Slashdot Mirror
On iPhone, Searching For Kama Sutra = Porn
heychris writes "Eucalyptus, an ebook app for iPhone, has been rejected from the App Store for 'objectionable content.' What's so objectionable? The Kama Sutra, available from Project Gutenberg, which is available on other ebook readers as well. Not only that, but the screenshot shows that you would have to search for Kama Sutra to get it; it's not built in to Eucalyptus. The author is reasonable but frustrated, while Herr Gruber is more succinct." I wonder how good the now-cheap Nokia 810 is as an e-book reader.
Now excuse me, I'm going to read some find articles in the Playboy.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
They should pull a Trent Reznor and re-submit the app. It sounds like approval is very subjective based on the reviewer. Chances are it might get approved the second time around.
Hosting and Domain name coupons
If you are so opposed to Apple's censorship, STOP BUYING AND HYPING THEIR PRODUCTS.
Until techy geeks stop hyping everything Apple does as the "next big thing" and start paying attention to the shady shit that Apple pulls every day, the situation will never get better.
I watched the animations on the site, and nowhere did I see the mention of the Kama Sutra. Then again if you can find the Kama Sutra in a search, how is this any different from Google or Safari?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
This iPhone App advertising scheme isn't fooling me and I'm tired of these Slashdot stories feeding the cycle.
It is difficult to imagine how the text-only English translation of the Kama Sutra could be considered porn by anyone who has not spent the last 20 years in a Skinner box. Today, it is probably best understood as an interesting piece of history, since its contents are neither especially informative or titillating.
Of course, if some of the reviewers at Apple have spent the last 20 years in a Skinner box, that would explain a number of the bogus rejections.
I agree with the more "succinct" blog commenter that is linked in the summary; this is a truly execrable move on Apple's part. The point isn't just that the Kama Sutra can be found elsewhere or that it doesn't meet the definition of pornography. I'm sorry, but the Kama Sutra is one of the world's great religious texts, and is a great literary work in its own right. That Apple would put itself on the side of prohibiting access to it on some sort of moral grounds is completely outrageous. Apple should issue a public apology and fire the person who made this decision. Better yet, they should make the app store approval process more content-neutral, but we know that's not going to happen.
It's only showing it's colors.
Apple's always been *evil*. They've just become very good at creating the 'must-have' style products that are overpriced, locking you into Apple ... at every chance. Easily shutting down anything remotely resembling 'freedom' -- which is what made the PC great in the first place. People have complained about MS's adoption of more and more DRM, but Apple's always had a de facto locking -- by having exclusive locks on compatible hardware. MS went with the approach of allowing unrestricted interoperability (which, when they've tried to limit, they've gotten slapped down due to their monopoly position, but Apple is similarly a monopoly in their market. But MS on PC's and Apples on Apples, are both monopolies. Apple gets away with it because they are smaller -- but their policies and user-abuse are far harsher and more totalitarian than MS. Much of that stems from Apple's core culture, but some of it also stems from MS being forced to be more open because they are a standard -- which they became because of their openness.
It disgusts me the way Apple fanboys fawn all everything Apple, which fancying themselves superior to PC-users. Bu it's nothing more than it ever was -- financial and "in-crowd" elitism.
You see it in Apple's commercials...the I'm a Mac, vs. PC. The PC guy looks like the average harried Joe -- while the Apple guy is just portrayed as 'cool'...with all his little 16-17 y/o rail-thin model pod-girls dancing around him in silhouette, like an oh-so-more-sophisticated 'Deadhead' scene of rainbow colors, but with the original 'cool' of Beatles style and music 60's-70 -- the epitome of cool in the baby-boom generation, with it's message perpetuating the message of perpetual cool youth with their stylish Apple products. The iPhone, by it's price should be focused on adults and business types, but it's obviously focused on sales to teens and 20'-something as the latest trend of electronic fashion -- just like the ipods were yesterday's (and ongoing) fashion statement.
But people should be concerned about how much market lock-in Apple has -- they own the main means of distribution for their gadgets -- and get to decide how their devices are used -- and they have shown that they have no qualms about shutting down anyone who tries to use their product in an unapproved manner -- or even performing the crudest of Christian censorship campaigns against 'objectionable' classics that have been previously censored or caused controversy. What will be next on their banned list, the unexpurgated poems of Walt Whitman, or the 'Song of Songs': an erotic piece that has been subject to demands of censorship over the centuries as it describes intense expressions of physical love, the voluptuous beauty of lovers longing for one another and in a uniquely feminine perspective, it's seductive and intimate language conveys and immediate, sensuous and intoxicating desire. Certainly worthy of censorship -- or how about the recent decision in Bloomington, Ind where the city is refusing to run a paid-bus, public-service ad, "You can be good without God", as being too controversial (that's their definition of objectionable).
That Apple is using it's censorship powers on type of apps and content is very disturbing given it's unique, monopoly lock in the markets it sells too -- yet the fan boys swoon on, like Apple can do no wrong. They were they original PC-company that moved to sue all their competitors out of business. The original company that "sued over their "Intellectual Property" -- they've been guilty of copyright, patent, trademark and DRM abuse since their creation and have no qualms using lawsuits and their market-lock on their products, to control what you can with "your" product (it's really their product -- they can brick-it anytime they don't like a change you've implemented). If you are lucky, they'll replace it