# Kindle articles: obsolete e-readers? parental controls?



## Guest (Dec 3, 2009)

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108283/e-readers-theyre-hot-now-but-the-story-isnt-over?mod=family-love_money

So I'm reading yet another article about the death of the ebook reader, and this arguement just struck me the wrong way.



> The parent's entire e-book archive is accessible to that child's Kindle-individual titles can't be locked out," says Ms. Broughton. "Parental controls are one of the most wished-for features." There are technical work-arounds for some of these issues, but they require downloading unofficial software.


Well, first, mom...what the hell did you buy off of Amazon that you need to shield your kid from it? And second, what did you do with all of your racy romance novels when you bought them in print?

I mean, really. When I was in high school, all of my friends' moms read trashy romance novels. You'd go over and find stacks of the things near the sofa or in the bathroom or the kitchen. Were we in danger then?

And what about videos? I mean, most folks have DVD collections? What do you do when you arn't home, lock them in the cabinet? (And please, the parental controls on the VCR are a joke. They don't possibly count.)

This just strikes me as an ridiculous "evidence" on how ereaders will become obsolete.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, even if it's not erotica it's quite possible that a parent could have titles on their Kindle that they'd really rather not have their 8 year old have access to.  Maybe when they're 12.  Maybe 16.  So it is a thing that parents have to consider if they share their kindle accounts.  If they're paper books, they'd no doubt shelve them in, say, their own bedroom where perhaps the kids are not allowed to have free access.

One solution that works for the Kindle, at least, is to have two accounts: one for the kids, and one for you. . . .as the kids get older, you can give them access to the more 'mature' account.  It requires de-registering and re-registering the Kindle, but you're buying all the books either way so I don't see it as a Terms of Service problem.

I do think that, eventually, there will be a way to sequester books in a given account so that they are not available to your kids if you don't wish them to be.  Until there is, parents have to figure out how to do it themselves.

Still. . . .the ereader is not doomed. . . .neither is the paper book. . . . . .


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

In my (bold) opinion if you censor your children from published literature of any kind, you do not deserve to read books or have children.

I think most parents of the articles philiosphy would be _SHOCKED_ at what is available in school library, not to mention a public library.


----------



## suicidepact (May 17, 2009)

Well said both of you. It seems to be more and more common that as e-book readers become more ubiquitous, so do the myths about them. It's almost as if we need a snopes.com type of sight solely dedicated to quashing errant ideas about what e-book readers do and don't do.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

I thought the article was pretty weak.  After letting a number of articles p*** me off, I've decided to ignore articles by folks that just don't 'get' ereaders, have never tried one, or have had one to test for about 24 hours.

And the comment on getting a netbook instead of a reader?!  I'll just roll my eyes (eee one fell out!) and keep it moving.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I was surprised by the parental controls comment.  Granted, I don't have young children running around my house - the girl I raised is 27 - so it's not something I worry about on a day to day basis.  Besides, I thought the most wished for features were folders, backlights and free upgrades.

I'm not really sure what I think about this article overall.  There was none of the standard 'ebooks are evil' whining but it did spend much of its time discussing how ebooks are a fad and possibly a bad purchase due to technology changes ....

The article's author does have good taste in first names though.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

oganki said:


> In my (bold) opinion if you censor your children from published literature of any kind, you do not deserve to read books or have children.
> 
> I think most parents of the articles philiosphy would be _SHOCKED_ at what is available in school library, not to mention a public library.


That's a pretty broad statement. I don't think I ever needed to censor what I let my kids read; but if I had found my 6-year old with Penthouse Letters or my 8-year old with, for example, The Exorcist, even though their reading skills were capable of the words, I would have. I think there is such a thing as "age-appropriate" or "understanding-appropriate" that a parent should consider. Just because something is available in the school library does not mean it is alright for any child to read it. That's just my opinion, and you are, of course, entitled to yours.

As far as the article, I agree with Bardsandsages, having something on the kindle is no different than having the books available somewhere in your home. If you are worried about someone's (a child's) access to some of your reading material, buy another kindle and create a separate account for what you think is appropriate reading material or keep your kindle out of their hands.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I swear if this woman had brains, she'd be dangerous.



> But Ms. Broughton says she can't recommend the Kindle to people who aren't technically savvy and might want to purchase their books anywhere other than the Amazon store.


"Technically savvy"? Please. Emailing a file to your Kindle is harder than writing an email message? Using the USB cable requires superior technical knowledge?



> That's because the Kindle doesn't read copyright protected files from other bookstores or libraries.


Huh?



> It also makes it tough for parents to monitor what their children are reading, if a child has a Kindle that is registered to his parent's Amazon account.


Speaking as a parent, I am happy if my children are reading, period. I am certainly not going to go and start "monitoring" their reading because what faster way to discourage them!

My son has always been an avid reader and would read books almost as fast as we could get them to him. My daughter -- not so much so when she reads (just about anything) that's a good sign to me.

I am sick of dumb articles full of misinformation and this seems to be just another one.

L


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Literary censorship is a controversial thing, I personally haven't been shielded from anything from my parents. Maybe I just never wanted to view anything that wasn't age-appropriate, you wouldn't get me watching Saw. I personally wouldn't restrict children from any literary material, words cannot harm in my opinion. As long as they understand that it's fiction then it's fine.


----------



## Rhiathame (Mar 12, 2009)

crebel said:


> That's a pretty broad statement. I don't think I ever needed to censor what I let my kids read; but if I had found my 6-year old with Penthouse Letters or my 8-year old with, for example, The Exorcist, even though their reading skills were capable of the words, I would have. I think there is such a thing as "appropriate" or "understanding-appropriate" that a parent should consider. Just because something is available in the school library does not mean it is alright for any child to read it. That's just my opinion, and you are, of course, entitled to yours.


This is an interesting point. I was always a pretty advanced reader and not just in understanding of the words but of the concepts and themes in a book. My parents did not feel the need to censor anything a read because the were of the opinion that if it was something that I was not ready for I would get bored and stop reading it anyway (which was mostly true). I distinctly remember an incident that this thread brings to mind. I was in 4th grade and went to my school library to read and I had brought a book from home...Clan of the Cave Bear. Mind you, this is not something your typical 4th grader would read I know. The school librarian had a FIT! She snatched the book from me and gave me detention and a strongly worded note to my Dad...the poor woman. Well my Dad arrived at school the next day with me in tow and demanded the book back. He then asked what authority she thought she had to take the book and give me detention. Well she sputtered a bit and then told him that I was too young to be reading that book and to understand what I was reading. He then asked her if she had read the book and invited her to ask me questions about the book and the themes in the book. All of which I was able to answer appropriately. I got my book back and no detention and was moved into an advanced reading class but whet my point is, each parent has the responsibility to help guide their children's reading based off of their maturity and ability to understand what is in the book. But if our children have access to books with more mature themes then we need to be prepared for what that result in.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> words cannot harm in my opinion. As long as they understand that it's fiction then it's fine.


Well, but that's the key thing. . . .understanding the words is one thing, understanding the full meaning is another. And, as with the example of a young kid reading "The Exorcist". . . .if it's likely to give 'em nightmares, it's a wise parent who steers them in another direction. . . .if only out of personal selfishness because you don't want to have to get up with them in the middle of the night when they wake up screaming! 

Also, different kids are more or less sensitive and will be able to make that leap to "it's only a story" sooner or later.

FWIW, we were pretty much always allowed to read any reading material we found in the house. . . .our parents were generally aware of what it was and always were willing to discuss it with us. To my recollection the only books that were 'protected' from us in any way were the ones that had some extra value. . . . older first editions and/or signed copies. . . . . but that wasn't because of content, it was because they didn't want them damaged.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Well, but that's the key thing. . . .understanding the words is one thing, understanding the full meaning is another. And, as with the example of a young kid reading "The Exorcist". . . .if it's likely to give 'em nightmares, it's a wise parent who steers them in another direction. . . .if only out of personal selfishness because you don't want to have to get up with them in the middle of the night when they wake up screaming!
> 
> Also, different kids are more or less sensitive and will be able to make that leap to "it's only a story" sooner or later.
> 
> FWIW, we were pretty much always allowed to read any reading material we found in the house. . . .our parents were generally aware of what it was and always were willing to discuss it with us. To my recollection the only books that were 'protected' from us in any way were the ones that had some extra value. . . . older first editions and/or signed copies. . . . . but that wasn't because of content, it was because they didn't want them damaged.


My point was more towards text, not publishing pornography. My point re: the library was that you have far less control over what your child is able to read at their school library. Of course, how you raise your children is your prerogative with a few caveats. However if the general consensus is that children should be raised in open and diverse environment, censorship quickly becomes a dangerous weapon when it comes to something so elemental as literature. Another thought, I was far more rattled by my required reading in grade school than I ever was on anything I choose to read on my own.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

I suppose it depends on the child , most children I know are mature enough to read something like Heart of Darkness and be fine with it. It's up for the parents to judge but if the child _wanted_ to read a certain title I certainly wouldn't withhold anything that had literary value, no trashy romance though


----------



## Ms Carolyn (Nov 10, 2008)

The thought that comes to my mind is that parental controls would have been needed for me when I was a child, not because of the content I would have read, but the enormous bill I would have chalked up for books once I learned how easy it was to order and download them!


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

I agree with the last few posts 100%.  I was also an advanced reader and my parents met with the library board when I was 10 to get them to allow me an "adult-no restrictions" library card.  They never restricted what I checked out, but they did keep tabs on what I was reading.  I don't think that just because there are some who might like to at least try to maintain some "parental controls" means they don't deserve to read books or have children - that was really the part of the post that bothered me.


----------



## RavenclawPrefect (May 4, 2009)

I have a Kindle (duh) and soon, my almost 13 year old will have a Kindle that is on my account.  Are there things on my account I don't want her reading?  Sure there are, some of it is not content I want her to read yet but if she asked to, I would talk to her about it.  I have never banned or stopped my kids from reading anything.  If they are trying to read something inappropriate, I steer them towards something that is more their speed.  Heck, I was reading Roots when I was in 6th grade. 

She can go into any library and check the same books out that I have on my Kindle, it is not any different from sharing my account.  I don't see a problem.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Talking about it now I still have to use my father's library card on occasion, one librarian refused to let me take out a title by Richard Dawkins on the basis that I wasn't an adult, even though I am according to their own rules, albeit by 11 months (I'm almost 14). I'm hardly going to take ID into a library though, some librarians are tough.


----------



## Carld (Dec 2, 2009)

crebel said:


> That's a pretty broad statement. I don't think I ever needed to censor what I let my kids read; but if I had found my 6-year old with Penthouse Letters or my 8-year old with, for example, The Exorcist, even though their reading skills were capable of the words, I would have.


I was a youngish teenager when The Exorcist was hot, new and scary. A neighbor read it and offered it to me. I actually asked my Mom for permission to read it. She said yes, and I didn't end up scarred for life. However, I'd have known good and well the book was off-limits at 8-years-old. It's completely normal and appropriate to set limits on your children's entertainment. As long as someone isn't trying to limit MY choices to "protect" their kids I'm okay with it.

Thankfully, there's no one else on my Kindle account, so I can read all the trashy stuff I like.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

My parents were both avid readers and loved to buy books so we always had tons of books around the house. I tended to pick up whatever caught my eye -- even books that I knew were too "old" or "adult" for me -- and read them. My mother fussed a bit but the only book she ever took away from me was *Rabbit, Run* by John Updike (and to this day, I have never gone back to re-read or finish it). The end effect of her censorship? I became sneakier about what I was reading so it actually backfired on her. Previously, we could talk about the books but not after. Having had this experience, I've never restricted anything my children read and I don't feel like they've read a ton of inappropriate books, either.

My children both have Kindles on my account so they have access to all the books in my library. My son has read some mysteries and adventures; my daughter tells me she has absolutely no interest in the sexy books I like to read.

L


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> I'm hardly going to take ID into a library though, some librarians are tough.


I don't mean to demean the entire of profession of librarians, but I have known a few librarians who are a death knell to an interest in reading in young people. The whole mean librarian stereotype? Yup, they're out there, or at least they were when I was growing up.

L


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Of course, we're both adults, but, when I agreed to let my brother share my Kindle account, we decided that comments about each other's reading choices would be off limits.    Mostly we do read the same sort of stuff, but. .  . . . . . .


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

The closest thing I had to censorship growing up was when my dad told me I was too old to be reading comic books.    At the same time, when the librarian questioned whether I was really going to read all 20 of the books I was checking out in the 4th grade or so, my father said "Yes, she will" and guided me on down the line. (Of course, thinking back about my dad, maybe he was planning on MAKING me read them if I didn't follow through  )  I remember reading my folks' Harold Robbins books once I started looking on their bookshelves.  Don't know if they knew I was reading them or not...I didn't exactly bring them to the dining room table. 

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I don't mean to demean the entire of profession of librarians, but I have known a few librarians who are a death knell to an interest in reading in young people. The whole mean librarian stereotype? Yup, they're out there, or at least they were when I was growing up.
> 
> L


Yep. That's because, to some, the _books_ are more important than the reading.

It's a shame, really.

OTOH, you can understand how a librarian would be reticent about letting a 12 year old check out a book that is for "age 16 and up" without a signed parental permission slip.


----------



## ElaineOK (Jun 5, 2009)

Hmmm, we read lots.  We were never stopped from reading (well, most of us).  I wonder if there is a connection?

There is a difference between a parent having an inappropriate paper book and something on Kindle and that is that it is easier to look across the room and see what someone is reading if it is on paper.  Also, I agree that there are somethings that I have read that would not be appropriate for a child.  That being said, I used to teach College Freshman, and I could tell the students who never made a decision or had to be responsible for squat before their parents unpacked their suitcase for them in their dorm rooms.  

Elaine
Norman, OKlahoma


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

With what is available on video games, TV and the internet I seriously don't think we have to worry about children being corruped by *books*. Now there _are_ some books on my Kindle that I wouldn't want to know that my Mom read!  Goes under the heading "Too Much Information".


----------



## Anju  (Nov 8, 2008)

Another jerk writing about what he does not know about. Even interviews a kindle owner who appears to be a jerk also. A stay at home mom who reads a lot and her kids read a lot but she won't recommend the kindle 

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108283/e-readers-theyre-hot-now-but-the-story-isnt-over?mod=family-love_money

I cannot answer this, I am too angry with the stupidity of some people


----------



## Varin (May 12, 2009)

*grinds teeth*

I really don't know what to say.


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

Another article by someone who just doesn't seem to get the point of e-readers. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=118447


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

oganki said:


> In my (bold) opinion if you censor your children from published literature of any kind, you do not deserve to read books or have children.
> 
> I think most parents of the articles philiosphy would be _SHOCKED_ at what is available in school library, not to mention a public library.


That statement REALLY bothers me. I don't deserve to read or have kids because I parent my child? Can I ask how setting limits for my child's reading is any different than not allowing them to go see an R or X rated movie? Is there a chance they're going to see one of those movies without my knowledge? Quite possibly, but am I going to make it easy for them? Not a chance. I don't think I'd be a responsible parent if I did.

I'll admit some of the books I have bought are basically porn, well beyond the "trashy novel". Those are the books I don't allow the kids to read. Those are the same books that if I owned in paperback, would be tucked away on the top shelf of my closet and not on the family bookshelf.

If there's a book I'm concerned about, I'll read it myself first so that I can discuss it with them. Books that I feel might be appropriate for my very mature 15 year old can be totally inappropriate for my VERY immature 12 year old. Plus there are the 7 & 8 year olds to consider. As their parent and teacher, I'm a pretty good judge of what they're ready for.


----------



## Britt (Feb 8, 2009)

> "If you have the disposable income and love technology -- not books -- you should get a dedicated e-reader," says Bob LiVolsi, the founder of BooksOnBoard, the largest independent e-book store.


 Why the heck would you want an e-reader if you don't love books?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

*** merging this with the existing thread discussing the article***


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

I can't understand why she wouldn't recommend them unless you are tech savvy, really they aren't that hard to figure out, or I wouldn't own one!  

As for the parental controls, I guess I can see some of what she is saying but can't she just check her child's Kindle and see what is on it? 

I don't know, I think it is rather naive for anyone to think it is just a phase and will die out. I only see it getting more popular and in demand, but what do I know.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I was only forbidden from reading one book -- Linda Lovelace's autobiography.  

My grandmother asked me the other day if I liked V.C. Andrews, and I pointed out to her that I discovered Flowers in The Attic at age 11 or 12, because it was in our house. Meaning, since my grandmother lived with us when I was a kid, she's one of the people who technically introduced me to the author. Then I grinned and said, "How messed up is that!?" She had the good grace to look embarrassed, but not too embarrassed.* As I think I've pointed out before, my mother read me Jaws as a bedtime story. 

*Anyone who's ever read the book will understand, and a whole lot of people read it at about the same age I did. Thank God I was an only child.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I wonder if the plethora of anti-Kindle articles are coming out now because Amazon just announced that the Kindle was their best selling item in November.  Maybe a little sour grapes?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

These articles aren't for serious readers. There's no way, because I like the Kindle app for the laptop and all, but Sunday morning breakfast involved reading the NYT or my latest book on my Kindle. No one thinks lugging a laptop to a restaurant is the same thing. Not to mention that anyone who reads for a long period of time wants to be able to shift positions, and also the shifts that come with changing interest in the books. 

And it would be expensive to get an Oberon cover for my laptop.  

Dedicated readers are for -- wait for it! -- dedicated readers. Dang!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I think the thing is that people who are not readers honestly don't realize that there are so many people who are! For them reading is what you have to do for your job or whatever. . . .they honestly can't conceive of just reading to read so don't understand why anyone would want a device designed just for readers.

And, you know, if you're _not_ a reader, it's not for you, and that's o.k. I personally have zero interest in an mp3 player of any type. . . . . .but far be it for me to tell you that you shouldn't get one because, after all, you don't _need_ a dedicated device to listen to your music since you _could_ listen to your radio for free or download songs on your computer and listen that way.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> These articles aren't for serious readers. There's no way, because I like the Kindle app for the laptop and all, but Sunday morning breakfast involved reading the NYT or my latest book on my Kindle. No one thinks lugging a laptop to a restaurant is the same thing. Not to mention that anyone who reads for a long period of time wants to be able to shift positions, and also the shifts that come with changing interest in the books.
> 
> And it would be expensive to get an Oberon cover for my laptop.
> 
> Dedicated readers are for -- wait for it! -- dedicated readers. Dang!


LOL on getting an Oberon for the laptop.

I'd also have problems lugging my laptop to bed with me everynight.


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> ...I pointed out to her that I discovered Flowers in The Attic at age 11 or 12, because it was in our house...


This made me giggle cause I, too, discovered Flowers In The Attic at about 11 or 12. LOVED the entire series. When I reread it as an adult I was shocked at some of the themes that went straight over my head as a kid. IT was kinda funny.



luvmy4brats said:


> That statement REALLY bothers me. I don't deserve to read or have kids because I parent my child? Can I ask how setting limits for my child's reading is any different than not allowing them to go see an R or X rated movie? Is there a chance they're going to see one of those movies without my knowledge? Quite possibly, but am I going to make it easy for them? Not a chance. I don't think I'd be a responsible parent if I did.
> 
> I'll admit some of the books I have bought are basically porn, well beyond the "trashy novel". Those are the books I don't allow the kids to read. Those are the same books that if I owned in paperback, would be tucked away on the top shelf of my closet and not on the family bookshelf.


While VC Andrews is one thing, Penthouse Forum or erotica is another. (BTW: A lot of the erotica are the freebies each month! Think I am wrong? Click on Kindle Bestsellers sometime...) All of those titles and more are as easily accessible on Kindle as the other. There should definitely be some sort of parental controls as far as downloading to each Kindle but until technology catches up, separate accounts is probably the way to go. That is not censorship. It is just good parenting!


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

luvmy4brats said:


> That statement REALLY bothers me. I don't deserve to read or have kids because I parent my child? Can I ask how setting limits for my child's reading is any different than not allowing them to go see an R or X rated movie? Is there a chance they're going to see one of those movies without my knowledge? Quite possibly, but am I going to make it easy for them? Not a chance. I don't think I'd be a responsible parent if I did.
> 
> I'll admit some of the books I have bought are basically porn, well beyond the "trashy novel". Those are the books I don't allow the kids to read. Those are the same books that if I owned in paperback, would be tucked away on the top shelf of my closet and not on the family bookshelf.
> 
> If there's a book I'm concerned about, I'll read it myself first so that I can discuss it with them. Books that I feel might be appropriate for my very mature 15 year old can be totally inappropriate for my VERY immature 12 year old. Plus there are the 7 & 8 year olds to consider. As their parent and teacher, I'm a pretty good judge of what they're ready for.


At the risk of offending a moderator  censoring literature (as most avid readers already know) is an extremely dangerous tactic in the wrong hands, and sometimes even in the right hands, for anyone to undertake. By limiting what your children (or anyone) read, you are limiting their personal development as a person. Perhaps my statement was a little bit over the top, but at the very least anyone considering censoring what their children read should seriously consider their role as a parent and their interest as a reader. I'm truly sorry if that offends anyone but it is the truth.


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

oganki said:


> At the risk of offending a moderator  censoring literature (as most avid readers already know) is an extremely dangerous tactic in the wrong hands, and sometimes even in the right hands, for anyone to undertake. By limiting what your children (or anyone) read, you are limiting their personal development as a person. Perhaps my statement was a little bit over the top, but at the very least anyone considering censoring what their children read should seriously consider their role as a parent and their interest as a reader. I'm truly sorry if that offends anyone but it is the truth.


Are you a parent? Would you let a 10 or 12 year old read XXX rated books? Watch NC-17 movies? Watch porn on TV??

Your view bothers me VERY much! I have a 13 year old son and yes, I am quite aware of what children do and try to do. Does that mean that I am going to give it to him? No it does not. It means that I LOVE him and am attempting to limit his exposure to "adult" things until he is emotionally ready for them. Will I succeed? Maybe not. Will that stop me? No way. I want him to be a kid as long as I can allow him to be.

Again, are you a parent? I'd love to know.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

KindleKay (aka #1652) said:


> Are you a parent? Would you let a 10 or 12 year old read XXX rated books? Watch NC-17 movies? Watch porn on TV??
> 
> Your view bothers me VERY much! I have a 13 year old son and yes, I am quite aware of what children do and try to do. Does that mean that I am going to give it to him? No it does not. It means that I LOVE him and am attempting to limit his exposure to "adult" things until he is emotionally ready for them. Will I succeed? Maybe not. Will that stop me? No way. I want him to be a kid as long as I can allow him to be.
> 
> Again, are you a parent? I'd love to know.


Allow me to attempt to address your question in several parts.

_Are you a parent?_

Yes.

_Would you let a 10 or 12 year old read *XXX rated books*? Watch NC-17 movies? Watch porn on TV?_

No. Books? I cannot imagine a situation would I would ban my child from reading text on a page. Make of that what you will.

Do I maintain an open line of communication with my child to the extent that I would feel confident they would come to me with something they were confused about? Yes.


----------



## timsgirl627 (Nov 24, 2009)

Well first I want to say that I do not have children in my home... however I have 40 children at my job that I spend more time with than some of their parents do. I teach. While I understand the importance of getting kids to read, I do not understand the logic of letting them read "words on a page". I will restrict my students of reading things that are not age appropriate. Last year, I took a book away from someone because it was COMPLETELY inappropriate for a 3rd grader to read. It had AWFUL, graphic pictures of murders in it. The kids in my area see enough bad things, they don't need a book to show them more. THis year, I took a book away because on page one there was a word (I do not remember what now) that the student pointed out and said "that is a cuss word"... enough said, the book was mine. Believe me, the "words on the page" will effect these kids. Think they don't know what the words are saying? These days that is way off. A lot of kids know more than people think. And they know more than they will let their parents know. The things my students talk about I didn't know about until I was well into middle school.... sexual things in kinder and 2nd grade... stripping in 3rd... the list goes on. They WILL know what those books are talking about if they can read the words, or at least know it is inappropriate. I will not be responsible for one of my kids going home and announcing inappropriate things they read. Thats just my .02 though...


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

timsgirl627 said:


> Well first I want to say that I do not have children in my home... however I have 40 children at my job that I spend more time with than some of their parents do. I teach. While I understand the importance of getting kids to read, I do not understand the logic of letting them read "words on a page". I will restrict my students of reading things that are not age appropriate. Last year, I took a book away from someone because it was COMPLETELY inappropriate for a 3rd grader to read. It had AWFUL, graphic pictures of murders in it. The kids in my area see enough bad things, they don't need a book to show them more. THis year, I took a book away because on page one there was a word (I do not remember what now) that the student pointed out and said "that is a cuss word"... enough said, the book was mine. Believe me, the "words on the page" will effect these kids. Think they don't know what the words are saying? These days that is way off. A lot of kids know more than people think. And they know more than they will let their parents know. The things my students talk about I didn't know about until I was well into middle school.... sexual things in kinder and 2nd grade... stripping in 3rd... the list goes on. They WILL know what those books are talking about if they can read the words, or at least know it is inappropriate. I will not be responsible for one of my kids going home and announcing inappropriate things they read. Thats just my .02 though...


Agree with removing liability from the work place, disagree with the illusion of shielding children from reality instead of having open conversation about it.


----------



## timsgirl627 (Nov 24, 2009)

oganki said:


> Agree with removing liability from the work place, disagree with the illusion of shielding children from reality instead of having open conversation about it.


I guess my thing is, I see what happens to these kids that know too much for their age... sex at young ages, gang crimes, murders.... I get sick at the things these kids know. And I am only 25, it wasn't that long ago that I was a kid, and I KNOW i didn't know the things they do, at their age.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

oganki said:


> At the risk of offending a moderator  censoring literature (as most avid readers already know) is an extremely dangerous tactic in the wrong hands, and sometimes even in the right hands, for anyone to undertake. By limiting what your children (or anyone) read, you are limiting their personal development as a person. Perhaps my statement was a little bit over the top, but at the very least anyone considering censoring what their children read should seriously consider their role as a parent and their interest as a reader. I'm truly sorry if that offends anyone but it is the truth.


Please, don't worry about offending me. I'm interested in your opinion because quite frankly, it's not one I've run across before. There's a difference between censorship and responsible parenting.

I take my role of parent so seriously that I homeschool my children with a literature based curriculum. We spend hours reading each day on a variety of topics, including topics that may be uncomfortable. My goal is to educate them and foster their love of reading but I also think that it's my duty as a parent to steer them towards appropriate books. What was appropriate for one daughter at age 12 isn't appropriate for my other daughter at age 12. There is a huge difference in maturity between the two of them. Just because I won't let them read something at 12 doesn't mean I won't let them read it when they're older. My children can and do discuss everything with me.

Again, is it appropriate to hand my 12 and 15 year olds an NC-17 or X rated movie? Some of the Kindle books available are just as, if not more explicit than many of those movies. Am I harming my children by not letting them go see R-rated movies? What is the difference between movies and books? Words on a page can leave just as vivid of an impression as images on a screen. Should I leave Penthouse Forum laying around on the coffee table? Will my children be scarred for life because I won't let them read Megan Hart, Maya Banks? It's a chance I'll just have to take. My 12 year old doesn't need to be reading about the ins and outs (pun intended) of a threesome.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

timsgirl627 said:


> I guess my thing is, I see what happens to these kids that know too much for their age... sex at young ages, gang crimes, murders.... I get sick at the things these kids know. And I am only 25, it wasn't that long ago that I was a kid, and I KNOW i didn't know the things they do, at their age.


I hate to stick my nose into this, but knowing about sex is a problem? Lots of kids who didn't know what it was discovered it by doing it. I'm not a parent, but I was once a child.

Also these are two different things -- knowledge and allowing kids to read what you don't want them to read.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

luvmy4brats said:


> Please, don't worry about offending me. I'm interested in your opinion because quite frankly, it's not one I've run across before. There's a difference between censorship and responsible parenting.
> 
> I take my role of parent so seriously that I homeschool my children with a literature based curriculum. We spend hours reading each day on a variety of topics, including topics that may be uncomfortable. My goal is to educate them and foster their love of reading but I also think that it's my duty as a parent to steer them towards appropriate books. What was appropriate for one daughter at age 12 isn't appropriate for my other daughter at age 12. There is a huge difference in maturity between the two of them. Just because I won't let them read something at 12 doesn't mean I won't let them read it when they're older. My children can and do discuss everything with me.
> 
> Again, is it appropriate to hand my 12 and 15 year olds an NC-17 or X rated movie? Some of the Kindle books available are just as, if not more explicit than many of those movies. Am I harming my children by not letting them go see R-rated movies? What is the difference between movies and books? Words on a page can leave just as vivid of an impression as images on a screen. Should I leave Penthouse Forum laying around on the coffee table? Will my children be scarred for life because I won't let them read Megan Hart, Maya Banks? It's a chance I'll just have to take. My 12 year old doesn't need to be reading about the ins and outs (pun intended) of a threesome.


I appreciate your invite to open conversation, and as you mentioned, you are likely doing more for your children than most do by taking their education into your own hands. I make no judgment about how you parent. However, in my opinion the conversation flow should be from child to parent, not the other way around. This is the basis of my opinion. When you make it parent to child, you are assuming jurisdiction over the topic, when you make it child to parent, you are allowing your child to assume control and by that measure feel comfortable to adress the issues they feel important (or are confused about).


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

oganki said:


> I appreciate your invite to open conversation, and as you mentioned, you are likely doing more for your children than most do by taking their education into your own hands. I make no judgment about how you parent. However, in my opinion the conversation flow should be from child to parent, not the other way around. This is the basis of my opinion. When you make it parent to child, you are assuming jurisdiction over the topic, when you make it child to parent, you are allowing your child to assume control and by that measure feel comfortable to adress the issues they feel important (or are confused about).


I believe that the conversations should be initiated by the children just as much as by the adults. However, I don't understand how this relates to the original topic of whether or not parents should limit access to inappropriate books.


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

luvmy4brats said:


> I believe that the conversations should be initiated by the children just as much as by the adults. However, I don't understand how this relates to the original topic of whether or not parents should limit access to inappropriate books.


It doesn't.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I see nothing wrong with the parent initiating and having jurisdiction of the conversation.  Not that they should ignore a child's questions at all.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

Well, I respectfully bow out of this conversation.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

oganki said:


> Allow me to attempt to address your question in several parts.
> 
> _Are you a parent?_
> 
> ...


The notion that just because something is printed on paper makes it acceptable for a child to read just completely boggles my mind. Regardless of whether or not there's an open line of communication, inappropriate is still inappropriate.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I doubt that all parents would ever agree on this topic.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

oganki said:


> Well, I respectfully bow out of this conversation.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> I doubt that all parents would ever agree on this topic.


Undoubtedly you are correct. But to be told that anything but a viewpoint of no control over a child's reading material should render me unable to be a parent or a reader has had me in a snit all evening.


----------



## timsgirl627 (Nov 24, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> I hate to stick my nose into this, but knowing about sex is a problem? Lots of kids who didn't know what it was discovered it by doing it. I'm not a parent, but I was once a child.
> 
> Also these are two different things -- knowledge and allowing kids to read what you don't want them to read.


not knowing about it... knowing enough about it that they can write notes to each other in detail in the 2nd grade... I would think that would be a problem for any parent to find out their kid was doing. I would pass out if my future children ever got sent home for that... or knowing vivid details at the age of 5... yea I think they know too much too, don't you? I am not trying to argue, I just know that students know too much these days. And I know I didn't have the birds and the bees talk at that young of an age. Kids need to keep their innocence for a little while, and when I have kids, I hope they do. When the topic comes up, yes it will be addressed, but I am not going to introduce it if they aren't ready to handle all the information.


----------



## RavenclawPrefect (May 4, 2009)

> But to be told that anything but a viewpoint of no control over a child's reading material should render me unable to be a parent or a reader has had me in a snit all evening.


You are not the only one. I debated many responses and deleted them all.

There is a huge difference between censorship vs being aware of what your kids are reading and limiting what they read to what is appropriate to their age/maturity level.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

ravenclawprefect said:


> You are not the only one. I debated many responses and deleted them all.
> 
> There is a huge difference between being aware of what your kids are reading and limiting what they read to what is appropriate to their age/maturity level.


You are correct that the writer should not have written this. Consider the source and realize that it's not about you and other parents. I'd be in a snit too at first.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

When my oldest daughter was 6, I got a call from her school counselor. She had been caught passing a note to her "boyfriend"

Dear Avery,

I'm going to sex you. 

Love, 

R


She had heard the word sex on the schoolbus and thought it meant kiss. 

I still have the note.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

luvmy4brats said:


> When my oldest daughter was 6, I got a call from her school counselor. She had been caught passing a note to her "boyfriend"
> 
> Dear Avery,
> 
> ...


So that's why you homeschool now! (kidding)


----------



## timsgirl627 (Nov 24, 2009)

luvmy4brats said:


> When my oldest daughter was 6, I got a call from her school counselor. She had been caught passing a note to her "boyfriend"
> 
> Dear Avery,
> 
> ...


I got a little giggle out of that one, and I hope you aren't offended


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

mlewis78 said:


> So that's why you homeschool now! (kidding)


LOL, no. She went to public school for 2 more years after that. I do think that it was the only year she rode the bus though.  



timsgirl627 said:


> I got a little giggle out of that one, and I hope you aren't offended


Oh no, not offended at all. After I got over being mortified, I found it hilarious (So did Avery's mom. She has a copy of the note too)


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

I'm so glad to see a lighter note in this thread.  I read it earlier and decided to sign off KB for a couple of hours rather than respond with my immediate reactions...  I went and had my "snit" safely away from the keyboard.  

I think that part of the reason for the different levels of parental control that people see as appropriate is that there are a lot of topics lumped together.  Someone may be perfectly comfortable having their kids exposed to violence (written or on tv) but not to sex, or vice versa.  And the definitions vary a great deal, too.  Some would call a movie-choreographed fist-punch violence, others don't think that starts until you see weaponry and blood.  Some think that an on-screen ten-second kiss is over the top, others wouldn't draw the line until it's x-rated porn.  


Of course I'm the one who took away an early-reader book once because even with only two sentences per page, it managed to have at least two spelling errors and one grammar error on each page.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> Of course I'm the one who took away an early-reader book once because even with only two sentences per page, it managed to have at least two spelling errors and one grammar error on each page.


Well, yeah. If you think about it "See Dick. See Jane. See Dick and Jane run. See Spot run. Run Spot, run." is not the greatest of sentence constructions.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108283/e-readers-theyre-hot-now-but-the-story-isnt-over?mod=family-love_money
> 
> So I'm reading yet another article about the death of the ebook reader, and this arguement just struck me the wrong way.
> 
> Well, first, mom...what the hell did you buy off of Amazon that you need to shield your kid from it? And second, what did you do with all of your racy romance novels when you bought them in print?


It's hard to be kind and not respond with the same arrogance and negativity when such statements are spouted, but I'll do my best. I'm a voracious reader and read a wide variety of genres and authors, some of which are absolutely not appropriate for children. If you think that "racy" romance novels are the only thing that people buy that aren't appropriate for children to read, then I suggest you broaden your own reading horizons. As others have said in this thread - I actually parent my children and won't apologize for it; nor do I feel I have to defend myself to you.



> This just strikes me as an ridiculous "evidence" on how ereaders will become obsolete.


I have to agree that it's a weak argument, and one that I never stated.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

oganki said:


> In my (bold) opinion if you censor your children from published literature of any kind, you do not deserve to read books or have children.


Since you bowed out, I won't repond... I think others covered this well enough, in any case.


----------



## kwl718 (Jul 17, 2009)

The lack of parental controls has never concerned me.  I have three boys 21, 19 and 7.  Obviously, the older two can and do read whatever they want.  But, even when they were young and with my youngest, I don't worry.  I don't enjoy trashy romance or very violent/scary reading material, so there is none around.  Yeah, some of my books may have sophisticated concepts, but I've always felt that they can read anything I have in the house (or, now, on the Kindle) that their reading skills allow.  I just leave the door wide open to non-judgmental discussion of anything that concerns them.  In reality, the only books I have that have ever upset them have been parenting books, i.e, "If you think you're going to try that on me, you're nuts"!

If I personally read erotica or scary slasher books, I might feel differently.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

kwl718 said:


> The lack of parental controls has never concerned me. I have three boys 21, 19 and 7. Obviously, the older two can and do read whatever they want. But, even when they were young and with my youngest, I don't worry. I don't enjoy trashy romance or very violent/scary reading material, so there is none around. Yeah, some of my books may have sophisticated concepts, but I've always felt that they can read anything I have in the house (or, now, on the Kindle) that their reading skills allow. I just leave the door wide open to non-judgmental discussion of anything that concerns them. In reality, the only books I have that have ever upset them have been parenting books, i.e, "If you think you're going to try that on me, you're nuts"!
> 
> If I personally read erotica or scary slasher books, I might feel differently.


+1 million for a completely reasonable viewpoint.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I swear if this woman had brains, she'd be dangerous.
> 
> In response to my statement that: "But Ms. Broughton says she can't recommend the Kindle to people who aren't technically savvy and might want to purchase their books anywhere other than the Amazon store."


Leslie, I actually do have brains because I actually read and understand whole sentences before I respond to them. It surprises me that you didn't because you usually respond intelligently in these forums. My whole statement was "But Ms. Broughton says she can't recommend the Kindle to people who aren't technically savvy *and might want to purchase their books anywhere other than the Amazon store. That's because the Kindle doesn't read copyright protected files from other bookstores or libraries.*"

If you don't know how to strip DRM from protected ebooks and then shift formats (if not in MobiPocket format) from books purchased from other stores or borrowed from a digital library, you won't be able to read them on your Kindle. Honest. You can't just email the file to your Kindle and read it. Truthfully... I wouldn't lie to or misinform the article's author, and I'm not dangerous (even though I do have a brain). So if people want an ebook reader and would rather buy their DRM'd ebooks from another source or download them from their local library, I can't recommend the Kindle if they're not technically savvy enough to make the files readable on their Kindle. This wasn't misinformation. You were just misreading. 

I adore my Kindles. I'd perish without my Kindles. I'd even play a Kindle on TV. And I recommend Kindles to almost everyone... except in the circumstance I listed above.


----------



## kathygnome (Jun 29, 2009)

If you are trying to find appropriate things for actual children so they have a decent selection and don't get lost among the thousand and one books and avoid "what does this mean mommy" questions that's one thing. If you're talking about a tween or teen and you're trying to hide things from them that they are specifically searching out?

Well good luck to you and the Boston Red Sox.

Chances are they can find far worse than text smut faster and easier than you can implement the nannyware on the kindle.

Oh and on the subject of whether or not this is a requested feature. I suspect it's a requested feature of people who will never use it. Like the massive demand for the v-chip that resulted in almost no actual usage of it.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> Leslie, I actually do have brains because I actually read and understand whole sentences before I respond to them. It surprises me that you didn't because you usually respond intelligently in these forums. My whole statement was "But Ms. Broughton says she can't recommend the Kindle to people who aren't technically savvy *and might want to purchase their books anywhere other than the Amazon store. That's because the Kindle doesn't read copyright protected files from other bookstores or libraries.*"
> 
> If you don't know how to strip DRM from protected ebooks and then shift formats (if not in MobiPocket format) from books purchased from other stores or borrowed from a digital library, you won't be able to read them on your Kindle. Honest. You can't just email the file to your Kindle and read it. Truthfully... I wouldn't lie to or misinform the article's author, and I'm not dangerous (even though I do have a brain). So if people want an ebook reader and would rather buy their DRM'd ebooks from another source or download them from their local library, I can't recommend the Kindle if they're not technically savvy enough to make the files readable on their Kindle. This wasn't misinformation. You were just misreading.
> 
> I adore my Kindles. I'd perish without my Kindles. I'd even play a Kindle on TV. And I recommend Kindles to almost everyone... except in the circumstance I listed above.


If you are Ms. Broughton, then I apologize. I didn't mean to say something offensive to one of our own members here.

But I still think her statement (or yours, if its you) makes it sound like you can ONLY buy DRM-protected files for the Kindle -- from any source -- and that's not true. That's what I was reacting to. Lots of people have an objection to the Kindle because they persist in saying that they are "locked into" Amazon which is not correct. That was my point.

You don't have to be technologically savvy to buy a book All Romance ebooks or OmniLit (and many other sources) and click the little button that says, "Mail to my Kindle." No DRM stripping involved.

L


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Anju No. 469 said:


> Another jerk writing about what he does not know about. Even interviews a kindle owner who appears to be a jerk also. A stay at home mom who reads a lot and her kids read a lot but she won't recommend the kindle
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108283/e-readers-theyre-hot-now-but-the-story-isnt-over?mod=family-love_money
> 
> I cannot answer this, I am too angry with the stupidity of some people


I'm so sorry you're angry with what you perceive as my stupidity. I don't recommend the Kindle in certain circumstances (if they want to read non-Amazon DRM'd ebooks). But I won't call you a jerk, or say that you're stupid, just because you either didn't read the article, or because you misunderstood my statement. That would be rude.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Leslie said:


> If you are Ms. Broughton, then I apologize. I didn't mean to say something offensive to one of our own members here.
> 
> But I still think her statement (or yours, if its you) makes it sound like you can ONLY buy DRM-protected files for the Kindle -- from any source -- and that's not true. That's what I was reacting to. Lots of people have an objection to the Kindle because they persist in saying that they are "locked into" Amazon which is not correct. That was my point.
> 
> ...


Leslie, if it's DRM'd, then there will be stripping involved because the Kindle doesn't read DRM'd content from sites other than Amazon. Hopefully that will change, but it hasn't yet.

Books that aren't DRM'd can be purchased (or downloaded free) from many places. But my statement was talking about only DRM'd books.

I'll accept your apology, even if you won't admit you misunderstood my statement and even though I feel your apology was half-given because you felt you were justified in your behavior. You're usually not like that, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Well, yeah. If you think about it "See Dick. See Jane. See Dick and Jane run. See Spot run. Run Spot, run." is not the greatest of sentence constructions.


LOL! It's stood the test of time, I suppose... although our first two here were about dinosaurs and airplanes.

I still have the offending book (kept as evidence for a paper I'm sure I'll write someday about declining standards in education, etc.) and I quote:

"The antalope has horns and it's face is gentle. The elephants trunk is very strong." The entire book is like that. Let's see.... fifteen pages, 45 errors?!?

It pains me to even type that. I am not going to let a child think that that is standard English.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

BookishMom said:


> I'm so sorry you're angry with what you perceive as my stupidity. I don't recommend the Kindle in certain circumstances (if they want to read non-Amazon DRM'd ebooks). But I won't call you a jerk, or say that you're stupid, just because you either didn't read the article, or because you misunderstood my statement. That would be rude.


I'm confused, are you or are you not Ms. Broughton?


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

oganki said:


> I'm confused, are you or are you not Ms. Broughton?


Of course.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> Leslie, if it's DRM'd, then there will be stripping involved because the Kindle doesn't read DRM'd content from sites other than Amazon. Hopefully that will change, but it hasn't yet.
> 
> Books that aren't DRM'd can be purchased (or downloaded free) from many places. But my statement was talking about only DRM'd books.


To me, that's the part of the statement that wasn't clear. I just went back and re-read the original article. It sounds like a Kindle owner has two choices: 1) buy books from Amazon or 2) be technically savvy to buy books from other sites because they are *all *DRM-protected.

But it's not an *all* issue, as we know. But the people who are anti-Kindle (or anti-ebook reader) are going to pick up on that part of the statement and read it as being "locked in" to Amazon or else having to deal with some huge technological headache to get books from other sources.

I think that's one of the reasons so many people are jumping on the nook bandwagon -- they have this perception that it is going to be way more easier to get books for the thing that it is for the Kindle. I don't quite understand where this idea (I would call it a misperception) has come from, since it's really easy to get books for the Kindle -- way too easy, in some ways, if I look at my ever-expanding TBR pile.



> I'll accept your apology, even if you won't admit you misunderstood my statement and even though I feel your apology was half-given because you felt you were justified in your behavior. You're usually not like that, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Thanks


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> My whole statement was "But Ms. Broughton says she* can't recommend the Kindle to people who aren't technically savvy and might want to purchase their books anywhere other than the Amazon store.* That's because the Kindle doesn't read copyright protected files from other bookstores or libraries."


To someone not familiar with ereaders, that statement reads as if you can only purchase books from Amazon. It doesn't state that it's quite easy to purchase books from other sources that can be read without conversion. There are plenty of DRM free books that you can buy on other websites.


----------



## oganki (Dec 1, 2009)

luvmy4brats said:


> To someone not familiar with ereaders, that statement reads as if you can only purchase books from Amazon. It doesn't state that it's quite easy to purchase books from other sources that can be read without conversion. There are plenty of DRM free books that you can buy on other websites.


Also plenty of free, non-DRM public domain books, such as my current read; Tom Sawyer


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Leslie said:


> To me, that's the part of the statement that wasn't clear. I just went back and re-read the original article. It sounds like a Kindle owner has two choices: 1) buy books from Amazon or 2) be technically savvy to buy books from other sites because they are *all *DRM-protected.
> 
> But it's not an *all* issue, as we know. But the people who are anti-Kindle (or anti-ebook reader) are going to pick up on that part of the statement and read it as being "locked in" to Amazon or else having to deal with some huge technological headache to get books from other sources.


Leslie, I do understand your thoughts on this. The author and I actually talked about this, and I made sure he understood exactly what I was saying because it's hard to explain to people who are just starting out and don't realize there are DRM and multiple format issues in the first place.

Even so, my guess is that he would've gone beyond his wordcount to explain it in more detail, so he quoted me in such a way that he felt he covered all the bases. I think he did for those of us who understand more about ebooks, but maybe not for the beginning ebook reader, so there are bound to be more misunderstandings.

I hope this makes sense, but it probably doesn't. When I start explaining all the DRM and format issues to people face-to-face who are considering the different readers, their eyes start to glaze over, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm just confusing the issue even more now.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

luvmy4brats said:


> To someone not familiar with ereaders, that statement reads as if you can only purchase books from Amazon. It doesn't state that it's quite easy to purchase books from other sources that can be read without conversion. There are plenty of DRM free books that you can buy on other websites.


Yes, I agree that for newbies, any article that doesn't go into more details about the difference is bound to cause misunderstandings. (See my reply to Leslie below.)

Edited to add... the second sentence about copyright-protected files that he added was supposed to clarify my statement, I think, but I'm not sure it did a good enough job.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> Leslie, I do understand your thoughts on this. The author and I actually talked about this, and I made sure he understood exactly what I was saying because it's hard to explain to people who are just starting out and don't realize there are DRM and multiple format issues in the first place.
> 
> Even so, my guess is that he would've gone beyond his wordcount to explain it in more detail, so he quoted me in such a way that he felt he covered all the bases. I think he did for those of us who understand more about ebooks, but maybe not for the beginning ebook reader, so there are bound to be more misunderstandings.
> 
> I hope this makes sense, but it probably doesn't. When I start explaining all the DRM and format issues to people face-to-face who are considering the different readers, their eyes start to glaze over, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm just confusing the issue even more now.


No, that makes sense and I understand what you are saying.

And again, I apologize. It's easy to take pot-shots when you think it's an anonymous person out there on "the internets" vs. one of our members here. I made a mistake and I'm sorry.

L


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> the second sentence about copyright-protected files that he added was supposed to clarify my statement, I think, but I'm not sure it did a good enough job.


It's definitely not clear enough for someone with no knowledge, and I think it's safe to say that the author himself is not clear on the topic. It's too bad that he was unable to articulate what you were explaining to him.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Leslie said:


> No, that makes sense and I understand what you are saying.
> 
> And again, I apologize. It's easy to take pot-shots when you think it's an anonymous person out there on "the internets" vs. one of our members here. I made a mistake and I'm sorry.
> 
> L


Leslie, your apology is absolutely accepted, with no reservations. If we weren't on the "internets", I'd invite you over for chocolate (you bring the coffee!).


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> It's definitely not clear enough for someone with no knowledge, and I think it's safe to say that the author himself is not clear on the topic. It's too bad that he was unable to articulate what you were explaining to him.


It could've been my fault - as I said before, eyes start glazing when I go into too much detail. And I'm over 40. And I have major baby brain because we have a newborn preemie. So put that all together, and... well, it's not pretty.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2009)

BookishMom said:


> It's hard to be kind and not respond with the same arrogance and negativity when such statements are spouted, but I'll do my best. I'm a voracious reader and read a wide variety of genres and authors, some of which are absolutely not appropriate for children. If you think that "racy" romance novels are the only thing that people buy that aren't appropriate for children to read, then I suggest you broaden your own reading horizons. As others have said in this thread - I actually parent my children and won't apologize for it; nor do I feel I have to defend myself to you.
> 
> I have to agree that it's a weak argument, and one that I never stated.


I still stand by my question. What did you do with all of your Non-Child-Safe books before you had a Kindle? Lock them in a safe? Hide them in the drop ceiling? Bury them in the backyard? Really, I don't get it. What is the difference between having said books in the house and having said books on a Kindle? What makes them being on the Kindle more dangerous than the coffee table or stacked on a bookshelf? I would think having the print books would be MORE dangerous, with the covers that attract attention and all. The kindle just presents a list of titles and author names.

I just don't get it. When I was a kid, any book in the house was "fair game." My mom was thrilled when we were reading, and didn't care much what it was. Better a book than sitting around watching the "Boob Tube" which is what my parents called the TV. (and I don't know where that phrase came from, but my grandmother called it that, too.)


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> I still stand by my question. What did you do with all of your Non-Child-Safe books before you had a Kindle? Lock them in a safe? Hide them in the drop ceiling? Bury them in the backyard? Really, I don't get it. What is the difference between having said books in the house and having said books on a Kindle? What makes them being on the Kindle more dangerous than the coffee table or stacked on a bookshelf? I would think having the print books would be MORE dangerous, with the covers that attract attention and all. The kindle just presents a list of titles and author names.


If you keep all the questionable titles in the _archive_, it's about the same as having them on a high bookshelf -- accessible to a child who's looking for them, but not without a little effort. So your teen who's curious might find them (and is probably old enough to handle them), but your six-year-old who's reading fairy tales on your Kindle won't come across explicit titles.

But if you have them on the_ home page_, it's kind of like leaving them out on the kitchen table.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> Better a book than sitting around watching the "Boob Tube" which is what my parents called the TV. (and I don't know where that phrase came from, but my grandmother called it that, too.)


My mother referred to it as the "stupid box." I daresay I would have to agree with her 90% of the time.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> But if you have them on the_ home page_, it's kind of like leaving them out on the kitchen table.


And leaving porn out on the kitchen table is never good.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> I still stand by my question. What did you do with all of your Non-Child-Safe books before you had a Kindle? Lock them in a safe? Hide them in the drop ceiling? Bury them in the backyard? Really, I don't get it. What is the difference between having said books in the house and having said books on a Kindle? What makes them being on the Kindle more dangerous than the coffee table or stacked on a bookshelf? I would think having the print books would be MORE dangerous, with the covers that attract attention and all. The kindle just presents a list of titles and author names.
> 
> I just don't get it. When I was a kid, any book in the house was "fair game." My mom was thrilled when we were reading, and didn't care much what it was. Better a book than sitting around watching the "Boob Tube" which is what my parents called the TV. (and I don't know where that phrase came from, but my grandmother called it that, too.)


I honestly see how you're not getting it. It's because you're making a lot of erroneous assumptions, and it's because you're coming from the perspective of being raised in a home where your "mom was thrilled when we were reading, and didn't care much what it was" as long as you weren't watching TV. I now understand why you don't understand. 

I have bookshelves in my home, and definitely don't have the space to display my book covers where they're facing outward (to attract anyone's attention). I also still have young children at home, so I wouldn't leave my books around for toddlers to chew on or preschoolers to tear out the pages to color in.

That said, books that aren't appropriate for children are in my room, on a bookshelf, where my children wouldn't bother to look for one. I don't even have to hide them under the cover of darkness because my children respect my belongings, believe it or not.  Books that are appropriate for them are on other bookshelves where they know they can choose books at will. I don't have to be "thrilled" that they're reading "just anything" because we're all voracious readers.

You seem to be assuming that I'm actively keeping them from reading books, when the reality is that they read so much (often a book a day or every two days) that my efforts are focused on keeping them supplied with books. There are so many great young adult books available by great authors for their own age/maturity level, that they have no need or desire to get into my books.

So what's the problem? Well, since the Kindle does not have folders, I can't store books on "virtual" shelves the way I do paper books, so they don't know which are mine and which are theirs. They wouldn't intentionally seek out a book that isn't appropriate, because I provide them with plenty that are (I use 4 different libraries, plus our Kindles, plus interlibrary loan services to keep them supplied). And, to be honest, I have responsible kids. I'm not bragging, just being honest. I'm not one of those parents who automatically assume kids are looking for trouble and are irresponsible just because they're kids. But they may accidentally transfer a title from the Kindle archive that's not appropriate for them just because there's no way to organize our purchases on the Kindle. (That's why my kids have separate Kindles on separate accounts... but many people can't afford to do that.)

Regarding book covers - if a parent has a child that seeks out adult-themed books, they'd have an easier time monitoring them with paper books because they can see the covers and can better determine if what they're reading isn't appropriate. They can't with the Kindle... their children could be reading horror, erotica, etc., and the parent would never know. So I have to disagree with your statement that "print books would be MORE dangerous" because of their covers. I'd also have to disagree with your statement that any book is dangerous. Awe-inspiring, inappropriate, thought-provoking, atrocious, liberating, disgusting, moving, inciting... I could go on, but I've never seen a book, in and of itself, cause danger to anyone. 

I hope you get it now.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> My mother referred to it as the "stupid box." I daresay I would have to agree with her 90% of the time.


I agree, too... I guess that's why we read so much - we're not sitting in front of that box for hours and hours every day.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> If you keep all the questionable titles in the _archive_, it's about the same as having them on a high bookshelf -- accessible to a child who's looking for them, but not without a little effort. So your teen who's curious might find them (and is probably old enough to handle them), but your six-year-old who's reading fairy tales on your Kindle won't come across explicit titles.


This is a good option, too. I delete my books after I read them so my home page is more manageable, though, so it wouldn't work for us. Only samples and books I've yet to read are on my home page - it's still too many pages, but not as bad as my archive.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> That said, books that aren't appropriate for children are in my room, on a bookshelf, where my children wouldn't bother to look for one. I don't even have to hide them under the cover of darkness because my children respect my belongings, believe it or not.


Sorry, butting in... If your kids respect the rules of your house, why not just make rules for the Kindle? That's the part I don't get - if my child is responsible enough to have expensive electronics for their leisure use, they need to be responsible enough to follow some basic ground rules about them. Otherwise, the privilege of Kindle is taken away and they can go to the library or bookstore like the other kids.


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

oganki said:


> At the risk of offending a moderator  censoring literature (as most avid readers already know) is an extremely dangerous tactic in the wrong hands, and sometimes even in the right hands, for anyone to undertake. By limiting what your children (or anyone) read, you are limiting their personal development as a person. Perhaps my statement was a little bit over the top, but at the very least anyone considering censoring what their children read should seriously consider their role as a parent and their interest as a reader. I'm truly sorry if that offends anyone but it is the truth.


There is a difference between deciding what is appropriate for your child to read and what is not and censorship. Its the same as when parents decided what movies to take their kids to or what video games they can play.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

marianner said:


> Sorry, butting in... If your kids respect the rules of your house, why not just make rules for the Kindle? That's the part I don't get - if my child is responsible enough to have expensive electronics for their leisure use, they need to be responsible enough to follow some basic ground rules about them. Otherwise, the privilege of Kindle is taken away and they can go to the library or bookstore like the other kids.


Marianner, you're not butting in... this is a good question. I would love to make rules for the Kindle, but it's difficult when there's no way to separate the books into categories or folders. There's just a list, pages and pages of titles and authors. There's no rating system where I could say, you can read anything that's not rated for adults. There's no folder I can point them to and say, you can read anything in there. I *could* make a list of all the titles they can or can't transfer from the archive (so they can read), but I would have to continuously update the list. Instead, I choose to give them separate Kindles, with their own account, to make my life easier. 

Was that your question?


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

higdona said:


> There is a difference between deciding what is appropriate for your child to read and what is not and censorship. Its the same as when parents decided what movies to take their kids to or what video games they can play.


I absolutely agree with you, higdona. I wouldn't recommend that anyone read Kilborn's _Serial_ or _Afraid_ to their children as a bedtime story in order to enhance their "personal development as a person" and not "censor" their reading materials. I seriously doubt that it will hurt their "personal development as a person" to skip this until they're older. Much older, from what I've read from the reviews. In my opinion, anyone who considers this appropriate reading material for young children "should seriously consider their role as a parent."

*Edited to add...* I'm just using Kilborn's books as an example because there was a relatively recent discussion about them here, and because he's an author that visits these boards and can join in the discussion, if he wants. :::waving to him:::

_Serial_ is a Kindle freebie again right now, by the way, if anyone wants to read it to check appropriateness for themselves.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> Marianner, you're not butting in... this is a good question. I would love to make rules for the Kindle, but it's difficult when there's no way to separate the books into categories or folders. There's just a list, pages and pages of titles and authors. There's no rating system where I could say, you can read anything that's not rated for adults. There's no folder I can point them to and say, you can read anything in there. I *could* make a list of all the titles they can or can't transfer from the archive (so they can read), but I would have to continuously update the list. Instead, I choose to give them separate Kindles, with their own account, to make my life easier.
> 
> Was that your question?


I guess. That's certainly one way to make it work, and I'm glad that you have made it work and are happy with it.  I just don't get the outrage (not from you, but in general on this topic) and insistence that the device needs to change to meet the need. You are certainly an example that that is not so. I actually do agree that some sort of control, like managing the Archives on a per-device basis would be a nice feature. I don't agree that it's essential, even for kids. There are lots of solutions, and it makes me sad that so few people seem to be able to come up with any.


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

marianner said:


> I guess. That's certainly one way to make it work, and I'm glad that you have made it work and are happy with it.  I just don't get the outrage (not from you, but in general on this topic) and insistence that the device needs to change to meet the need. You are certainly an example that that is not so. I actually do agree that some sort of control, like managing the Archives on a per-device basis would be a nice feature. I don't agree that it's essential, even for kids. There are lots of solutions, and it makes me sad that so few people seem to be able to come up with any.


I do get frustrated when other people want the public to censor whats being said or written on for the sake of their children. Its up to parents to watch what their kids are doing, watching and reading. I can see that the kindle could make it hard since they dont have folders. I do like the suggestion of having a separate account for the kids. Parents can get involved in what their kids are reading and also keep some of their books out of reach of the young ones.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

*quote from the article*



> Sony has tried to differentiate itself in e-books by supporting an open industry standard called Epub and digital-rights-management software from Adobe. Barnes & Noble recently said it will do the same. But Amazon, which dominates the e-reader market, has so far shown no signs of changing from its own proprietary format.


Talk is cheap, so while Sony and B&N are busy talking about what they're going to do, what they're actually doing is the very same thing that Amazon is doing, which is selling their very own proprietary formats in their stores, hell, even B&N's multi-format store, Fictionwise, goes out of it's way to "recommend" the format that B&N owns whenever it's an option, and good luck trying to figure out whether secure Adobe means secure PDF, *secure ePub*, or an option to choose both as Fictionwise doesn't bother to explain.

They're all exactly where Amazon is in regards to proprietary formats, if they can, and do, switch formats, then so can Amazon, and if Sony can update their PRS-505 to become compatible with ePub then I'm sure Amazon can update their Kindles to also be compatible. It's this realization that has made me decide to weather things out with the Kindles that I already own.



Britt said:


> > "If you have the disposable income and love technology -- not books -- you should get a dedicated e-reader," says Bob LiVolsi, the founder of BooksOnBoard, the largest independent e-book store.
> 
> 
> Why the heck would you want an e-reader if you don't love books?


It does seem to be a questionable thing to say, especially when you see that the company he founded is an e-books store.

I think that it's a matter of the current state of e-readers. Right now the e-readers we will buy are going to be outdated very quickly, I mean, color screens are predicted to hit the market by the end of next year, and who knows what other kinds of improvements will be seen.

In addition to that, and perhaps the most important consideration, the formats are in a flux, and it's the dedicated e-readers that are the least versatile. I mean, you can read Amazon books and B&N books on an iPod touch/iPhone, yet the dedicated e-readers coming out of those two stores cannot do the same thing.

E-readers are obviously for people who read books, what I think he is saying is that only those that are interested in gadgets should consider embracing e-readers at this point in time.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Selcien said:


> E-readers are obviously for people who read books, what I think he is saying is that only those that are interested in gadgets should consider embracing e-readers at this point in time.


Yep. I think that's what he's saying too. And I think he's wrong.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Yep. I think that's what he's saying too. And I think he's wrong.


I didn't realize it at the time but I didn't say what my thoughts were regarding what he said.

After thinking about it, the two groups of people that should be fine are the people that love gadgets and have money to burn, and people that are only interested in the convenience that an e-reader offers. The first group can afford to buy any new e-reader that comes along, the second group, not being gadget lovers, would be less inclined to upgrade to something just because it's new.

The group of people that are in danger from these e-readers are the gadget lovers that don't have the burnable cash that the new readers will tempt them to spend, or the accessories that are bound to follow.

I'm in the group that loves gadgets but don't have the burnable cash, and while I hadn't said as much I did agree with that guy at one point, until I realized that the people he was talking about wouldn't feel the same temptations I do at seeing a shiny new e-reader.

So, I guess that would mean that I disagree with him as well.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2009)

BookishMom said:


> I honestly see how you're not getting it. It's because you're making a lot of erroneous assumptions, and it's because you're coming from the perspective of being raised in a home where your "mom was thrilled when we were reading, and didn't care much what it was" as long as you weren't watching TV. I now understand why you don't understand.
> I hope you get it now.


Yeah, I was raised in the days when we didn't have child-proof locks over the electrical outlets, no parental controls on the TV/radio/etc. Didn't wear helmets when riding a bike. Didn't have cell phones so mom could pretend she knew where we were. And if you didn't hurt yourself at least once over the summer running around outside climbing up a tree or something you weren't playing right.  I swear, I don't know how I survived!

I don't have kids, but I have nieces and nephews. They have never met a parental control they couldn't break.  The article made it sound like you were saying the lack of parental controls was one of the reasons e-readers were becoming obsolete. I find the whole "parental control" technology push a false sense of security. If your kids are as well behaved as you say, and I've no reason to think otherwise, then you already have "parental control".


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> The article made it sound like you were saying the lack of parental controls was one of the reasons e-readers were becoming obsolete.


I never said anything of the kind. I didn't write the article, nor do I agree with the slant of the article. The author used parts of our interview to back up his opinion, which is his right, of course. *Edited to clarify... * I'm not saying that you said that I said it, I was just clarifying that even though it sounded that way to you, I didn't agree with the author's premise.

It sounds like we were raised in the same time period (no child-proof locks, cell phones, etc). We just weren't such heavy TV watchers that my parents were glad we were reading anything (didn't matter what) just so we'd stay away from it. (That's the way I took it when I read your message... I apologize if I misunderstood your statement.)


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Selcien said:


> Talk is cheap, so while Sony and B&N are busy talking about what they're going to do, what they're actually doing is the very same thing that Amazon is doing, which is selling their very own proprietary formats in their stores, hell, even B&N's multi-format store, Fictionwise, goes out of it's way to "recommend" the format that B&N owns whenever it's an option, and good luck trying to figure out whether secure Adobe means secure PDF, *secure ePub*, or an option to choose both as Fictionwise doesn't bother to explain.
> 
> They're all exactly where Amazon is in regards to proprietary formats, if they can, and do, switch formats, then so can Amazon, and if Sony can update their PRS-505 to become compatible with ePub then I'm sure Amazon can update their Kindles to also be compatible. It's this realization that has made me decide to weather things out with the Kindles that I already own.


I'm curious as to whether or not B&N will support DRM'd ePub & PDF (via ADE), too. But I do know that Sony does support it through local public libraries at this time. So, to me, they're not on the same level of proprietary-ness as Amazon is. They also sent out an email yesterday that stated that their ebook store will be converting to ePub format on Dec 11, and that anyone who bought anything in their proprietary format can redownload in ePub format as soon as the conversion is complete on the 11th. Here's the actual text of their message:

_As part of our commitment to providing an open format solution to our customers, we will now offer our entire inventory of eBooks in the EPUB format. EPUB is an open eBook format with a layout that is optimized for the Reader™ and your computer. You will still be able to read, access, and transfer any eBooks you have previously downloaded. However, any new purchases or re-downloads of previously purchased titles will now be available only in EPUB._

I hope Amazon can (and will) upgrade the Kindle to become this open, too.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

KindleKay (aka #1652) said:


> This made me giggle cause I, too, discovered Flowers In The Attic at about 11 or 12. LOVED the entire series. When I reread it as an adult I was shocked at some of the themes that went straight over my head as a kid. IT was kinda funny.
> 
> While VC Andrews is one thing, Penthouse Forum or erotica is another. (BTW: A lot of the erotica are the freebies each month! Think I am wrong? Click on Kindle Bestsellers sometime...) All of those titles and more are as easily accessible on Kindle as the other. There should definitely be some sort of parental controls as far as downloading to each Kindle but until technology catches up, separate accounts is probably the way to go. That is not censorship. It is just good parenting!


I know that I have one-clicked a few freebies just because they were free and later wished I had read the description. Now they are in my library forever forever as Amazon does not allow deleting. I have a 10 year old son who I would not want to read them. Call me mean and repressive, that's ok. Maybe I should go let him play on the train tracks too..

I'm not sure I understand the "If its written down it must be good for children" philosophy.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I know that I have one-clicked a few freebies just because they were free and later wished I had read the description. Now they are in my library forever forever as Amazon does not allow deleting. I have a 10 year old son who I would not want to read them. Call me mean and repressive, that's ok. Maybe I should go let him play on the train tracks too..
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the "If its written down it must be good for children" philosophy.


Chad, that was an issue, but from another thread, it looks like Amazon is now allowing us to permanently delete titles from our archive. I haven't tried it yet, but others have and report that it's working for them.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

Leslie said:


> I swear if this woman had brains, she'd be dangerous.
> 
> "Technically savvy"? Please. Emailing a file to your Kindle is harder than writing an email message? Using the USB cable requires superior technical knowledge?
> 
> Huh?


On the one hand, I totally agree with your regarding the Kindle's ease of use and the level of technical knowledge required. On the other hand, I deal with my own mother every day - she's only 63 so it's not like she's ancient - but my mom is totally NOT technically savvy enough to use a Kindle in this way. My mom actually still calls her computer "the thing next to the computer," as in "I need you to come over - the thing next to the computer is making a really weird noise." That's because in her mind, no matter how often I explain it to her, she thinks the monitor is the computer, and there is this box next to it for some reason that she can't comprehend. My mom also has an iPhone that she is NOT ALLOWED to sync, because she has ruined more than one cable and even one camera trying to shove a cable into a slot where it doesn't go (even after I color coded everything) and she also has a nasty habit of randomly clicking tickyboxes that should not be clicked for reasons I can not fathom, causing changes to her configuration that cause subsequent problems.

She needs me to come over to transfer pictures from her camera into Picasa (management software), and subsequently to help her order prints. She honestly can't do it. It's very frustrating. All you need to do is plug the thing in, wait, and unplug, it does it itself. To order prints you highlight prints and click "order." Last time she tried she ordered the completely wrong ones. No idea what she did.

Lest I paint her too much like an idiot - my mom attended Girls High in Philadelphia (not a school for idiots), obtained a BA in history from Boston University, and did some graduate work in social work at the University of Pennsylvania. She is NOT an idiot. She's just completely technically inept. I vividly recall the early years of her totally screwing up the VCR and the microwave, so it's nothing new 

So, it is possible to be too technically inept to transfer a kindle book via USB.


----------

