Actually you show a marked lack of understanding as to what art is yourself. Because movies are definitely art, and cinematography is an art form. The pieces of process that produce the final result can be art themselves.
why either side cares about that particular definition
Because the motivation behind the caring is what makes the argument. Arguing over definitions is what this whole thing is. The definition of art has been argued for centuries. By each generation of artists and in fact by each school of art itself. You are naive if you think you have any insight into this because you and I do not, I can guarantee we do not. video games have cultural impact.
Almost exactly the way that dogs crapping on a sidewalk have cultural impact. Careful, you don't want to step in that cultural impact.
I'm afraid I have to agree with him on this. And yes his argument is art. The game itself is not art, the crafting of the code and the resultant functionality is art, the graphics that make up the game is art, the creation of the rules is artistic but the rules no matter how elegant are not art. A video game as a game is not art. Any more than checkers itself is art. The board may be crafted in artistic manner, the pieces themselves may be pieces of art, but checkers itself is not art. Any particular game played by skilled opponents may even be considered art. But the game itself is a set of rules nothing more, it doesn't matter that it is a contest and has a resolution. In other words, the contest is art, the rules are not.
This is an app. It works, presumably, and likewise presumably has some demand.
It is an app that violates THEIR rules. So they refuse to put in THEIR store. This is neither suppression nor censorship it is business and in line with their business plan. Not all apps are in their best interest regardless of how you feel about it being in your/our best interest. You presumably could if you were a large enough stockholder have some influence on their decisions but...
Specifically suppressing political cartoons is not part of their core business. In fact, they have literally 'no business' doing so.
But they are also not in the business of publishing political cartoons either and refusing to do so is quite within their core business relationship with their customers. What a TWEEST! If I didn't know better I'd think your posts were being written for you by M. Knight Shyamalan(sp)
Self censorship? A self imposed editing of reality is not censorship. I'm not suppressing the information, I'm merely choosing not to consume it. Or in the case of your statement Refusing to acknowledge that I'm consuming it. I'm ignoring your typo as I am blissfully aware of evolution and quite happy about it
You are really going to have to define how exactly a magazine publishes your article and forces you to pay for it. if they were not given permission to publish that's a copyright violation and you can force them to retract. If they publish an article that you wrote and placed in the public domain, then they have not violated any law and if the article is defamatory of anyone else you have committed the crime not them. I'm confused by your whole argument.
You could even publish your work and just put it on the web available for download.
And um exactly what about the Apple walled garden is stopping you from doing the same?
declining with an agenda is the very essence of censorship.
Declining to purchase anything for a reason implies an agenda. You have the cart before the horse.
It is, however, deplorable and should be noted when it happens, particularly when it happens despite the best interests of their customer base and the company itself.
But you are implying that declining to sell anything would then not be in their customers best interests. I hope and believe that most retailers have customer safety as an agenda. They don't always succeed in keeping that agenda, but they do try and by refusing to carry cheap toys that contain lead or objectionable themes (to the majority of their customers) is not censorship, it's good business.
You have a twisted idea of what constitutes censorship and it seems that anything that goes against YOUR agenda is censorship.
Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.
No it's a business decision, the same way that I won't buy any pizza with anchovies on it is a business decision.
What law exactly makes it illegal to force someone to publish things against their will and how would you accomplish this feat? If you steal my manuscript or source code you have broken other laws, but I can not think of anything that makes it illegal to publish something against my will, but maybe perhaps, those silly copyright laws do come in handy after all. Slander or libel in this case I guess, but they only apply if you publish or loudly proclaim lies and represent them as truth not opinion. For instance I could say that, I'm not saying Sarah Palin is a lesbian, but she sure uses a lot of lipstick and hangs out with a lot of women. She could do nothing about it as it is my opinion that I can't say she is a Lesbian because of those other reasons. I'm not saying that I think she is a lesbian but it's possible that someone in the country does believe this.
Perhaps they are the only publisher of apps etc for the iPad, but they are hardly the only publisher. Walled Garden not withstanding, you are railing against the fact the you have no choice, but you have other choices of application platform. Why do you care so much about Apple's attitudes.
It sounds to me like you are a closet Apple fanatic and need to just come out of the closet and embrace your inner Steve.
It does not answer the question, it describes the duties of a censor or defines the verb to censor. You specified a particular application of the verb and were asked if that application could be used in every case of a similar denial. Please answer the question as asked.
To Censor, still does not apply. Yes the person who denied the app probably acted as a censor in his capacity to judge the fitness of the app. But it is not censorship in it's broader meaning as in to suppress political thought by removing objectionable items from circulation. They did not stop him from publishing, they told him that they wouldn't publish him. Big difference.
Please get a god damned dictionary and actually look up what the freaking word "Monopoly" means. What the TOS describes is a dictatorship not a monopoly. If you are going to use the word please know what frak you are talking about!
I believe we can all agree We can't all agree on what to have for lunch, you think that we should agree that censorship of this artist (who was unknown to many if not most of us before his Pulitzer work) should be anything but what it is, the privilege of the owner of the store?
The mere mention of the word censorship implies that you believe your rights have been stepped on 1st amendment or otherwise. It wasn't in the FA, it was in the summary.
the censorship of his work should be denigrated
denigrate away, it won't matter any more than telling a programmer that an API that satisfies his requirements is deprecated will stop him from using it.
I actually chalk it up to the fact that consumers are not nearly as smart as most of the free marketers seem to think they are and just don't believe it when told that company X is evil because of x,y and z. Even when presented with direct evidence they tend to write it off as fringe rumor mongering and not mainstream fact. So given that the "free market" won't actually do anything to regulate any company we still need the smart people to put regulations in place to protect the gullible and obviously not as educated as you would like them to be consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you show a marked lack of understanding as to what art is yourself. Because movies are definitely art, and cinematography is an art form. The pieces of process that produce the final result can be art themselves.
why either side cares about that particular definition
Because the motivation behind the caring is what makes the argument. Arguing over definitions is what this whole thing is. The definition of art has been argued for centuries. By each generation of artists and in fact by each school of art itself. You are naive if you think you have any insight into this because you and I do not, I can guarantee we do not.
video games have cultural impact.
Almost exactly the way that dogs crapping on a sidewalk have cultural impact. Careful, you don't want to step in that cultural impact.
I'm afraid I have to agree with him on this. And yes his argument is art. The game itself is not art, the crafting of the code and the resultant functionality is art, the graphics that make up the game is art, the creation of the rules is artistic but the rules no matter how elegant are not art. A video game as a game is not art. Any more than checkers itself is art. The board may be crafted in artistic manner, the pieces themselves may be pieces of art, but checkers itself is not art. Any particular game played by skilled opponents may even be considered art. But the game itself is a set of rules nothing more, it doesn't matter that it is a contest and has a resolution. In other words, the contest is art, the rules are not.
Ah I see, we are on the same page and in near complete agreement. Never mind.
This is an app. It works, presumably, and likewise presumably has some demand. ...
It is an app that violates THEIR rules. So they refuse to put in THEIR store. This is neither suppression nor censorship it is business and in line with their business plan. Not all apps are in their best interest regardless of how you feel about it being in your/our best interest. You presumably could if you were a large enough stockholder have some influence on their decisions but
Specifically suppressing political cartoons is not part of their core business. In fact, they have literally 'no business' doing so.
But they are also not in the business of publishing political cartoons either and refusing to do so is quite within their core business relationship with their customers. What a TWEEST! If I didn't know better I'd think your posts were being written for you by M. Knight Shyamalan(sp)
Self censorship? A self imposed editing of reality is not censorship. I'm not suppressing the information, I'm merely choosing not to consume it. Or in the case of your statement Refusing to acknowledge that I'm consuming it. I'm ignoring your typo as I am blissfully aware of evolution and quite happy about it
No censorship implies suppression, not merely relegating to obscurity via another shelf at another store that will carry the objectionable material.
You are really going to have to define how exactly a magazine publishes your article and forces you to pay for it. if they were not given permission to publish that's a copyright violation and you can force them to retract. If they publish an article that you wrote and placed in the public domain, then they have not violated any law and if the article is defamatory of anyone else you have committed the crime not them. I'm confused by your whole argument.
You could even publish your work and just put it on the web available for download.
And um exactly what about the Apple walled garden is stopping you from doing the same?
declining with an agenda is the very essence of censorship.
Declining to purchase anything for a reason implies an agenda. You have the cart before the horse.
It is, however, deplorable and should be noted when it happens, particularly when it happens despite the best interests of their customer base and the company itself.
But you are implying that declining to sell anything would then not be in their customers best interests. I hope and believe that most retailers have customer safety as an agenda. They don't always succeed in keeping that agenda, but they do try and by refusing to carry cheap toys that contain lead or objectionable themes (to the majority of their customers) is not censorship, it's good business.
You have a twisted idea of what constitutes censorship and it seems that anything that goes against YOUR agenda is censorship.
My agenda is to remain anchovy free. Does that make my refusing to buy pizza with anchovies censorship!
Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.
No it's a business decision, the same way that I won't buy any pizza with anchovies on it is a business decision.
What law exactly makes it illegal to force someone to publish things against their will and how would you accomplish this feat? If you steal my manuscript or source code you have broken other laws, but I can not think of anything that makes it illegal to publish something against my will, but maybe perhaps, those silly copyright laws do come in handy after all. Slander or libel in this case I guess, but they only apply if you publish or loudly proclaim lies and represent them as truth not opinion. For instance I could say that, I'm not saying Sarah Palin is a lesbian, but she sure uses a lot of lipstick and hangs out with a lot of women. She could do nothing about it as it is my opinion that I can't say she is a Lesbian because of those other reasons. I'm not saying that I think she is a lesbian but it's possible that someone in the country does believe this.
Perhaps they are the only publisher of apps etc for the iPad, but they are hardly the only publisher. Walled Garden not withstanding, you are railing against the fact the you have no choice, but you have other choices of application platform. Why do you care so much about Apple's attitudes.
It sounds to me like you are a closet Apple fanatic and need to just come out of the closet and embrace your inner Steve.
It does not answer the question, it describes the duties of a censor or defines the verb to censor. You specified a particular application of the verb and were asked if that application could be used in every case of a similar denial. Please answer the question as asked.
To Censor, still does not apply. Yes the person who denied the app probably acted as a censor in his capacity to judge the fitness of the app. But it is not censorship in it's broader meaning as in to suppress political thought by removing objectionable items from circulation. They did not stop him from publishing, they told him that they wouldn't publish him. Big difference.
Thank you, please refrain from further comment and go away! Oh and it's their device, not there device, there castle!
Please get a god damned dictionary and actually look up what the freaking word "Monopoly" means. What the TOS describes is a dictatorship not a monopoly. If you are going to use the word please know what frak you are talking about!
Have you! Look up "Idealistic romanticist" followed by "censorship".
I believe we can all agree
We can't all agree on what to have for lunch, you think that we should agree that censorship of this artist (who was unknown to many if not most of us before his Pulitzer work) should be anything but what it is, the privilege of the owner of the store?
The mere mention of the word censorship implies that you believe your rights have been stepped on 1st amendment or otherwise. It wasn't in the FA, it was in the summary.
the censorship of his work should be denigrated
denigrate away, it won't matter any more than telling a programmer that an API that satisfies his requirements is deprecated will stop him from using it.
hmmm, but it's not an iPad, not made by Apple and well I guess that's enough.
Saint Peter don't you call me cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store. I hear ya brother...
I actually chalk it up to the fact that consumers are not nearly as smart as most of the free marketers seem to think they are and just don't believe it when told that company X is evil because of x,y and z. Even when presented with direct evidence they tend to write it off as fringe rumor mongering and not mainstream fact. So given that the "free market" won't actually do anything to regulate any company we still need the smart people to put regulations in place to protect the gullible and obviously not as educated as you would like them to be consumers.