL7Dc


I left the nuns to fend for myself and went into the bathroom with my tablet.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

dianapersaud said:


> That's a much more disturbing image than the original text. Yikes!
> 
> We need a clean reader for the CleanReader.
> 
> ...


I like me some profanity... but I'd smurf the smurf out of a book that replaced all the smurfy words with smurf. Smurf yeah!


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Linda Acaster said:


> A couple of days ago one man decided 'for the good of humanity' to take 150 people into a mountain with him in the Alps.


I totally agree with the rest of your points, but one minor correction: According to the current stage of the investigations, the Germanwings co-pilot did not have any political or religious motive for his actions. Most likely, the reason was some kind of psychiatric/medical issue.

Sorry, but I feel quite strongly about all the conspiracy theories popping up around this tragedy.


----------



## Linda Acaster (May 31, 2010)

Regarding whether this app is a store portal or whether the creators are reaping a financial cut, or anything else, they are perfectly happy to advertise an ebook, hence, from their Blog page and dated January 2015

"Game of Thrones 5 book bundle is on sale for the next 5 hours. Only $19.99 for the series. That's 50% off the normal price. Act fast before the sale ends! And read it with Clean Reader so you won't have to read any of the swear words in the series!"

Considering all the hoo-haa, I can't believe that is still on its website.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Robert Dahlen said:


> We should combine this with the earlier suggestion of "smurf". And Pokemon-speak.
> 
> "Oh, baby!" she moaned. "Smurf my part! Smurf my part with your pika-pikachu!"
> "PSY!" he screamed.


*makes notes for our word filters*


----------



## Linda Acaster (May 31, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I totally agree with the rest of your points, but one minor correction: According to the current stage of the investigations, the Germanwings co-pilot did not have any political or religious motive for his actions. Most likely, the reason was some kind of psychiatric/medical issue.
> 
> Sorry, but I feel quite strongly about all the conspiracy theories popping up around this tragedy.


Sorry to upset you, didn't mean to. I never said it was an act done out of terrorism or any political reason. I said 'the good of humanity'. It is seeming that the pilot had a history of psychiatric issues. That doesn't mean he didn't believe he was doing it for some reason which seemed just fine & dandy to him at the time. Putting that in quotes is giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least that's what it was aimed to do. After all, if you want to commit suicide, plug yourself into the mains after leaving a note on the door to tell whoever finds you to turn off the power.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Linda Acaster said:


> Sorry to upset you, didn't mean to. I never said it was an act done out of terrorism or any political reason. I said 'the good of humanity'. It is seeming that the pilot had a history of psychiatric issues. That doesn't mean he didn't believe he was doing it for some reason which seemed just fine & dandy to him at the time. Putting that in quotes is giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least that's what it was aimed to do. After all, if you want to commit suicide, plug yourself into the mains after leaving a note on the door to tell whoever finds you to turn off the power.


Sorry about going off on you, but I have been refuting the craziest conspiracy theories on Twitter these past few days.


----------



## Linda Acaster (May 31, 2010)

Not at all, Cora. I hope you & yours didn't lose anyone. We lost someone from my city. His father was very brave on TV last night.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Linda Acaster said:


> Not at all, Cora. I hope you & yours didn't lose anyone. We lost someone from my city. His father was very brave on TV last night.


Thankfully I didn't know any of the victims, but I live approx. 5 kilometers from the Lufthansa Flight School, where the pilot and co-pilot trained and an Airbus plant where parts of the crashed airplane were manufactured. I know quite a few people who work at both companies, so I feel quite strongly about some of the more out there conspiracy theories.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

a_g said:


> Has anyone verified this personally? At this point, I don't trust a lot of the information out there because there is a lot of emotion wrapped up in it.


According to their own website, it is a "filter" that changes the words when active. The filter can be turned on and off.

To another point made earlier, no, this is not the same thing as KB's filter. KB is a privately owned site, and when we join it we all agree to its TOS. By joining, I gave KB permission to filter certain words in my posts that violate the TOS. I did not give Clean App permission to filter my books. I have no business agreement with them. If they want one with me, they should deal with me directly. Then I can do what music industry does and release my own "clean" version of a book where I determine which words are substituted so that no meaning is lost.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Okay. I threw myself on this sword briefly (after this I need to go wash).

It looks like the only books it cleans up are the books bought from the store. And you have to create an account with them to access the store.

I created a dummy account and still can't see the store offerings. Unless I have to input financial info in first, which ugh, no. I'm not taking one for the team with that part. Sorry.

If there is a way to side load books you already have, I don't see it. However, disclaimer, I'm fairly phone app stupid.

I am bothered by this store they have available. Who is it? Who gave them authorization to sell authors' books there?



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> According to their own website, it is a "filter" that changes the words when active. The filter can be turned on and off.


Yeah, I get that. That's not my question. My question is who has verified that the cleaned up versions of the books are being reuploaded and resold as is being claimed by various sources. Yet I'm not seeing anything to back that up. Screen shots? Someone with verifiable experience in using the darn thing? (considering I gave it a brief try and didn't have luck.)

I have verified that it can't be overlaid on just any old ebook format and that it's looking like it has to be purchased from their store (or the store powering them) and that they've gone on record saying they get a little money from those purchases. So...what store is doing that right now? Smashwords has pulled out, PageFoundry has pulled out...a few others. _Is _that store allowing reuploaded censored books to be sold?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Out of curiosity, in an attempt to answer some of the questions that have been posed here, I downloaded the app (and no, I don't want someone filtering my books for me).

The whole thing may be moot, as there doesn't seem to be a "bookstore" available through the app right now. And yes, the developers refer to it as a "bookstore."

It appears that you buy the books through the app and read them through the app. If you delete the books and haven't created an account with them, you lose your books. If you do create an account, you can read your books on up to five devices--assuming this is across platforms because it is available on Android, too. (This would be a problem with my ten devices I currently can read books on.) Haven't checked the Android version yet to see if the same issue with no store is in that version. EDIT: Per a_g's post, it does.

You can set four levels of clean: clean, cleaner, squeaky clean or no filter. So it appears to me that the original file is unchanged, just the view in the app. (Not making a judgment here, just stating my impression of what happens.) Hard to say, as I wasn't able to read a book since the store wasn't available and no sample comes with the app.

For me, aside from the filtering issue which I don't want, the app removes many of the conveniences I count on in reading ebooks. Even if I could see some need for being able to read erotica in church, I don't want to be tied to their app, five devices, and books that I've purchased through them.

EDIT: a_g beat me to it. Did you use an Android device, a_g?

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

a_g said:


> Yeah, I get that. That's not my question. My question is who has verified that the cleaned up versions of the books are being reuploaded and resold as is being claimed by various sources. Yet I'm not seeing anything to back that up. Screen shots? Someone with verifiable experience in using the darn thing? (considering I gave it a brief try and didn't have luck.)


My assumption is not that the books are edited _in advance._ My assumption is that they are using some sort of "find and replace" program that changes the words after the fact based on the level of filter. So if you set your filter to "clean" the program runs on the book and makes the changes as you read it. The editing occurs as the reader is reading based on the filter level. They claim this is the same thing as a TV show that bleeps bad words, but with television licensing the broadcast license gives the station the explicit right to edit for television. While it is a standard clause in broadcast contracts, it is an explicit clause in broadcast contracts. The stations can't "bleep" the movie without permission from the distributor.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> EDIT: a_g beat me to it. Did you use an Android device, a_g?
> 
> Betsy


Yes. Downloaded from GooglePlay for my Samsung S5. Glad to see my ineptitude with phone apps didn't get me here if the store isn't coming up for you either.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

a_g said:


> Yes. Downloaded from GooglePlay for my Samsung S5. Glad to see my ineptitude with phone apps didn't get me here if the store isn't coming up for you either.


And now I don't have to check the Android app. Well done! 

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Coming late into this. For some of my books, the swearing is more than just the use of bad words. It is the expression of a character's PTSD. To remove the harshness of their words would be to remove the harshness of their suffering. It would be to take a book where a woman is struggling to find herself and love, while dealing with the harsh realities of a high-stress job and reducing it to a  fluffy existence where she falls in love without any challenges in her way. It reduces her suffering to little more than a hangnail.

And, yes, removing the swearing would do all that because it is the swearing that is her own verbal queue she gives the people around her of the level of her suffering and torment.

There are plenty of fun, light, even funny romances out there with no sex, no swearing, and no vices. If that's what you want, go read one of those! There are entire Goodreads groups dedicated to that. There are clean romance blogs that put those Catholic Readers Approved stickers on books. Go read those. They were written for specially for those who want Clean Reader style apps.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> My assumption is not that the books are edited _in advance._ My assumption is that they are using some sort of "find and replace" program that changes the words after the fact based on the level of filter. So if you set your filter to "clean" the program runs on the book and makes the changes as you read it.


Actually, it sounds like you did state that it was edited in advance.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The issue is that Clean Reader has no right to alter my work *before it sells it*.


and



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> It is not an after-market app that lets you go in and change the words you want to change. It is a retail store that is going into MY BOOK, editing MY FILE in ways I did not intend, *and selling it*.


So is it or isn't it selling or reselling altered content?



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If this was an after-market app that allowed the reader to set their own word substitutions, then I wouldn't care.


So is it or isn't it an after-market app?

As soon as the store comes up, maybe I'll try again to verify this.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

My initial invovlement in this whole thing was the implication and then outright assertion that these books were being resold as censored books.

I've yet to see any proof of this.

Are they being downloaded from possibly sketchy sources? Perhaps.

Are they violating copyright by offering books that shouldn't be for sale at all? Possibly. I've heard from authors who say books that should not be available for sale _at all_ are being offered for sale through their store.

Are the app creators reselling books? Maybe. I don't know and right now their store isn't coming up at all for me to verify.

And those are a few of the issues I have with the apps *besides* the ability to censor a book and thus changing from the author's original intent. I don't agree with this at all for all the reasons I have and that agree with many who object.

Are they reselling cleansed books? This is what I'm trying to determine because it's been asserted here in this thread and elsewhere that they are.

So far, I've not seen the proof of it.

If we're going to get all up in arms over this app, why not make sure it's over things they are actually _doing_ and not engaging in speculative witch hunting?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

a_g said:


> If we're going to get all up in arms over this app, why not make sure it's over things they are actually _doing_ and not engaging in speculative witch hunting?


Agree. These are the same reasons I downloaded the app.

I have no desire to read any book that is not presented as the author wrote it. Though I don't consider myself a prude (which, I guess, is also in the eye of the beholder), there have been one or two books that I put down as I really didn't think what was in the book was necessary to tell the story. Obviously the author, in those cases, and I disagreed.  So I stopped reading. I stopped reading [senior moment--can't remember author's name] one fantasy author because her books evolved into one constant orgy, which wasn't what I was looking for with those books.

I do see a lot of misinformation and bad assumptions in this thread. One post suggested that the developers not give their daughter books that were inappropriate based on their standards. However, the website indicates that the daughter came home from "library time" with a comment about a book she was reading.



> One day our oldest child came home from school and she was a little sad. We asked her what was wrong and she said she had been reading a book during library time and it had a few swear words in it. She really liked the book but not the swear words.


It seems to me that one issue for those who feel strongly about it, is how to make sure one's books aren't offered for sale--and it seems as if that's being handled?

A discussion of whether something like this is appropriate or desirable is definitely worthy of discussion here, but let's try to keep the truthiness at a reasonable level.

Just a few thought as I read through the thread.

Betsy


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

"I'm sad because this book had swear words and rude bits," said no kid ever.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

a_g said:


> So is it or isn't it an after-market app?


It is not an after-market app because it does not work on books purchased from other sources. Mike's sister downloaded the app but couldn't get it to work with her Nook books. If it was an after-market app, it would presumably be able to work on books purchased through other sources. With the number of retailers that require DRM, this would be problematic for them to do.

If they are running a filter as they say, they would need to be altering the source file in a way to allow their filter to work in the first place. When I create a mod for a computer game, I first need to download the program that will allow me to create the mod. This program generally places a file in the original source program that allows the source program to be modded. If I want to mod Fallout 3, I need the G.E.C.K. The G.E.C.K. makes alterations to the primary game that allow the mods to be made and actually run. To mod Mount and Blade, you have to make a physical change to some of the source files first using the tools available before the game can be modded. Same thing with my modded versions of Dragon Age: Origins. There were changes that needed to be made to the source files first that would allow the game to be modded.

So in order for Clean Reader to create the filters, it would have to alter my source file in a way that allows the filter to work. So yes, they are in fact editing my files. And they were not given permission to do so.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

SevenDays said:


> "I'm sad because this book had swear words and rude bits," said no kid ever.


Actually, I think a couple of the grandkids who are being raised in a very devoutly Christian household would have said this at the age the developer's daughter appears to have been.

@Julie--Yes, the app only works with books purchased through it. Not sure if any changes have to be made to the file--but that's a good question.

Betsy


----------



## Julian Bray (Feb 26, 2015)

Just saw this on the itunes page:

What's New in Version 1.33
... no longer contains the Inktera bookstore system
... users can open ebook ePub and PDF files acquired from other websites or systems

Guess they had to reconsider their lack of copyright infringement but making people buy the books through themselves when they hadn't been an authorised seller. Also some great feedback posts on the page:

Where are these books being obtained? Is the app even authorized to resell these books? (One author found versions of his books on the app that were no longer legally available for sale elsewhere because of a publishing contract.) ... If this app ONLY "hid" words...maybe it wouldn't be so heinous. But still an unauthorized use of authors' works (different licensing than with print books). But to display chages to authors' works, EVEN if it doesn't change the "original file," is STILL an UNAUTHORIZED USE of digital works, and is highly unethical, if not completely illegal.

And this one is great:

This app is utterly reprehensible: not only is it a disturbing form of automated censorship, but worse, a MISOGYNIST form of censorship. Their definition of what count as 'bad words' is disgustingly sexist, replacing any and every mention female anatomy, be it slang OR appropriate medical terminology with one single word: 'bottom'. That's right, 'bottom', a word that in no way correllates to the actual body part being described. Women and their bodies don't ACTAULLY exist, according to the creators of this app: we're all just smooth 'bottomed' plastic Barbie Dolls, our physical reality is too 'icky' to think about, and all words relating to it are 'bad', 'swears', and considered 'profanity'. Grow up, Clean Readers, and realize that people, all people, are HUMAN BEINGS, and that you cannot simply erase their existence by erasing the words used to describe them.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Huh. I had assumed it was aftermarket, in which I don't care. It would be like somebody buying my PB and ripping out the pages with sex, and so what? Their right. But it's different if they're modifying a copy of the book before the reader gets it?

The funny thing in my books is that I write pretty steamy stuff while using almost zero of those redacted words. So other than perhaps one f-word per book, it wouldn't help a "clean reader" at all to scrub my books. Which makes me chuckle evilly. Unscrubbable!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Julian Bray said:


> Just saw this on the itunes page:
> 
> What's New in Version 1.33
> ... no longer contains the Inktera bookstore system
> ... users can open ebook ePub and PDF files acquired from other websites or systems


The version that is available now in the iTunes App Store is dated Feb 3, 2015 and is the version I have. I can't see anyway to add "ePub and PDF files acquired from other websites or system."

And the store link is still there, it just doesn't go anywhere.

Betsy


----------



## Mark at Marble City (Aug 17, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> It would be like somebody buying my PB and ripping out the pages with sex


I love that idea. Gonna go do that to one of my own books immediately and see how much is left.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

a_g said:


> My initial invovlement in this whole thing was the implication and then outright assertion that these books were being resold as censored books.
> 
> I've yet to see any proof of this.
> 
> ...


From what I understand, you have to purchase the book through their App/bookstore, which was being supplied by Page Foundry/Inktera. (PG pulled their catalog yesterday because authors contacted them.

I believe Nate on Inks, Bits and Pixels said he was able to side load a book and it works that way too.

The App creators marketed this as "clean up profanity," but it does so much more than remove profane words.
One author tested this app and created a list of words deemed profane by the App creators and according to them "similar words as substitutions." (There was a link to that list from Terribleminds.com)

I was a science teacher, so I can tell you the correct term for a man's ejaculate is ejaculate, not "juice." If they wanted to swap out the slang word, and replace it with "ejaculate" that would be fine. That is the correct term. Nothing obscene about it.

Vagina is replaced with "bottom". Again, this is FACTUALLY incorrect. 
So now all instances of vanilla sex become anal sex. And if a pregnancy occurs from the anal only sex that has occurred in books, that becomes very problematic. (I taught sexual reproduction in science and one of the key things students are tested on is the path of the sperm from the man to the woman, covering impregnation and then to birth.)
(If the wanted to change the P word to Vagina, again no problem because that is the correct medical term. And C to Penis, again is the correct term. It's not as romantic and too clinical, which is why romance/erotica authors don't actually use those words.)

I don't approve of the body shaming done by this app that is directed towards one gender. It's misogynistic and I don't want my works being used to shame women into thinking their bodies are dirty. Nor do I think any author's works should be twisted so that it becomes misogynistic and shames one specific part of the population.

It's women's body parts today. What will it be tomorrow? Will my ethic characters be changed to "colored" or will they be changed to "Caucasian"? And will the mixed children offspring have a nasty name attached?

(FYI- I'm of Indian descent, my husband is Caucasian and our kids are a lovely mixture of both. I write from a certain perspective and changing a few words these two ignorant people have deemed obscene DESTROYS my voice. It's no longer my work, it's THEIRs. And I have the RIGHT to object to the bastardization of my work. (Their substitution of "bastard" is jerk, so the "jerkization" of my work.

This APP is dangerous because by selecting some words, it has already changed important ideas in an author's work and SILENCED the author.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Mark at Marble City said:


> I love that idea. Gonna go do that to one of my own books immediately and see how much is left.


Altered books are quite the thing in the mixed media art community. 

Got this email from the developer:



> The Inktera bookstore system has been since de-commissioned from within the app.
> You can, however, purchase any ePub or PDF elsewhere (e.g. smashwords.com, google books, inktera.com etc) and open/read the book from within CleanReader


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

dianapersaud said:


> From what I understand, you have to purchase the book through their App/bookstore, which was being supplied by Page Foundry/Inktera. (PG pulled their catalog yesterday because authors contacted them.


That option has been removed from the app.



> I believe Nate on Inks, Bits and Pixels said he was able to side load a book and it works that way too.


Thanks. Finally, I was able to open an ePub doc by finding the document in my Dropbox, selecting it and then choosing "Open In" from the Share menu and then "Clean Reader." I was not able to open a PDF so far.

Betsy


----------



## Julian Bray (Feb 26, 2015)

Not tested this, but when I side load a pdf into my ipad pdf reader app, I have to open itunes, click on apps, scroll to the bottom of the apps page where i click on my pdf reader app, and then I can add the pdf file (browsing to it) then sync to the ipad. I would guess this is how clean reader does it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Interestingly, when you import a book, it defaults to "cleaner" mode. Words that are deemed needing to be cleaned are simply replaced by a blue dot.

One can tap on the blue dot to see the word replacing it. In this case, in cleaner or squeaky clean mode, "hell" is replaced by "heck." In clean mode, hell is visible.

I can see some people looking for the blue dots... 

(Edit: Ignore the game notification visible at the top of the screen capture.)

Betsy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Julian Bray said:


> Not tested this, but when I side load a pdf into my ipad pdf reader app, I have to open itunes, click on apps, scroll to the bottom of the apps page where i click on my pdf reader app, and then I can add the pdf file (browsing to it) then sync to the ipad. I would guess this is how clean reader does it.


Hmmmm....I don't use iTunes for anything. I just find the PDF, usually stored in Dropbox, and select "Open In..." from the Share menu. Same thing when I find a PDF online.

I did get it to try to open one PDF--it converted it to a .docx file and then crashed. It did add it to my library.

Betsy


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Finally, some _good_ information. Thanks for figuring it out and taking one for the team.

So we've determined that they used to have it where you had to go to the store, and now the reader doesn't have to go through the store to get a book they can use it on if they figure out how to sideload (or whatever hoops they have to jump through to get it done).

Would that now put the app into the realm of 'after market' app?

And has it been determined that those cleaned up books are available for resell or not?

I ask because that's the final sticking point.

I don't think it's a good idea to use the app at all. I don't see the use in it, to read books that are sanitized from what the author intended. But if it's a thing that's local to only the user's device and the cleaned up book isn't getting redistributed/resold anywhere, I'm not sure there's much we can do about it.

Which then takes me right back to what got me started on this whole affair in that it really was similar to using the equalizer on your music to listen to it. As long as it's not being remixed and resold.


----------



## Linda Acaster (May 31, 2010)

a_g said:


> Finally, some _good_ information. Thanks for figuring it out and taking one for the team.
> 
> So we've determined that they used to have it where you had to go to the store, and now the reader doesn't have to go through the store to get a book they can use it on if they figure out how to sideload (or whatever hoops they have to jump through to get it done).
> 
> ...


Does this make it the same as using the equalizer when listening to music? I'm not into music so you'll have to explain. Does just using the equalizer alter a series of sharp notes to flats, or move a sequence of notes up or down the scale from what was set in the record/CD/download?


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Linda Acaster said:


> Does this make it the same as using the equalizer when listening to music? I'm not into music so you'll have to explain. Does just using the equalizer alter a series of sharp notes to flats, or move a sequence of notes up or down the scale from what was set in the record/CD/download?


I would say this is more like changing the words of the song. Not just bleeping out the words but changing them.

George Michael's "I want your sex" now becomes "I want your love"
Changes the meaning of the song.

Salt and Peppa's "Let's talk about Sex, Baby," now becomes "Let's talk about Love, Baby," and if the rest of the song is changed it really affects the message of that song (which is about sex education.)

I don't really know any songs with "dirty" lyrics so I can't give more examples.


----------



## Robert Dahlen (Apr 27, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *makes notes for our word filters*


Aw, sm*rf.

_Filtered.  --Betsy_


----------



## Robert Dahlen (Apr 27, 2014)

Robert Dahlen said:


> Aw, sm*rf.
> 
> _Filtered.  --Betsy_


I've been censored! FUDGE! BABY HIPPOS! [/mythbusters]


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Tommy Muncie said:


> Also I just thought: one of my characters lives on a farm and in one line talks about an arable crop called 'oil-seed rape.' I'd love to see what clean reader does with that line!


"
When I worked in a test bakery we used to measure the volume of a cake using rape seed. We coined the phrase "next job is to rape the cakes." Got the newbies rather confused  (and a little alarmed  )


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I already said it was religiously biased and misogynistic. Now I've discovered that it replaces a derogatory and racist term which is probably censored here to "*****."


----------



## Holland d&#039;Haas (Mar 11, 2015)

Since everyone's getting in on the legalities of this: No, this most likely isn't legal, and no, this is not comparable to scribbling out words in a physical book.

Readers do not own e-books; they just purchase licenses for them. This is a temporary license to view them that can be revoked at any time. I highly doubt that license gives them the permissions that would be necessary to modify the content of the original text, never mind to make money off a service that modifies the content, and definitely not to distribute the then modified content to others.

(That said, I haven't read the full licenses myself. We'd have to comb through them to see if there're any loopholes regarding this kind of service.)

Edit:

"Use of Kindle Content. Upon your download of Kindle Content and payment of any applicable fees (including applicable taxes), the Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to *view, use, and display* such Kindle Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Supported Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and *solely for your personal, non-commercial use*. Kindle Content is *licensed, not sold*, to you by the Content Provider. *The Content Provider may include additional terms for use within its Kindle Content.* Those terms will also apply, but this Agreement will govern in the event of a conflict."

The inclusion of "use" is a big vague. However, that last bolded bit means that we are technically allowed to add our own rules on to the license in the content (at least on Amazon), which means we should be able to legally restrict users from modifying or censoring the content using a third party software on the condition that there is no legal requirement to do so.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

My take on this issue.

Basically, I think that writers should be free to write whatever they want, and readers should be free to read whatever they want however they want to read it. Disallowing parents to filter what their children are exposed to is a much greater threat to personal liberty than the anti-"censorship" regime that most of you folks are advocating for.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> My take on this issue.
> 
> Basically, I think that writers should be free to write whatever they want, and readers should be free to read whatever they want however they want to read it. Disallowing parents to filter what their children are exposed to is a much greater threat to personal liberty than the anti-"censorship" regime that most of you folks are advocating for.


Parents can filter by choosing the correct books, not by applying a filter to change the message contained in an author's book.

In my own example- all instances of regular sex will be changed to anal sex. And then the heroine gets pregnant. 
I don't advocate any "rights" that contradict science fact. Nor do I advocate ignorance. Sorry, but a vagina is not a "bottom" and a man's ejaculate is not "juice" and sex is not "love." A woman doesn't get pregnant by "juice," and love is not necessary for procreation, but sex is. IMHO it should be, but it's not necessary.

If a person wants to read about anal sex, they should buy a book by an author that features that type of sex. Not buy mine and change it. And that's what they are doing. This isn't about censoring a bad word, it's about censoring ideas.

If a person doesn't want to read about the graphic details about sex, they can buy a book like Ms. James' without the need for the "clean app."
There are plenty of books out there for people who want "clean" books.

For the record, I was an avid reader as a child and don't recall ever reading a child appropriate book with offensive words. Maybe the real problem is that these parents gave an adult book to the child? Or certainly one that was age inappropriate. That's not the author's fault. It's the parents' fault.


----------



## Holland d&#039;Haas (Mar 11, 2015)

Diana beat me to it. Oh well.



Joe Vasicek said:


> My take on this issue.
> 
> Basically, I think that writers should be free to write whatever they want, and readers should be free to read whatever they want however they want to read it. Disallowing parents to filter what their children are exposed to is a much greater threat to personal liberty than the anti-"censorship" regime that most of you folks are advocating for.


With all due respect, I disagree. Why are parents not filtering what their children are exposed to in the first place instead of giving them access to something that needs to be covered up? It's like letting them go on a porn site but muting it and covering everything except the colorful logo just because it could look nice; there's no real point. There are plenty of wonderful works at all reading levels out there that are squeaky clean, and I would rather those authors be supported than my own work censored.

There's a reason most parental control programs keep kids from visiting adult sites or tv channels in the first place instead of putting boxes over parts of it that could be offensive. Instead of buying something inappropriate and hoping a third party can dress it up to look respectable, get something proper in the first place. It's not like it'll cost you any extra.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Holland d'Haas said:


> Diana beat me to it. Oh well.
> 
> With all due respect, I disagree. Why are parents not filtering what their children are exposed to in the first place instead of giving them access to something that needs to be covered up? It's like letting them go on a porn site but muting it and covering everything except the colorful logo just because it could look nice; there's no real point. There are plenty of wonderful works at all reading levels out there that are squeaky clean, and I would rather those authors be supported than my own work censored.
> 
> There's a reason most parental control programs keep kids from visiting adult sites or tv channels in the first place instead of putting boxes over parts of it that could be offensive. Instead of buying something inappropriate and hoping a third party can dress it up to look respectable, get something proper in the first place. It's not like it'll cost you any extra.


I personally wouldn't parent my children that way, but if someone else wants to, that's their right. They should be free to filter/censor/whatever for their children as they see fit, without someone else telling them how--least of all the writer of the objectionable content.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Why does it matter what people do in the privacy of their own home?

And why are we arguing that it's being used only to filter for children? Many adults don't like objectionable content too. Witness family friendly discussion in recent past.

Until someone can show me where it's being resold or redistributed with the censoring in it, how will you even know it's being used? Parents are going to do what they're going to do.

While I agree that it's stupid thing to do and altering the text as it was written to something 'more agreeable', and that the conversation about how trying to censor 'bad' words changes the meaning of the book is one that should be discussed, all of this derailing about how it's going to bring down civilization as we know it seems a little premature.



Linda Acaster said:


> Does this make it the same as using the equalizer when listening to music? I'm not into music so you'll have to explain. Does just using the equalizer alter a series of sharp notes to flats, or move a sequence of notes up or down the scale from what was set in the record/CD/download?


This is the comment that started me down this rabbit path.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,211660.msg2951838.html#msg2951838

Which pretty much tells me that when I'm in my truck, I'm not allowed to touch the bass/treble adjustments, or put a cd on Rock instead of Club settings because it goes against the artistic meaning of the musician's efforts in the song.

Regardless of whether I've altered the track in any manner that suits me and my _personal_ listening pleasure, so long as I don't try to resell or redistribute, no one can tell me how I should listen/read/view anything and interpret it on my own. It's only when I alter it for public consumption that I would run into trouble.

So I can do whatever I want to David Bowie's song on my own stereo. Just like I can run any book I want through any damn app I want.

And that I agreed with Michael Cargill, which Perry apparently did not. Thus, _my_ derail into trying to find out if the app did alter the book and then resell it on the site, which was what kept getting stated as fact.

Here I am now, tired of trying to disgree with that ludicrous assertion if no one can even say for certainty that the book is being altered and resold.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

dianapersaud said:


> Parents can filter by choosing the correct books, not by applying a filter to change the message contained in an author's book.
> 
> In my own example- all instances of regular sex will be changed to anal sex. And then the heroine gets pregnant.
> I don't advocate any "rights" that contradict science fact. Nor do I advocate ignorance. Sorry, but a vagina is not a "bottom" and a man's ejaculate is not "juice" and sex is not "love." A woman doesn't get pregnant by "juice," and love is not necessary for procreation, but sex is. IMHO it should be, but it's not necessary.
> ...


It seems to me that you're objecting to the details of how the filter works, and not the existence of the filter itself. Which is a fine conversation to have, certainly. But filters exist, some of them quite scandalous. What if a reader copies and pastes your entire book and runs it through Gizoogle Textilizer, for example? Lots of potentially objectionable content there. I'm sure someone else has programmed an even crazier filter. But so long as it's understood by the people consuming the content that your words have been filtered--that the filtered version on Clean Reader (or Gizoogle Textilizer, heh) is not your original words, then what's the big deal?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Also, if you're looking for some entertaining reading:

http://www.gizoogle.net/tranzizzle.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kboards.com%2Findex.php%2Ftopic%2C211660.0.html&se=Go+Git+Dis+Shiznit


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> It seems to me that you're objecting to the details of how the filter works, and not the existence of the filter itself. Which is a fine conversation to have, certainly. But filters exist, some of them quite scandalous. What if a reader copies and pastes your entire book and runs it through Gizoogle Textilizer, for example? Lots of potentially objectionable content there. I'm sure someone else has programmed an even crazier filter. But so long as it's understood by the people consuming the content that your words have been filtered--that the filtered version on Clean Reader (or Gizoogle Textilizer, heh) is not your original words, then what's the big deal?


The big deal is that these two were making money off the sales of books that they frown upon and I (authors) didn't consent to it. 
I (authors) have the right to not have my(our) books sold through this App. They are pushing a misogynistic mindset and I don't approve.

In the not so distant past, many artists pulled out a Sea World concert because they didn't like the way the animals were being treated.

If someone wants to buy my book and change all the regular sex scenes into anal sex scenes, I would ask WHY do that when there are already books like that written? Again, if an adult doesn't want to read sex scenes, buy a Rosalind James book.

Don't go into a steakhouse and pretend to be shocked that steak is on the menu. That's just absurd.

And I think they are not allowed to copy and paste my book. The licence says they are allowed to read it. They can change the font size etc, but not modify the content. Changing words is modifying content and changing the story. If they want a different story, go and buy it.

I'm not going to buy Starry Night and then paint sunflowers all over it because I like sunflowers. That would be stupid, yes?

Edited to add: but do readers understand which words are being replaced and what they are being replaced with?
I'm kind of a prude and this app would be right up my ally- until I saw that certain words were replaced by "pleasure, juice, bottom and love."

I'm actually fine with a dot or blank spot over the F word. What I don't like is their "substitutions" that are scientifically inaccurate. We need more educated people, not less.


----------



## Michael Cargill (Sep 12, 2011)

dianapersaud said:


> I would say this is more like changing the words of the song. Not just bleeping out the words but changing them.
> 
> George Michael's "I want your sex" now becomes "I want your love"
> Changes the meaning of the song.
> ...


Music tends to be more about the sound than the lyrics themselves, especially with the amount of music that doesn't have any lyrics at all.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

dianapersaud said:


> I'm not going to buy Starry Night and then paint sunflowers all over it because I like sunflowers. That would be stupid, yes?


Why not? If it's a copy, not the original, and you legally own it, what's to stop you? Like a_g said, if it's in the privacy of your own home&#8230;


----------



## Michael Cargill (Sep 12, 2011)

dianapersaud said:


> The big deal is that these two were making money off the sales of books that they frown upon and I (authors) didn't consent to it.
> I (authors) have the right to not have my(our) books sold through this App. They are pushing a misogynistic mindset and I don't approve.
> 
> In the not so distant past, many artists pulled out a Sea World concert because they didn't like the way the animals were being treated.
> ...


It might well be stupid, but if someone bought a print copy of Starry Night and painted sunflowers over it no-one else is being hurt.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

And aren't we starting down a slippery slope if we start trying to dictate how someone reads our books? Will we also get up in arms when someone breaks the DRM on our Kindle book so they can sideload it onto their Nook?

We're now going to be the watchdogs on how our work is viewed?

I think it's silly for someone to drop money on A Song of Fire and Ice and then run it through the Clean Reader. Sort of defeats the purpose of reading GRRM's works. I totally agree that there is plenty out there to enjoy, all kinds of reading for all kinds of readers. I really get behind the fact that we can't bubble wrap our world for long before it starts to approach being laughable the contortions they want to go through to keep things 'clean'.

I agree, also, that if this app does violate the terms of service for the seller and the content provider, then it shouldn't be available.

What's a writer to do? Sellers are already opting out. Content providers and authors are discussing and trying to examine their options. This is a good thing. WEe need to keep discussing it. Short of taking them to court, what are the options?

Because all this hand-wringing about saving the children isn't very efficacious as writers in terms of what we are able _to do_ to continue to see our work goes unaltered.

Should we put disclaimers/warnings in the copyright front matter warning against altering content, making sure to use working to cover the possibility of running it through Clean Reader? Come up with a way to disable or circumvent the app itself? Continue to pressure sellers to pull the availability of our works for their purchase through their app?

What are our options as creators? Will it do any good? Will the time/money/energy investment be worth it?


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

Seriously, what century is this? If someone thinks there are such things as bad words, then they shouldn't read my books, not change my words into some discriminatory crap. All the words I use are there for a reason, and if someone doesn't like that, they are free to walk away and read something else. Besides, if this app turned sex into love, then the whole story wouldn't make sense anymore.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

katherinef said:


> Seriously, what century is this?


Welcome to the 21st century, friend, where writers can write whatever they want and readers can read however they want.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

a_g said:


> And aren't we starting down a slippery slope if we start trying to dictate how someone reads our books? Will we also get up in arms when someone breaks the DRM on our Kindle book so they can sideload it onto their Nook?


And how is allowing readers to change anything they want in our work _not_ a slippery slope? Seems like a far more dangerous one.


----------



## Robert Dahlen (Apr 27, 2014)

Breaking, via John Scalzi's Twitter: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/27/clean-reader-books-app-censorship-victory-authors-celebrate


----------



## Holland d&#039;Haas (Mar 11, 2015)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I personally wouldn't parent my children that way, but if someone else wants to, that's their right. They should be free to filter/censor/whatever for their children as they see fit, without someone else telling them how--least of all the writer of the objectionable content.


They can parent their children within the law however they want, but the app they're using to do so goes against my legal and moral rights as a content creator, and there are enough literature alternatives that its existence is not so necessary for those parents to raise their children that removing it should be considered unethical or against their parental rights. That's the point I was trying to make.



Joe Vasicek said:


> Why not? If it's a copy, not the original, *and you legally own it*, what's to stop you? Like a_g said, if it's in the privacy of your own home...


That's still the thing. Maybe you own your copy of Starry Night, but you don't legally own e-books. You're just licensed the ability to look at and interact with them. It's not just about a copy of your book being personally altered - it's about the content of a virtual work being changed on a massive commercial scale for the general populace.



Joe Vasicek said:


> http://www.gizoogle.net/tranzizzle.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kboards.com%2Findex.php%2Ftopic%2C211660.0.html&se=Go+Git+Dis+Shiznit


This is amazing  I totally forgot about these sites. (This falls more under the free use policies, though, as it's purely for free entertainment purposes.)



Robert Dahlen said:


> Breaking, via John Scalzi's Twitter: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/27/clean-reader-books-app-censorship-victory-authors-celebrate


Thank the almighty Lord Cheesus Our Savior for his swift action against all that is unbookly. Ahum.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Michael Cargill said:


> It might well be stupid, but if someone bought a print copy of Starry Night and painted sunflowers over it no-one else is being hurt.


But the child who is reading a doctored version is being hurt. They are missing out on key information.
And the young woman who is reading about sex through a book because her parents won't discuss it is being giving the wrong information. But do they know that they are? Or are they assuming the words are substitutions, which they blatantly are NOT.

My parents didn't discuss sex with me, other than to say "don't do it."

I learned about the biology of sex through school, learned from my friends (one girl told me her mom said you could get pregnant sitting on a toilet seat). I also learned about "manhood" from my mother's piles of Harlequin books I would sneak when she wasn't looking.

I also learned about sex from my older boy relatives. They were happy to share all the dirty words and what they knew of dirty deeds that they discovered. I looked up stuff in dictionaries. And giggled about it.

I heard about condoms in fifth grade and imagined it was a helmet that went on a penis somehow. At that time, I didn't know where the penis would go, so it was very confusing to me. (The condoms or prophylactic discussion was because we were reading an article about pollution on the beaches in NY (needles, used condoms etc. The teacher had to explain what a prophylactic was). That was the 80s and I remember it because of the condom-helmet image, not because of pollution.)

As a former teacher, I argue for MORE education, not less. An uneducated public is a dangerous one.


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Welcome to the 21st century, friend, where writers can write whatever they want and readers can read however they want.


I suppose I can write what I want, but I can't sell it. Amazon and other sites won't let me. Just like I won't let my book to be sold as something unreadable. I don't want someone selling my book as if I'm the one who wrote that "clean" version or as if I approve of it. People are free to read my books however they want, of course, but _my_ words, not someone else's. If my book about witches and vampires went through this app, real witches would end up calling vampires and humans witches. And if all vaginas become bottoms, well, then the whole story becomes a lot dirtier, does it not?


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

katherinef said:


> And if all vaginas become bottoms, well, then the whole story becomes a lot dirtier, does it not?


Well...it's clear they didn't think this all the way through.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Betsy:
You are thinking of Laurell K Hamilton. 

Now back in about 1970, the power to filter cuss words was left up to the children.
We had a neighbor that had a cussing problem.    She decided the best way to cure herself was if she cussed around the children, she would put some money (probably a dime or quarter) in a jar and the kids could slap her hand.    
She told my mom, the money didn't bother her but her hands were sore.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Robert Dahlen said:


> Breaking, via John Scalzi's Twitter: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/27/clean-reader-books-app-censorship-victory-authors-celebrate


Not really breaking... It was reported quite some time ago in this thread, by a_g, and then me, that the store was no longer available in the app. The app is still available, and if you publish in DRM free epubs, there's nothing to stop someone from sideloading into the app, as far as I can tell.

Cin--you're right, LKH!

Betsy


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh and Betsy, I am not a prude either and I quit reading her for the same reason.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

If we don't want a rating system like the MPAA which is a racket and a half being imposed, I think apps that allow readers to filter the content they have purchased a license to view  it is in our best interest. I really don't want to have to see books carry a content rating. Small, niche groups with deep pockets and loud voices are what make organizations like the video game rating system, the movie rating system, the TV rating system, and the music rating system all happen, and it's very rarely in the artists' favor when those system pop up because once your content is labeled something, you can't get it off.

Music is actually a great analogy, there are records produced with curse words and without. Why it's such a creative injustice for books, I don't understand. I would say our ebooks are about as accessible as public radio is, with free ebooks and distribution access, and we don't make people only listen to one radio station to not hear curse words. Now, I will say that the radio standards have changed from when I was a kid to more lax, but you're not going to hear the F word without it bleeped on your local radio station.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> If we don't want a rating system like the MPAA which is a racket and a half being imposed, I think apps that allow readers to filter the content they have purchased a license to view it is in our best interest. I really don't want to have to see books carry a content rating. Small, niche groups with deep pockets and loud voices are what make organizations like the video game rating system, the movie rating system, the TV rating system, and the music rating system all happen, and it's very rarely in the artists' favor when those system pop up because once your content is labeled something, you can't get it off.
> 
> Music is actually a great analogy, there are records produced with curse words and without. Why it's such a creative injustice for books, I don't understand. I would say our ebooks are about as accessible as public radio is, with free ebooks and distribution access, and we don't make people only listen to one radio station to not hear curse words. Now, I will say that the radio standards have changed from when I was a kid to more lax, but you're not going to hear the F word without it bleeped on your local radio station.


The problem with the music analogy is those music artists have agreed to have their music played in a censored form. The problem with CR is we weren't given the choice.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> If we don't want a rating system like the MPAA which is a racket and a half being imposed, I think apps that allow readers to filter the content they have purchased a license to view it is in our best interest. I really don't want to have to see books carry a content rating. Small, niche groups with deep pockets and loud voices are what make organizations like the video game rating system, the movie rating system, the TV rating system, and the music rating system all happen, and it's very rarely in the artists' favor when those system pop up because once your content is labeled something, you can't get it off.
> 
> Music is actually a great analogy, there are records produced with curse words and without. Why it's such a creative injustice for books, I don't understand. I would say our ebooks are about as accessible as public radio is, with free ebooks and distribution access, and we don't make people only listen to one radio station to not hear curse words. Now, I will say that the radio standards have changed from when I was a kid to more lax, but you're not going to hear the F word without it bleeped on your local radio station.


This is a very American thing, however. German TV stations don't bleep out words deemed bad. In fact, just recently the anchorman of one of the most prestigious news programs used the s-word to refer to the war in Ukraine and no one objected.

German radio stations play songs with pretty risqué lyrics in both German and English and no bleeping ever. In fact, I hate the American practice to bleep out words in music and movies/TV programs, because it's distracting and ruins the experience. We do have a rating system for movies and video games, though concerns here are mostly about violence rather than sexual content and swearwords. And I'm very much opposed to some of the heavier cuts made to Hollywood movies deemed "too violent" for tender German eyes, particularly cuts that totally distort the meaning.

I also don't see who would impose a rating system for books and why. All retailers have a children's and YA book section full of age-appropriate works. And adults will simply have to live with coming across the occasional objectionable word or they will have to stick to the Christian/Inspirational section, which is guaranteed to be swearing and sex-free.

I do include a warning in my blurbs for graphic violence, explicit sex, potentially triggering material and heavier swearing (i.e. several instances of the f-word or worse) as a courtesy to the reader. But that's a voluntary decision.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> If we don't want a rating system like the MPAA which is a racket and a half being imposed, I think apps that allow readers to filter the content they have purchased a license to view it is in our best interest. I really don't want to have to see books carry a content rating. Small, niche groups with deep pockets and loud voices are what make organizations like the video game rating system, the movie rating system, the TV rating system, and the music rating system all happen, and it's very rarely in the artists' favor when those system pop up because once your content is labeled something, you can't get it off.
> 
> Music is actually a great analogy, there are records produced with curse words and without. Why it's such a creative injustice for books, I don't understand. I would say our ebooks are about as accessible as public radio is, with free ebooks and distribution access, and we don't make people only listen to one radio station to not hear curse words. Now, I will say that the radio standards have changed from when I was a kid to more lax, but you're not going to hear the F word without it bleeped on your local radio station.


Elizabeth FM could always do the words, it was AM that had to bleep. Still does I think.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

I agree the rating systems are very American, but they are here. I remember when video games did NOT carry an age restriction to purchase them. And it's always a morality group that wants the ratings systems imposed, and once it's there, there's no getting rid of it. 

FM Radio stations where I live do not play the f-word. Now, if that's just a convention for stations then fine, but I was pretty sure curse words on TV and radio during certain hours of the day could carry FCC fines. 

I could see a rating system becoming imposed on books for one reason: smart phones. The argument will be : with the prevalence of smart phones and Internet accessible phones becoming as available to younger teens like cable TV, we must "protect them" from this indecent content even if their parents won't. All it's going to take is some high-profile death from teens acting out a BDSM scene they read in an ebook, and voila, instant outrage, instant backlash.  Books have always faced burning, bans, and been seen as "dangerous" and now that they are digital and a county or school library can't just not carry that book, it's going to tick off the people who want everyone to live the way they want to live. 

The next Tipper Gore is going to want to make sure NOTHING objectionable can be read by our impressionable youth, especially not what is commonly referred to as "porn" in ebooks. And these rating systems DO hurt content creators, because once they are here, there's nothing to appeal them. There's little to do to stop it. And then labels turn into whether or not your book is available for the mass public, or hidden away in some dungeon like some adult content gets put into on Amazon. If there's a way for the zealous readers to censor their content in their own little device that makes them happy without forcing me to slap a big sticker blaring "no sex, no violence, no curse words" on my books, I'm happy.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

If Clean Reader wants to market this as an after-market app, fine. I'll still think it's stupid and I'll encourage people not to use it, but they're free to do what they want. But by selling books without permission in their store, there's an implication that the author consents to what CR is doing. It's underhanded and disrespectful and that's the issue.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Elizabeth, we are both right.  
You are right on the they cannot "say" indecent words from 6 am to 10 pm. 
I was right in they can play songs with indecent words in them.

The key word is "speech".  
Now as per Tipper Gore warning labels: record sales with the labels went up.  
There was not a law saying the kids couldn't buy them.  The labels were just to warn the parents. 

Now as to language and meaning please tell me the difference between "I'd just love to lay you down" and "I just want your sex" .


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Robert Dahlen said:


> Breaking, via John Scalzi's Twitter: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/27/clean-reader-books-app-censorship-victory-authors-celebrate


Didn't anybody else read this article? CleanReader has removed all books from their catalogue due to author backlash. Also there was backlash from Smashwords; they pulled all their titles. As of Thursday, March 26, there are no more book sales from CleanReader, although they said their app will work on books customers already purchased. They said they will be revising the app in the future "in response to feedback we have received from many authors and users."


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Perry Constantine said:


> If Clean Reader wants to market this as an after-market app, fine. I'll still think it's stupid and I'll encourage people not to use it, but they're free to do what they want. But by selling books without permission in their store, there's an implication that the author consents to what CR is doing. It's underhanded and disrespectful and that's the issue.


And apparently no longer an issue as the store has been removed from the app.

Betsy


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

The copyright infringement seems clear based on a careful reading of US copyright law. They produce a "tangible copy" (on the e-reader device) of what is known as a "derivative work" without the permission of the original copyright holder. I'm not a mouthpiece, but I don't think they'd prevail in court, irrespective of what their lawyers are purported to have told them.

But to establish precedent, somebody probably has to sue them. It would be difficult to establish real damages. It takes a while for law to catch up with technology.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And apparently no longer an issue as the store has been removed from the app.
> 
> Betsy


I know, but we're still getting questions about "why was this such a bad thing?" That's the question I've been answering.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Al Stevens said:


> The copyright infringement seems clear based on a careful reading of US copyright law. They produce a "tangible copy" (on the e-reader device) of what is known as a "derivative work" without the permission of the original copyright holder. I'm not a mouthpiece, but I don't think they'd prevail in court, irrespective of what their lawyers are purported to have told them.
> 
> But to establish precedent, somebody probably has to sue them. It would be difficult to establish real damages. It takes a while for law to catch up with technology.


As Charles Stross pointed out, Clean Reader also violates the moral rights of authors, which is a very big deal in most European copyright laws.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> I agree the rating systems are very American, but they are here. I remember when video games did NOT carry an age restriction to purchase them. And it's always a morality group that wants the ratings systems imposed, and once it's there, there's no getting rid of it.
> 
> FM Radio stations where I live do not play the f-word. Now, if that's just a convention for stations then fine, but I was pretty sure curse words on TV and radio during certain hours of the day could carry FCC fines.
> 
> ...


The state requires science teachers to teach sexual reproduction using the words Vagina, Penis, Sperm. If those are deemed obscene by any law, then there will be objections by the medical profession, educators (particularly science teachers) and from parents like me.

I don't want my children learning that the Smurf is created in the smurf and goes through the smurf, where smurf is added and then goes out of the smurf and then is transferred into the smurf. Once inside the smurf, the smurf has to travel into the Uterus (unless that now becomes Smurf) and then the Fallopian tubes where, if an egg is present, fertilization takes place. If fertilization takes place, the fertilized egg now travels down to the uterus/smurf and implants in the wall. I'd type more but I think you get the picture.

The reason I brought that up, is that this app changes the word "vagina" to bottom, and the slang for ejaculate to "juice".

Anyone who thinks this is about bleeping out the F word is missing the larger picture. Some of the words this couple have deemed "obscene" are NOT obscene.

You cannot compare this to a song having a word replaced or bleeped out. Bleeping out doesn't change the context. Replacing it with the wrong word CAN change the context, significantly. Then the issue becomes this App is allowing the book's message to be changed. That is where I think it becomes an issue with the law, if not here, then certainly in other countries.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

dianapersaud said:


> I don't want my children learning that the Smurf is created in the smurf and goes through the smurf, where smurf is added and then goes out of the smurf and then is transferred into the smurf. Once inside the smurf, the smurf has to travel into the Uterus (unless that now becomes Smurf) and then the Fallopian tubes where, if an egg is present, fertilization takes place. If fertilization takes place, the fertilized egg now travels down to the uterus/smurf and implants in the wall. I'd type more but I think you get the picture.


I got a very smurfy picture. I'm all smurfed now, my smurf is totally smurf.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

Perry Constantine said:


> If Clean Reader wants to market this as an after-market app, fine. I'll still think it's stupid and I'll encourage people not to use it, but they're free to do what they want. But by selling books without permission in their store, there's an implication that the author consents to what CR is doing. It's underhanded and disrespectful and that's the issue.


All fair points that I can agree with.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

Al Stevens said:


> The copyright infringement seems clear based on a careful reading of US copyright law. They produce a "tangible copy" (on the e-reader device) of what is known as a "derivative work" without the permission of the original copyright holder. I'm not a mouthpiece, but I don't think they'd prevail in court, irrespective of what their lawyers are purported to have told them.
> 
> But to establish precedent, somebody probably has to sue them. It would be difficult to establish real damages. It takes a while for law to catch up with technology.


I don't know. After CleanFlicks here in Utah was shut down by the US Supreme Court (CleanFlicks was a movie rental place that rented edited versions of popular movies, with the objectionable content removed), a company called Clear Play took over that market. Instead of editing the objectionable parts out, the Clear Play program would strategically skip those parts. Since the actual DVD itself wasn't modified, it was still legal.

It's like the difference between MST3K and Rifftrax. The Rifftrax guys don't actually edit the films to add their commentary--instead, they sell the MP3 of their commentary so that you can play it simultaneously with the unedited version. Accomplishes the same thing, but doesn't violate copyright by modifying any content.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> I got a very smurfy picture. I'm all smurfed now, my smurf is totally smurf.


Smur-fy!

I had a lot of fun writing that : reproduction as told by smurfs.

I typed: and then the baby came out of the smurf. 
It was too much so I took it out.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Wow, ok so if they really change "bastard" to "jerk" then that's going to put a real crimp in those historical romances where the hero is all angsty about being illegitimate, and how that colors every choice he made in life to become the dark broody super wealthy man he is against all odds. 
"I know that you could never marry me, for what woman would choose to marry... a jerk!"

*HARSH BUZZER SOUND*

Sorry, NOPE! They just took a single word being used with its legitimate definition and altered an ENTIRE story.

Don't get me wrong, I already hated the app on principle, but when someone mentioned that bastard = jerk, I realized how easily an entire storyline could be altered by changing a SINGLE word.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> Don't get me wrong, I already hated the app on principle, but when someone mentioned that bastard = jerk, I realized how easily an entire storyline could be altered by changing a SINGLE word.


The list compiled by Jennifer Porter also says they replace prick with groin, Jesus with gee, Christ with gosh, and Jesus Christ with geez. Since I'm positive this app isn't smart enough to determine context, imagine some of the passages:

"I felt a groin as the needle pierced my arm."
"Have you accepted geez as your personal savior?"
"With gosh, all things are possible."


----------



## ML-Larson (Feb 18, 2015)

dianapersaud said:


> the slang word for ejaculate is "juice"


This is actually going to play havoc on Victorian literature, which is is often polite to the point of hilarity as it is.

For instance, in the Sherlock Holmes canon, Doyle included over twenty instances of someone "ejaculating." Holmes was prone to sudden ejaculations, and Watson often ejaculated in wonder or surprise.

Instead, this app has turned them all into steroid addicts, constantly juicing at extremely inappropriate moments.

In my mind, this is why it's particularly stupid. It has no mind for context. Yes, in certain circumstances, it is acceptable to censor a work. When I was in high school, I was a TA for an English teacher, and her class was reading Huck Finn. I have never seen a group of more uncomfortable teenagers as when they had to read that book aloud in class, and nobody could come up with an acceptable substitution for a specific word that shows up every other sentence in some parts. There was all this uproar about a cleaned up version of the book some years ago, but that's why it was cleaned up. A classroom-appropriate version was not going to wipe the original version from the face of the planet, but it would prevent the parental complaints that happen when they find out that their black child sat in a classroom where 40 white kids were repeating slurs ad infinitum. To that parent, it doesn't matter that they were reading assigned material. What matters is that they were reading assigned material with grossly inappropriate language.

But, going back to Sherlock Holmes. The Victorians weren't exactly lewd (usually), but they could be racist as all get out, and you do see some of that in the Holmes canon. There's a lot of exotification and a few words used throughout that aren't used today. Holmes also nurses a coke habit, and there are several gruesome dog attacks which leave the victims permanently maimed. How do you copy and paste censor that without Holmes and Watson flinging juice everywhere? If you really wanted to remove elements that you mightn't want your eight year old to read, you'd have to do it manually. Each one of those ejaculations is different. While Holmes may be shouting with one of them, Watson is just failing to keep his big mouth shut for another. If you replace all of them with "shout," suddenly Watson is shouting in the middle of 221B Baker about how much he loves his wife.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

As to reading Huck Finn allowed in class. Let me just say that I've ALWAYS been the only black kid in class. Kids aren't stupid (if you don't raise them that way). If they are old enough to not only read the story but feel uncomfortable by the word usage then they should ALSO be old enough of and intelligent enough to understand...(what's that word again?)... context!

This black kid isn't sitting in a class of white kids yelling racial slurs AT them, or ABOUT their color. They're sitting in a class reading a classic work of literature that accurately represents the language and mindset of the time in which it's written.

THIS is what happens when you smother the world in PC fear. People lose understanding of subtly. They can't differentiate between an offensively meant racial slur towards their child
and having the ability to comprehend something more complex than a See Spot Run book. The next person to reference the character as Black Man Jim is getting a slap from my pimp hand.


----------



## Leanne King (Oct 2, 2012)

Bit late to the party on this one, but it looks like the app needs some work:

https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/581066501781884929


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Stephanie Marks said:


> Wow, ok so if they really change "bastard" to "jerk" then that's going to put a real crimp in those historical romances where the hero is all angsty about being illegitimate, and how that colors every choice he made in life to become the dark broody super wealthy man he is against all odds.
> "I know that you could never marry me, for what woman would choose to marry... a jerk!"


An let's not forget all the fantasies where protagonists now wield jerk swords.

But going up above... why not have a ratings system? Not the ratings body, but a voluntary one like the WEB standards. You know, folks who want to be responsible and let their readers know what they're getting _before_ the bad reviews start rolling in can just add a notice to their blurb.

For example, before the re-design, my site had this:

'Unless otherwise noted, stories posted to this site are rated WEB-13 for fantastic violence, mild swearing, and implied adult situations.' The blog is WEB-16 because I curse a lot more there. Like a lot. I invented the word 'bastardly' there.

Edit: wait... didn't 'bastard' used to be filtered here?


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> The list compiled by Jennifer Porter also says they replace prick with groin, Jesus with gee, Christ with gosh, and Jesus Christ with geez. Since I'm positive this app isn't smart enough to determine context, imagine some of the passages:
> 
> "I felt a groin as the needle pierced my arm."
> "Have you accepted geez as your personal savior?"
> "With gosh, all things are possible."


LOL Thanks for the Saturday morning giggle.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Stephanie Marks said:


> As to reading Huck Finn allowed in class. Let me just say that I've ALWAYS been the only black kid in class. Kids aren't stupid (if you don't raise them that way). If they are old enough to not only read the story but feel uncomfortable by the word usage then they should ALSO be old enough of and intelligent enough to understand...(what's that word again?)... context!
> 
> This black kid isn't sitting in a class of white kids yelling racial slurs AT them, or ABOUT their color. They're sitting in a class reading a classic work of literature that accurately represents the language and mindset of the time in which it's written.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%.
I was always the only Indian in my class.

I love your covers!!


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

This is such an interesting thread. I'll admit that I don't really see why such an app is even necessary. Surely adults are capable of overlooking bad language, or just skipping the book altogether? And if a parent wants to shelter their child from bad language, wouldn't they be monitoring what their child reads to begin with? My parents didn't censor what I read, and I don't censor my children either (with the exception of heavy sexual content, though I haven't yet had to disallow any book). My child once brought a book to me saying it had a lot of swear words. I asked her if the words bothered her (no) and if she wanted to continue reading the book (yes). She knows she can come to me with any questions. 

I've noticed that more and more movies are riddled with excessive bad language and sexual content. Though it doesn't bother me personally, it does make me a little uncomfortable when my children are around. But I don't expect to be able to watch a "clean" version; we just turn it off and watch something a little more appropriate.

But if an app is developed to censor bad language, will it end there? What about other sensitive issues like violence, rape, abuse, etc? It just makes me cringe to think of censorship within a book. Reminds me of the Mark Twain debate.


----------



## Robert Dahlen (Apr 27, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Not really breaking... It was reported quite some time ago in this thread, by a_g, and then me, that the store was no longer available in the app. The app is still available, and if you publish in DRM free epubs, there's nothing to stop someone from sideloading into the app, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Betsy


You're right, of course. I posted that at work, and I didn't read the article closely. Sorry about that.

I'm such a smurfy smurf.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

Tallking of censorship. Are we still fucking well shit censored on this forum? Are they using that fucking 'Clean Reader'


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

Been thinking about this a lot. I belong to a community where a lot of people (but certainly not all) are uncomfortable with sex, violence, and swearing in the books they read, though my own tastes (in reading and writing) are considerably broader and edgier. And I can understand their frustration with being unable to buy books marketed to the mainstream market (as opposed to specific religious markets) that suit their tastes. So I don't want to completely dismiss that.

It seems there are three separate issues here. The first is books being sold through a specific venue, in a specific form, for a specific purpose that the author did not consent to. Not cool, and I think this has stopped because the Clean Reader people have stopped selling books through the app.

The second issue is altering the actual book files without the author's permission. Is this how the app works? I don't know. If it is, again that is not cool.

Does the app work just by changing how the file displays on the screen? I don't know. If it is, I guess that's ok; that's up to the reader, how they display things on their device. I still think a lot of the substitutions are stupid and even destructive, especially the ones for body parts (though if I'm reading a book with a lot of f-words I have to admit I wouldn't mind a star in place of them because it gets really tiresome when there's too many of them).

And I think there are much more constructive ways to handle the issue of children reading inappropriate books. Open communication is much better. When I was a kid (about 11?) my parents told me that no book in the house was off-limits to me, and if I had any questions about what I read, I could ask them any time. Of course they didn't have erotica in the house, but they had the current big bestsellers, with everything that entails, and I read them, and I'd been taught my parents' values well enough that I knew what was right and what was wrong and just because it was in a book didn't mean it was ok. In the meantime, my parents made sure I was well-supplied with age-appropriate books that suited my interests.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

TobiasRoote said:


> Tallking of censorship. Are we still [expletive]ing well [crap] censored on this forum? Are they using that [expletive]ing 'Clean Reader'


Have been reading these posts in this thread and this has been mentioned a few times already. IMO, this is Harvey's forum, his rules. He can use a "Clean Reader" on it if he wants. Same thing on his own books. You can start your own forum without filtering out profanity, no one is going to stop you. Now if someone used an app that censored profanity on your own forum, against your wishes, now that would be outrageous. We know the rules when we choose to participate in this forum and that means no profanity.

If Clean Reader would have sought a partnership with authors that were willing to include their books in their retail stores things probably wouldn't have blown up this bad for them. And that is why they closed down the retail component of their site (where they were selling and making commissions on books to censor without the author's consent).


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Kyra Halland said:


> Been thinking about this a lot. I belong to a community where a lot of people (but certainly not all) are uncomfortable with sex, violence, and swearing in the books they read, though my own tastes (in reading and writing) are considerably broader and edgier. And I can understand their frustration with being unable to buy books marketed to the mainstream market (as opposed to specific religious markets) that suit their tastes. So I don't want to completely dismiss that.
> 
> It seems there are three separate issues here. The first is books being sold through a specific venue, in a specific form, for a specific purpose that the author did not consent to. Not cool, and I think this has stopped because the Clean Reader people have stopped selling books through the app.
> 
> ...


To answer your question, it doesn't change the actual file, which is why the lawyers told them it was ok. However, depending on the setting, the words that the reader is seeing is MUCH different than the author intended. It's not a simple substitution.

For example, the word "vagina" is deemed profane (it's not) and is changed to "bottom". Do you see the problem there?

"prick" is not an obscene word unless it's used to refer to an appendage. But that word is tagged as profane. The problem with using software is that it doesn't understand _context_.

Sex is also "profane". Have you ever filled out an employment form, Driver's license form, tax form? Sex is on there. It refers to gender in that sense.

The creators of this app think that "sex" is profane and should be replaced with "love."

Will the phrase: "sexual abuse" now be changed to "love abuse"?

Will Toni Morrison's description of her rape as a child in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings now be changed to a "loving" description between an adult and a child? That, to me, would be more obscene than reading her story the way it was intended.

Again, this isn't simple word substitution. It's substitutions that can completely change the meaning of the text, and that does violate the author's Moral rights.

You are right about one thing- people need to be more selective in what they are reading and choose appropriate books.

In an age where women's body parts are chopped off and photoshopped and women are body shamed, we don't need an app that continues this misogynistic trend.

I read S. King when I was a young teen and was shocked at the cursing. I also picked up Dean Koontz at the time. He had much less swearing and the genre is similar. I read both. I also read John Saul and don't recall there being much profanity in his books.

Readers have a choice. Find the right author, not find a book and modify it to suit your needs.

Modified to replace the word "obscene" with profane. Betsy, you're right. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

TobiasRoote said:


> Tallking of censorship. Are we still [expletive]ing well [crap] censored on this forum? Are they using that [expletive]ing 'Clean Reader'


Completely different story. That's part of the rules of the board _you agreed to_ when you signed up for an account. Clean Reader didn't ask for permission when selling books.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

For accuracy's sake, though this doesn't change your point, Diana, I just want to point out that nowhere on their site, blog or app that I've been able to find do the developers say the words they're replacing are "obscene."  They do talk about profanity, swear words, and bad language.  Just putting this out there because you've used the word obscene in quotes which could make some think that's wording from the site.  Otherwise, not arguing your points.

Betsy


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> For accuracy's sake, though this doesn't change your point, Diana, I just want to point out that nowhere on their site, blog or app that I've been able to find do the developers say the words they're replacing are "obscene." They do talk about profanity, swear words, and bad language. Just putting this out there because you've used the word obscene in quotes which could make some think that's wording from the site. Otherwise, not arguing your points.
> 
> Betsy


Betsy, thanks for pointing that out, you're right. I updated the post.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I only want my books sold on the sites I chose. I was not given an opportunity to opt out of this app, which is wrong.Though I'm glad the store no longer sells books through their site/app/whatever, I'm still not happy with something that could change the words I -- as the author -- chose. I used the words I did for a reason. I did not randomly insert cursing or slang words in my work.

A comment made about how readers could use the app to read a writer's "creativity" or something like that without the filth/naughty words/whatever is ridiculous. Without _my_ words, it's not _my_ creativity, but instead some random substitution by a computer program.

I suspect we're going to see a lot more about things like this in the future, as the online world grows and changes. Constant vigilance, folks.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2015)

Perry Constantine said:


> Completely different story. That's part of the rules of the board _you agreed to_ when you signed up for an account. Clean Reader didn't ask for permission when selling books.


Aye, It was a tongue in cheek comment, but your point about them getting your permission is clear. I'm not in disagreement with any of this - if they did it to my books I would be spitting feathers.


----------



## Scott Bartlett (Apr 1, 2012)

A valuable perspective on this discussion: Cory Doctorow, who disagrees with the use of Clean Reader, nevertheless defends the right to use it since he considers it a free speech issue.

Here is his column in the Guardian on the subject: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/30/allow-clean-reader-swap-bad-words-books-free-speech


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Maybe someone should develop an app that translates back into English those ebooks already translated into a foreign language where authors gave permission to remove/change words that are offensive in other cultures.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2015)

Scott Bartlett said:


> A valuable perspective on this discussion: Cory Doctorow, who disagrees with the use of Clean Reader, nevertheless defends the right to use it since he considers it a free speech issue.
> 
> Here is his column in the Guardian on the subject: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/30/allow-clean-reader-swap-bad-words-books-free-speech


Exactly. I agree with Mr. Doctorow on this one 100%.


----------

