SolipsismX, Amazon is not altering, or seeking to alter, the contents of a book. That is the problem. Apple is
No they are not. They are simply not selling a book that has hyperlinks to Amazon's book store the same way that Amazon threatened to sell books that are also sold on Apple's bookstore.
No they are not. They are simply not selling a book that has hyperlinks to Amazon's book store the same way that Amazon threatened to sell books that are also sold on Apple's bookstore.
If Godin were to remove the links, Apple would accept the book. You know how this works. It is, in essence, censoring that material from Godin's book. Why can't you accept this fact?
If Godin were to remove the links, Apple would accept the book. You know how this works. It is, in essence, censoring that material from Godin's book. Why can't you accept this fact?
If publishers did use iBookstore Amazon would accept their books, per Amazon's threat.
If pornos were to remove all elicit sex scenes then Apple would sell it in their iTS.
You are completely upside down on this matter. You aren't looking that the big picture so you're coming across as really batshit crazy, IMO, and without any consideration for a fair or free market.
If Godin were to remove the links, Apple would accept the book. You know how this works. It is, in essence, censoring that material from Godin's book. Why can't you accept this fact?
But he doesn't have to do that in order to distribute his free speech in general. Apple is jsut telling him what would be allowed. Godin isn't being told to do that by anybody. If he ends up making that decision, it would be him. That's how agreements between two parties work. If Godin wanted to maintain his work intact, he can find someone who will let him do that. He can even sell it by his lonesome self if it came to it.
Let me make this 100% clear NOBODY IS FORCING GODIN TO DO ANYTHING. Censorship is really only questionable when it is imparted forcefully by a third party. Apple isn't editing Godins book for him without his consent. They aren't the ones removing anything. Godin would have to do that on his own. All Apple does is present ground rules that they enforce (rightfully).
You seem to think that there should be no rules. We have explained that such a position is illogical and nonsensical and doesn't exist right now. You do not seem to be doing this.
This is no different that apps that are rejected from the app store for some reason or another.
It's been pretty well established up to this point that apple censors content on it's stores. The fact that this is written content, verses other types of content (AKA code), is irrelevant. If the apple gods don't like your content, kiss your spot in their store goodbye.
It sucks, but this is the way apple does things, and I seriously doubt it's ever going to change.
It sucks, but this is the way apple does things, and I seriously doubt it's ever going to change.
It's also pretty much the way that every retailer works - to some degree they restrict what is allowed to be sold. It doesn't matter if the thing being sold is some sort of creative expression.
... Amazon is not altering, or seeking to alter, the contents of a book. ...
Besides all the holes in your argument pointed out earlier, which everyone can see you are unable to respond to...
First of all, you don't know if that is the case or not that Amazon has never sought to alter the contents of a book it sells. It's a baseless, unsubstantiated claim. No surprise there.
Secondly, publishers engage in this sort of "censorship" all the time. And booksellers decide what books to carry all the time, for unknown reasons. In fact, as a bookseller, Apple is simply exercising their free speech rights to not carry the book.
You're arguing that Apple doesn't have free speech rights -- i.e., arguing that Apple should be censored.
Shameful? To decide what an author can and can't link to is censorship. From Apple's own Dictionary app: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."
eBooks have the ability to link to things. It is one of the benefits of that format. Linking to whatever an author wants to link to is an author's job to do. The idea that an author is going to threaten Apple's business through in-book links is ludicrous. And it's something that Apple should have thought about before getting into the market of being a bookseller. Books are good at subverting the powers-that-be, and Apple supposedly is a champion of independent thought.
I have a feeling that some of you are OK with censorship, if it is done by an entity you approve of. My point is, the practice can go against you real quick, and as readers we should find Apple's decision to go "between the covers" of a book, and reject inoffensive contents, unacceptable.
Thank you! Well said. This should give the Apple apologists something to think about.
Frankly, I'm appalled at many of the responses to this issue. It's as if Apple can do no wrong. That as long as Apple doesn't get on one's bad side, support Apple at all costs -- even if it's at the cost of another persons freedom of speech. This boggles my mind! -given that AppleInsider allows commentary critical of itself and its staff of writers.
I'm a regular follower of Seth Godin's blog. And for those who don't know, he is brilliant enough to get whatever kind of publicity he wants without dragging Apple's name through the mud. This would be contradictory to everything that he represents. That people here - supposedly smart, informed, open-minded people are dragging Godin's name through the mud without even the slightest bit of knowledge of who the man is, what kind of person he is, what his work consists of really illuminates the character of some of the types of people who visit and participate on this site.
Rules are rules. Censorship is censorship. Restricting the publication of written material based on what is included in the material is censorship regardless of any rules violated. Period. If you're OK with censorship, just admit it. But, please, be honest with YOURSELF. Attempting to sully a good person's name and work so that you might feel better about your servitude to a billion-dollar corporation doesn't do you a damn bit of good -- even if you happen to benefit from stock options in said company.
Shameful? To decide what an author can and can't link to is censorship. From Apple's own Dictionary app: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."
eBooks have the ability to link to things. It is one of the benefits of that format. Linking to whatever an author wants to link to is an author's job to do. The idea that an author is going to threaten Apple's business through in-book links is ludicrous. And it's something that Apple should have thought about before getting into the market of being a bookseller. Books are good at subverting the powers-that-be, and Apple supposedly is a champion of independent thought.
I have a feeling that some of you are OK with censorship, if it is done by an entity you approve of. My point is, the practice can go against you real quick, and as readers we should find Apple's decision to go "between the covers" of a book, and reject inoffensive contents, unacceptable.
1) We're alkimg about hyperlinks to a comprtitopr's store not the textual content itself
2) You've already admitted you agree with a retailer examining products it doesn't wish to ship so either you are a liar or a hypocrit. If NAMBLA — Free Speech — out a book do you think any Apple should automatically carry it? Of course, even I the content didnt break any federal laws you would probably understand a retailer choosing to "examine" the material and to not carry it.
3) Why does Amazon and other retailers get a pass on what they carry? You want to tell us again why Apple has no at in what they carry because they are the "middle man."
But Apple is the big, evil corporation... they don't get free speech or rights over what they sell... that's for the downtrodden little guy¡
I don't think pilgrim850 even cares a) whether his posts make sense, or b) about the issue of censorship. The irrational, often contradictory nature of his posts indicates that he's just looking for an issue to beat Apple with and has sunk his teeth in and dug in his heels on this one. To him, cries of censorship are just a stick, and any other would suit as well.
Exactly, which is why you are wrong to suggest that Apple to should be the only retailer that doesn't have a say over what products they carry.
I wonder how these free market haters live?
Suggest? Rules are rules. The end.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
I also said that censorship is censorship regardless of any rules violated. This statement holds true despite Apple's stated policies. The company looked into Goldin's work, found something that it disapproved of and rejected the material based on that determination. Apple reserves the right to reject any material that it doesn't deem fit for its stores, but Apple can still be guilty of censorship, and in this case it unequivocally is!
Stop making up stuff. You are one of the many who should know better.
I don't think pilgrim850 even cares a) whether his posts make sense, or b) about the issue of censorship. The irrational, often contradictory nature of his posts indicates that he's just looking for an issue to beat Apple with and has sunk his teeth in and dug in his heels on this one. To him, cries of censorship are just a stick, and any other would suit as well.
What I can't fathom is why he thinks Apple not wanting hyperlinks to other digital bookstores in the books they sell yet not have any problem with authors selling their books at any other store, reading on Apple products via competitors app, or even reading in Apple own iBooks apps is somehow worse than Amazon threatening to not carry any books by a publisher if they agree to sell jut one book on Apple's iBookstore. Amazon has that right but it's certainly much more extreme and shocking than Apple not wanting "teleportation" links to competitors store in products they sell.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
I also said that censorship is censorship regardless of any rules violated. This statement holds true despite Apple's stated policies. The company looked into Goldin's work, found something that it disapproved of and rejected the material based on that determination. Apple reserves the right to reject any material that it doesn't deem fit for its stores, but Apple can still be guilty of censorship!
Stop making up stuff. You are one of the many who should know better.
Oh, another one, I see, who's confused about the different meanings of 'censorship'.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
I also said that censorship is censorship regardless of any rules violated. This statement holds true despite Apple's stated policies. The company looked into Goldin's work, found something that it disapproved of and rejected the material based on that determination. Apple reserves the right to reject any material that it doesn't deem fit for its stores, but Apple can still be guilty of censorship!
Stop making up stuff. You are one of the many who should know better.
Imagine if in Apple Stores that are next to MS stores if Apple was selling boxed version of MS OFfice that advertised on the back how you can buy this software for less money next door? You wouldn't agree that it would ridiculous for Apple to carry such a product? And that's actually walking next door. With this book the hyperlink will push right into the website's store.
Bottom line: You don't have to allow your competitors to make money from your store.
Oh, another one, I see, who's confused about the different meanings of 'censorship'.
I see one who is confused - or doesn't know - about the rules of grammar and how to write a complete, cogent sentence.
We can play this boring tit for tat game of insults all day and night long, and you will lose every time. But since it is boring, I won't indulge. Lucky you.
Why don't you provide yourself a simple challenge and think of a handful of corporate entities whose sole business is to censor. I'll even give you a hint. Hollywood.
I see one who is confused - or doesn't know - about the rules of grammar and how to write a complete, cogent sentence.
We can play this boring tit for tat game of insults all day and night long, and you will lose every time. But since it is boring, I won't indulge. Lucky you.
Thanks to free speech rights we can say whatever we want and AppleInsider mods can't do anything about it.... oh, wait.
Imagine if in Apple Stores that are next to MS stores if Apple was selling boxed version of MS OFfice that advertised on the back how you can buy this software for less money next door? You wouldn't agree that it would ridiculous for Apple to carry such a product? And that's actually walking next door. With this book the hyperlink will push right into the website's store.
Bottom line: You don't have to allow your competitors to make money from your store.
No you don't. However, that's not the issue I addressed. I addressed Godin's argument - an argument that voiced concerns that I happen to agree with. I also addressed the fact that Apple's policies can lead to censorship in some cases.
Comments
SolipsismX, Amazon is not altering, or seeking to alter, the contents of a book. That is the problem. Apple is
No they are not. They are simply not selling a book that has hyperlinks to Amazon's book store the same way that Amazon threatened to sell books that are also sold on Apple's bookstore.
No they are not. They are simply not selling a book that has hyperlinks to Amazon's book store the same way that Amazon threatened to sell books that are also sold on Apple's bookstore.
If Godin were to remove the links, Apple would accept the book. You know how this works. It is, in essence, censoring that material from Godin's book. Why can't you accept this fact?
If Godin were to remove the links, Apple would accept the book. You know how this works. It is, in essence, censoring that material from Godin's book. Why can't you accept this fact?
If publishers did use iBookstore Amazon would accept their books, per Amazon's threat.
If pornos were to remove all elicit sex scenes then Apple would sell it in their iTS.
You are completely upside down on this matter. You aren't looking that the big picture so you're coming across as really batshit crazy, IMO, and without any consideration for a fair or free market.
If Godin were to remove the links, Apple would accept the book. You know how this works. It is, in essence, censoring that material from Godin's book. Why can't you accept this fact?
But he doesn't have to do that in order to distribute his free speech in general. Apple is jsut telling him what would be allowed. Godin isn't being told to do that by anybody. If he ends up making that decision, it would be him. That's how agreements between two parties work. If Godin wanted to maintain his work intact, he can find someone who will let him do that. He can even sell it by his lonesome self if it came to it.
Let me make this 100% clear NOBODY IS FORCING GODIN TO DO ANYTHING. Censorship is really only questionable when it is imparted forcefully by a third party. Apple isn't editing Godins book for him without his consent. They aren't the ones removing anything. Godin would have to do that on his own. All Apple does is present ground rules that they enforce (rightfully).
You seem to think that there should be no rules. We have explained that such a position is illogical and nonsensical and doesn't exist right now. You do not seem to be doing this.
It's been pretty well established up to this point that apple censors content on it's stores. The fact that this is written content, verses other types of content (AKA code), is irrelevant. If the apple gods don't like your content, kiss your spot in their store goodbye.
It sucks, but this is the way apple does things, and I seriously doubt it's ever going to change.
It sucks, but this is the way apple does things, and I seriously doubt it's ever going to change.
It's also pretty much the way that every retailer works - to some degree they restrict what is allowed to be sold. It doesn't matter if the thing being sold is some sort of creative expression.
... Amazon is not altering, or seeking to alter, the contents of a book. ...
Besides all the holes in your argument pointed out earlier, which everyone can see you are unable to respond to...
First of all, you don't know if that is the case or not that Amazon has never sought to alter the contents of a book it sells. It's a baseless, unsubstantiated claim. No surprise there.
Secondly, publishers engage in this sort of "censorship" all the time. And booksellers decide what books to carry all the time, for unknown reasons. In fact, as a bookseller, Apple is simply exercising their free speech rights to not carry the book.
You're arguing that Apple doesn't have free speech rights -- i.e., arguing that Apple should be censored.
You're arguing that Apple doesn't have free speech rights -- i.e., arguing that Apple should be censored.
But Apple is the big, evil corporation... they don't get free speech or rights over what they sell... that's for the downtrodden little guy¡
Shameful? To decide what an author can and can't link to is censorship. From Apple's own Dictionary app: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."
eBooks have the ability to link to things. It is one of the benefits of that format. Linking to whatever an author wants to link to is an author's job to do. The idea that an author is going to threaten Apple's business through in-book links is ludicrous. And it's something that Apple should have thought about before getting into the market of being a bookseller. Books are good at subverting the powers-that-be, and Apple supposedly is a champion of independent thought.
I have a feeling that some of you are OK with censorship, if it is done by an entity you approve of. My point is, the practice can go against you real quick, and as readers we should find Apple's decision to go "between the covers" of a book, and reject inoffensive contents, unacceptable.
Thank you! Well said. This should give the Apple apologists something to think about.
Frankly, I'm appalled at many of the responses to this issue. It's as if Apple can do no wrong. That as long as Apple doesn't get on one's bad side, support Apple at all costs -- even if it's at the cost of another persons freedom of speech. This boggles my mind! -given that AppleInsider allows commentary critical of itself and its staff of writers.
I'm a regular follower of Seth Godin's blog. And for those who don't know, he is brilliant enough to get whatever kind of publicity he wants without dragging Apple's name through the mud. This would be contradictory to everything that he represents. That people here - supposedly smart, informed, open-minded people are dragging Godin's name through the mud without even the slightest bit of knowledge of who the man is, what kind of person he is, what his work consists of really illuminates the character of some of the types of people who visit and participate on this site.
Rules are rules. Censorship is censorship. Restricting the publication of written material based on what is included in the material is censorship regardless of any rules violated. Period. If you're OK with censorship, just admit it. But, please, be honest with YOURSELF. Attempting to sully a good person's name and work so that you might feel better about your servitude to a billion-dollar corporation doesn't do you a damn bit of good -- even if you happen to benefit from stock options in said company.
Shameful? To decide what an author can and can't link to is censorship. From Apple's own Dictionary app: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."
eBooks have the ability to link to things. It is one of the benefits of that format. Linking to whatever an author wants to link to is an author's job to do. The idea that an author is going to threaten Apple's business through in-book links is ludicrous. And it's something that Apple should have thought about before getting into the market of being a bookseller. Books are good at subverting the powers-that-be, and Apple supposedly is a champion of independent thought.
I have a feeling that some of you are OK with censorship, if it is done by an entity you approve of. My point is, the practice can go against you real quick, and as readers we should find Apple's decision to go "between the covers" of a book, and reject inoffensive contents, unacceptable.
1) We're alkimg about hyperlinks to a comprtitopr's store not the textual content itself
2) You've already admitted you agree with a retailer examining products it doesn't wish to ship so either you are a liar or a hypocrit. If NAMBLA — Free Speech
3) Why does Amazon and other retailers get a pass on what they carry? You want to tell us again why Apple has no at in what they carry because they are the "middle man."
Rules are rules.
Exactly, which is why you are wrong to suggest that Apple to should be the only retailer that doesn't have a say over what products they carry.
I wonder how these free market haters live?
But Apple is the big, evil corporation... they don't get free speech or rights over what they sell... that's for the downtrodden little guy¡
I don't think pilgrim850 even cares a) whether his posts make sense, or b) about the issue of censorship. The irrational, often contradictory nature of his posts indicates that he's just looking for an issue to beat Apple with and has sunk his teeth in and dug in his heels on this one. To him, cries of censorship are just a stick, and any other would suit as well.
Exactly, which is why you are wrong to suggest that Apple to should be the only retailer that doesn't have a say over what products they carry.
I wonder how these free market haters live?
Suggest? Rules are rules. The end.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
I also said that censorship is censorship regardless of any rules violated. This statement holds true despite Apple's stated policies. The company looked into Goldin's work, found something that it disapproved of and rejected the material based on that determination. Apple reserves the right to reject any material that it doesn't deem fit for its stores, but Apple can still be guilty of censorship, and in this case it unequivocally is!
Stop making up stuff. You are one of the many who should know better.
I don't think pilgrim850 even cares a) whether his posts make sense, or b) about the issue of censorship. The irrational, often contradictory nature of his posts indicates that he's just looking for an issue to beat Apple with and has sunk his teeth in and dug in his heels on this one. To him, cries of censorship are just a stick, and any other would suit as well.
What I can't fathom is why he thinks Apple not wanting hyperlinks to other digital bookstores in the books they sell yet not have any problem with authors selling their books at any other store, reading on Apple products via competitors app, or even reading in Apple own iBooks apps is somehow worse than Amazon threatening to not carry any books by a publisher if they agree to sell jut one book on Apple's iBookstore. Amazon has that right but it's certainly much more extreme and shocking than Apple not wanting "teleportation" links to competitors store in products they sell.
Suggest? Rules are rules. The end.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
I also said that censorship is censorship regardless of any rules violated. This statement holds true despite Apple's stated policies. The company looked into Goldin's work, found something that it disapproved of and rejected the material based on that determination. Apple reserves the right to reject any material that it doesn't deem fit for its stores, but Apple can still be guilty of censorship!
Stop making up stuff. You are one of the many who should know better.
Oh, another one, I see, who's confused about the different meanings of 'censorship'.
Suggest? Rules are rules. The end.
What that means is in this case is: Apple can choose to institute or rescind any policy for their companies and stores at any time they wish. This also means that Apple has the right to do those things up to a point.
You make it sound like Apple is completely right. What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is only completely right up to a point.
I also said that censorship is censorship regardless of any rules violated. This statement holds true despite Apple's stated policies. The company looked into Goldin's work, found something that it disapproved of and rejected the material based on that determination. Apple reserves the right to reject any material that it doesn't deem fit for its stores, but Apple can still be guilty of censorship!
Stop making up stuff. You are one of the many who should know better.
Imagine if in Apple Stores that are next to MS stores if Apple was selling boxed version of MS OFfice that advertised on the back how you can buy this software for less money next door? You wouldn't agree that it would ridiculous for Apple to carry such a product? And that's actually walking next door. With this book the hyperlink will push right into the website's store.
Bottom line: You don't have to allow your competitors to make money from your store.
Oh, another one, I see, who's confused about the different meanings of 'censorship'.
I see one who is confused - or doesn't know - about the rules of grammar and how to write a complete, cogent sentence.
We can play this boring tit for tat game of insults all day and night long, and you will lose every time. But since it is boring, I won't indulge. Lucky you.
Why don't you provide yourself a simple challenge and think of a handful of corporate entities whose sole business is to censor. I'll even give you a hint. Hollywood.
I see one who is confused - or doesn't know - about the rules of grammar and how to write a complete, cogent sentence.
We can play this boring tit for tat game of insults all day and night long, and you will lose every time. But since it is boring, I won't indulge. Lucky you.
Thanks to free speech rights we can say whatever we want and AppleInsider mods can't do anything about it.... oh, wait.
Thanks to free speech rights we can say whatever we want and AppleInsider mods can't do anything about it.... oh, wait.
You can say whatever you want, sure. What we DON'T guarantee is how long it'll stay up.
?
Gosh, that sounds like an AT&T pitch, doesn't it?
"You can download as much as you want. What we don't guarantee is how fast you can download it."
Imagine if in Apple Stores that are next to MS stores if Apple was selling boxed version of MS OFfice that advertised on the back how you can buy this software for less money next door? You wouldn't agree that it would ridiculous for Apple to carry such a product? And that's actually walking next door. With this book the hyperlink will push right into the website's store.
Bottom line: You don't have to allow your competitors to make money from your store.
No you don't. However, that's not the issue I addressed. I addressed Godin's argument - an argument that voiced concerns that I happen to agree with. I also addressed the fact that Apple's policies can lead to censorship in some cases.