Apple Censors Ulysses App In Time For Bloomsday

Miracle Jones writes "Apple has censored a 'Ulysses' comic book app — just in time for 'Bloomsday' — because of a picture of Buck Mulligan's stately, plump cartoon penis. Not since Amazon removed digital copies of '1984' from people's Kindles while they slept has there been such a hilarious episode in the ongoing slapstick farce 'Let's See What Happens When Corporations Become Publishers.'"

Comments

Android

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I bought an android. Every time I see a story like this it just makes me feel better about my choice

Re:Android

[Eunuchswear]

Poor little Apple fanbois feel all sad and hurt if you point out that their demigod Steve is an uncultured pathetic little micromanaging dictatorial prick.

Re:Android

[ircmaxell]

I don't even understand how this is off topic... The issue at hand here is what happens when a corporation gets too much control. Or as the summary said:

'Let's See What Happens When Corporations Become Publishers.'

So the fact that you have two platforms --one that's notorious for exerting arbitrary and inconsistent control and another that's known for being 100% open-- really is about as on topic as you can get. The fact that Android is thriving is proof that people don't need (And that at least a fair number of them don't want) that kind of control pushed upon them. It's not a "Apple sucks and Android rules" fanboi statement. It's a simple statement that a platform can survive (and thrive) in a realm without censorship and control (and that corporations can be publishers and yet still be responsible and open about it).

The way the summary (and TFA) is written, it makes it sound like this is a universal problem for all corporations that get into publishing (that they have to walk a fine line between "protecting the users" and limiting censorship). But I think the fact that there is at least one corporation thriving in the industry that doesn't partake in those practices says a heck of a lot (and hence isn't flamebait or offtopic)...

Re:Android

[CharlyFoxtrot]

This is why I bought an android. Every time I see a story like this it just makes me feel better about my choice

Who the hell publishes a book as an app ? Not even an iBook or whatever they are calling it, an application. If you want to read the book just use THE publishing tool of this age: the internet. The website is here (warning contains "plump cartoon penis") and can be read on Android and *gasp* iPhone.

Re:Android

[cowscows]

You're right, and that's what makes all this doomsdaying about Apple taking over the world so silly. Let Apple make whatever rules they want for their devices/store, and let consumers decide to buy in or go elsewhere. If there's a market for less controlled hardware/content (and there is), then someone will fill that gap. And that's exactly what's happening. It's not magic, it's not an epic battle of good vs. evil, or even open vs. closed. It's different people having different priorities. It happens all the time.

Re:Android

[PinchDuck]

Ding! Ding! Ding!
I applaud Google for keeping Android open, and for further allowing me to install apps outside of the market, or even without a market at all. Apple is so power-trip stupid it isn't even funny.

Re:Android

[nschubach]

Aren't publishers already corporations?

Re:Android

[Chris Johnson]

But he's OUR uncultured pathetic little micromanaging dictatorial prick :D

Re:Android

[mystikkman]

You're right, and that's what makes all this doomsdaying about Apple taking over the world so silly. Let Apple make whatever rules they want for their devices/store, and let consumers decide to buy in or go elsewhere. If there's a market for less controlled hardware/content (and there is), then someone will fill that gap. And that's exactly what's happening. It's not magic, it's not an epic battle of good vs. evil, or even open vs. closed. It's different people having different priorities. It happens all the time.

For consumers to make a informed decision, they should be informed first. And it's stories like this and the comments which inform people. And it IS indeed an epic battle. The iPhone is restricted via DRM and trusted computing wrapped in a pretty package. Many geeks who cried foul half a decade ago about Trusted Computing and DRM(it's bad only if Microsoft does it I guess) have been taken in the by the 'ooh, shiny' factor and now actively defend Apple's practices.

Re:Android

[DrgnDancer]

Stories like this perhaps, comments like the one we are all replying to not so much. For one thing, this comment is on a web site where if you *don't* understand the trade offs that between iPhone and most of the other major options out there, you've probably been stuck on a desert island with no Internet access for the last 3 years. I don't need to be "informed" of the weakness of my (currently) chosen platform, and neither, I think, do any other iPhone owners reading Slashdot. I've chosen to use an iPhone because it's the best user experience for a phone I've encountered (so far) and it doesn't lock down or screw up anything that I find important or necessary (so far). That may change in future, but for the moment I'm both happy with my choice and aware of its shortcomings, thank you.

Which brings to me to my second point, which I'll admit is not as relevant to the current comment chain. Many if not most of these sort of comments include an obligatory reference to "fanbois", "cults", "morons", "reality distortion fields", etc. This thread has several such comments (though not the original poster). It's irritating to say the least, and tends to make people defensive. Personally, I take a very practical approach to technology. I use Free Software, Open Source Software, closed source software, or DRM encumbered software as I see fit based on the effectiveness of the tool, and cost-benefit ratio. Right now, for me, the cost of using an iPhone in freedom to do certain things that I didn't really want to do anyway is outweighed by the benefit of using a tool that accomplishes what I want it to in the most elegant way I've seen on a phone.

Long story short, I appreciate the need for stories like this. I appreciate comments that further discussion of why this was an appropriate or inappropriate action by Apple (personally I think it was bloody stupid, but that's neither here nor there). I don't appreciate comments who's tone and content basically boil down to "Ha ha I'm smarter that you to have bought this other phone." I don't really particularly care that the App Store forbids naked people. If I want porn on my iPhone it has a web browser, PDF viewer, or I can download the free B&N or Amazon e-book clients. It's a silly rule, but it affects me not at all in my day to day life. If it starts to I'll change platforms.

so honestly...

[LordLimecat]

Is this really even a suprise? I thought it was well known that, in general, Apple will reject apps with nudity.

I mean, whats next, an article alleging that Google may, in fact, have ties to the advertising industry?

corporations have always been publishers

[lapsed]

This is what happens when books are licensed rather than bought.

And this is different to Walmart....

[jo_ham]

This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?

Apple can say "no penises on the store, even comic ones" just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm" or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".

Also, I thought most publishers *were* corporations. When did it become ok to post troll articles as summaries? Oh wait, it's slashdot. Carry on.

Re:And this is different to Walmart....

[captainboogerhead]

This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?

Apple can say "no penises on the store, even comic ones" just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm" or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".

Sure. They have the right. And we have both the right and the duty to mock them when they do. If we don't, all publishers will turn into Disneylands. That would be a bad thing, BTW.

Just cause they're a corp and they have the right doesn't mean they should--and it sure as fuck doesn't mean we should shrug and let them get away with it. If they're gonna be moral gatekeepers for millions and millions of people they need to be accountable. Not to their idiot pandering gormless shareholders, but to their audience.

Re:And this is different to Walmart....

[natehoy]

And that's exactly why stories like this, while tiresome, are important.

In order to make an intelligent choice, you need to make an informed choice. The ongoing, tiresome, boring parade of stories serves to demonstrate exactly what you are buying into when you choose an iDevice. If this represents your ideal in a phone/music player/media consumption device, then these stories should be good news for you and reaffirm your choice. If it does not, you can consider it a warning.

Obviously each author has their own bias, but the facts are what you should be paying attention to. Buy anything based on iOS, and you now have a pretty good idea of what to expect. Whether you think of this as a good thing or a bad thing is up to you, and you shouldn't be swayed by the tone or approval/disapproval of the authors of individual articles, because their priorities are not yours.

Whether it represents your ideal or not, it serves as a continual reminder for those about to make a device choice. Some people like the walled garden and like to be protected from images or content they might not want to accidentally encounter. For them, this story represents all that is goodness and light - because Apple has remained true to its principles and has protected them from the threat of seeing a hand-drawn penis in a webcomic.

Publishers

[Allicorn]

Publishers weren't corporations before the iPhone?

Ironic

[grizdog]

This is ironic because Ulysses not only was the cause for stricter pornography laws in the United States, when it was first published not as a book but in serialized form, but it was also the book that was used to get the laws struck down. Although the Ulysses case itself never went to the Supreme Court, it did influence later cases that did wind up in the Supreme Court.

Maybe Apple could have an Ulysses app with all the nasty bits removed. Or better yet, a Bowdlerization filter that would transform any book into something absolutely harmless.

Re:Ironic

[MrAtoz]

Exactly so. The case was United States v. One Book Called Ulysses. The gist of the ruling was that the book was not obscene because it had merit as a work of literary art. Judge Woolsey's ruling was an eloquent defense of contemporary (for then) literary art. Once the book was no longer banned in the US, the UK and Ireland followed suit and allowed unexpurgated versions. What is doubly ironic here is that the case was engineered by Random House in order to be able to publish the book freely through the US without being prosecuted for pornography. Wow -- look at the difference today! What publisher would challenge the government and culture in this manner today? Instead, Apple seeks to create a Digital Disneyland where everyone can have a fully predictable, enjoyable, inoffensive, and commercially lucrative (for Apple) time.

quite different

[yyxx]

This is different to Walmart deciding not to carry content its store owners find objectionable, how?

Apple is trying to become a primary conduit for digital media; if they succeed, then we are stuck with their censorship rules.

That's why people need to understand the danger that Apple poses now, before Apple succeeds in establishing a Microsoft-like monopoly over media, content, and apps.

just like network TV can say "no swearing before 9pm"

TV networks are forced to do that by government rules.

or a store can say "we'll carry all of your products except that flavoured lube you make, it just doesn't fit with our image".

Individual physical stores can't impose worldwide controls over products or content; those that do get big enough to do so are just as much of a concern as Apple is.

Just because other companies are sleazy and dangerous doesn't mean we should stop complaining about Apple.

Re:quite different

[paiute]

That's why people need to understand the danger that Apple poses now, before Apple succeeds in establishing a Microsoft-like monopoly over media, content, and apps.

Microsoft managed to establish a monopoly on operating systems because there were a small number of computer manufacturers. The barrier to entry into manufacturing was high, and on top of that, they were in a race to the bottom in terms of retail pricing as they were all making essentially the same product from the average consumer's point of view.

There are many creators of content. The barrier to entry is low. There are providers of content parallel to and just as easily accessible by the consumer as Apple.

I don't see an Apple monopoly in any of those areas being inevitable. In fact, it is probably impossible.

Re:quite different

[Demonantis]

Not with a walled garden model. You should be comparing architectures instead of OSes of a single architecture. Imagine if Intel decided to wall off its processor to a single OS where they dictated what applications you could use. You would not be defending what Apple is doing. Further, Apple does not create content. They only act as the delivery system for content. Barrier to entry is high because you need a device to deliver content and Apple is building a monopoly on that.

iPhone vs the rest -- VHS vs Betamax

[Vapula]

One of the things that rules in favor of VHS was that Sony was forbidding the use of it's format (Betamax) for pornography... So all porn movies were VHS only... Betamax was superior but noone ever cared about it...

Could the same happen with the iPhone ? People choosing Android/Blackberry/Maemo/SymbianWindows Mobile over the iPhone because of this restriction on nudity ?

Re:iPhone vs the rest -- VHS vs Betamax

[robably]

But nobody is having a problem getting porn on to their iPhone - it has a browser on it with unrestricted access to all the porn in the world. Who is finding porn so hard to find on the internet that they need an _app_ for it?

I do not think it means what you think it means

[siglercm]

"To buy" a book versus "to license" it, I don't think you understand the concept. Granted, it was much easier to understand when books were hardcopy only. Back then, it was well understood that you couldn't just go to the local copy shop and have them make 10, 100, 1,000 copies which you then sold, or even gave away. Digital makes this process trivial. It is no longer thought-provoking (huh, a publisher sells these, maybe they'll object to my selling them or giving them away -- there is that thing about copyright) because it's so easy and appears so innocuous.

When you buy a book, you're buying the physical media -- the paper and cover/spine/jacket/glue/stitching, and also the ink covering the page -- for what that's worth. You're also buying the consumption of the words. You're not buying the words or the right to reproduce them. The same holds true with digital media. You're buying the right to consume the information contained within a particular ordering of bits, but you're not buying the information itself or the right to make even one filecopy of that information which you sell or give to someone else. (Yes, backups are fair use, no matter what anyone says.) I'm sorry, but you're just not.

In other words, whether hard or electronic copy, when you "buy" a book, you're really just licensing it, to put it in the words you used. There is no "bought."

This is why I like the book/record model of licensing. Buy this digital resource, and you can use or lend or trade it just like you'd do with a hard media book or record or tape in days of yore. The problem with "piracy" in the digital age is that enforcement of copyright is no longer strongly supported by the limitations of the (physical) media that carries the copyrighted information. To me, this is a true "middle of the road" licensing position.

Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.

One other thing. My limited reading indicates to me that when a digital media resource is allowed to be "shared" (even if that means copying), it seems to stimulate sales. If the objective is highest sales, which one assumes helps maximize profits, maybe lax copyright enforcement is the way for artists and even publishers to go in the digital age. When you think back to the way things worked 50, 75, 100 years ago, that's pretty amazing.

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[Danse]

Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.

If it were a hard copy, I wouldn't be the slightest bit less ticked off. I'd be pressing charges for every law they broke in order to take back the book, and throw a lawsuit on top of it for whatever my lawyer could think of. That shit wouldn't fly, which is, I believe, the point of the post you were replying to.

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[moronoxyd]

Well, the point is that everybody expects the license for a book to be irreversible.
When I buy the book, I have that license FOR EVER, or until I sell that book and give away that license.

But in this digital age, companies like Amazon or Apple tend to deny me that.
The licences I buy from them come with a lot more limits (but usuallay without being less expensive).

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[lapsed]

Woosh? I understand the concepts - maybe I could have been a bit more verbose. The point I was trying to make is that there are differences between licenses to read digital books and physical copies of them. The 1984 example so pissed everyone off not because it was inconvenient but because it points to how governments and corporations might use DRM and digital media distribution to rewrite history and suppress potentially subversive literature. The irony is that 1984 addresses and cautions against concentrating and enabling the power to rewrite history. You might be ticked off if your copy of 1984 was involuntarily refunded -- the rest of us would be alarmed. It's not the loss of money -- it's the loss of control.

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[PopeRatzo]

If it were a hard copy, I wouldn't be the slightest bit less ticked off. I'd be pressing charges for every law they broke in order to take back the book, and throw a lawsuit on top of it for whatever my lawyer could think of. That shit wouldn't fly, which is, I believe, the point of the post you were replying to.

Would you really go through all that trouble of getting a lawyer and pressing charges and bringing suits if it were a $20 book? If so, you're probably going to be in the minority.

This is why we're seeing these corporate "micro-crimes" where you get cheated out of $1, $5, $10 or much more. Whether it's something you bought that doesn't work and isn't worth the trouble of returning or a $50 game for which there was no demo that turns out to be garbage or unplayable. Most people just suck it up and move along, which is what the corporation is counting on. You say "I'll never buy from them again" but you do, you always do. Because if you have a Kindle, you're kind of stuck regarding where you can buy your books. If you have an iPhone, you're absolutely stuck as to where you buy your apps. In most American cities, you're stuck as to where you get your broadband.

So I disagree when you say "this shit wouldn't fly" because it's flying all over the place right now.

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[icebraining]

But the problem isn't licensing, it's DRM - the thing that can prevent you from lending or reselling the book, from using it in multiple devices and that enables them to remotely delete your book.

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[siglercm]

If it were a hard copy, I wouldn't be the slightest bit less ticked off. I'd be pressing charges for every law they broke in order to take back the book, and throw a lawsuit on top of it for whatever my lawyer could think of.

I agree with you. If they took back the (hard copy) book (I would agree with the wording "stole it from me"), I'd be really ticked off, too. If they refunded my purchase price in full, I'd be quite a bit less ticked off. (Please note that I'm not addressing the issue of censorship here.)

And your point here is an excellent one. Recapturing something from someone's hard/flash drive in their home is the digital equivalent of breaking and entering, unless the publisher has a court order/warrant to repossess it. Just because it's licensed, the licensor isn't granted the right to take it back at any time and place. Thank you for emphasizing that. I'm dubious as to whether clicking on a EULA can legally grant a seemingly unlimited right of repossession, just because the media is digital.

So, thanks for hitting another important issue this raises :^)

Re:I do not think it means what you think it means

[anethema]

Keeping in mind of course apple did not 'take away' anyones copy. If they later reaudit and change their mind, they just stop selling the app in question.

Re:I'm beginning to believe Steve Jobs

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I would never even consider owning a telecommunication/internet device that came with somebody's seemingly arbitrary and contradictory moral strictures as the arbiter of what I may use the device for. Ownership of Apple products has always been about willing to go into their secretive walled garden but lately with the hostility and snarkiness that has been shown to both Apple developers and consumers the experience is more akin to living in Gaza.

Yes not being able to buy a book through one (1) store is the same as living in a war zone where the essentials of life are blockaded. That's not overdramatic at all. You can get/buy the book through other channels (as a pdf for example) and put it on your phone to read with another program or, you know, through the friggin' website (NSFW, contains traces of nuts) as Apple continuously says to do to get content to the phone without Apple approval. That's not to say this behavior doesn't sucks and doesn't need to be challenged but the hyperbole isn't helping any.

No

[hellfire]

Steve's banning of iPhone porn apps from the store is a front. Steve is playing both sides of the porn coin here to make as many people as he can happy.

You can find plenty of iPhone compatible mobile porn websites. These same sites work on any just about other smartphone as well. And the porn industry doesn't need any apps in the app store, because they don't make money on apps, they make money on monthly subscriptions. Sure they would love some kind of free app to drum up more subscriptions, but they aren't bothered too much, they are used to this kind of discrimination. They are also used to their customers hunting them down via Google or clicking thru 15 ads.

It's like Betamax creating a bunch of corner stores and saying "you can't buy porn in our stores" but then being able to go to Joe's porn emporium down the street and get all you want. If Steve really was that concerned he'd have permanently turned on the parental controls on all iPhones. That would be how he would have to shoot his foot clean off, because then he'd have created the VHS/Betamax situation.