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.

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.

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

[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 :^)