4. Children cannot legally enter into a contract with iTunes (at least in the US), nor can they obtain credit cards, therefore it may not actually be legal for children to download anything at all from iTunes, Apps or content.
They don't need credit card. All they need is an iTunes Gift Card and open a separate account with is an email address and a U.S. address. Not necessary illegal. But doing so, bypasses Parental Control for the person that does it
This is what I suspected would happen when they first pulled the apps. I would assume that it was always part of the plan, but didn't tell developers because they didn't want to be held to a timetable. Apple likes to be secretive, and sometimes it hurts them in the PR department.
When a government suppresses information to keep their citizens in the dark, that's censorship.
When a company wants to remove skank, filth, and crap from their product, it's called bowing down to consumer demand.
This is not an accurate statement. Censorship need not be initiated by a government. When the MPAA, for example, requires that a movie be edited in a particular way in order to receive a particular rating, it is still censorship, despite the fact that the MPAA is not a government actor.
Similarly, when I choose not to say something to my wife because it will upset her, I am censoring myself. In this case, Apple is both a censor and bowing down to what they perceive as being consumer demand.
Not to bore the forum with Constitutional Law, but if the government were doing what Apple is doing, it would be looked at as the most problematic type of discrimination of expression, because it is patently content-based. Nonetheless, it is Apple's prerogative as to what they want in the store. I really love the app store and the devices that use the apps. I just hope that the iOS universe is not censored so heavy-handedly that I can't use my own adult judgment to decide what content to install.
I believe we will have more luck influencing Apple by correcting their perceptions as to what consumers want as opposed to making inaccurate legal analyses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aep528
4. Children cannot legally enter into a contract with iTunes (at least in the US), nor can they obtain credit cards, therefore it may not actually be legal for children to download anything at all from iTunes, Apps or content.
False. Children (minors) actual can legally enter into contracts in the US. The sticking point is that in most circumstances the non-minor cannot enforce the contract against the minor, despite the fact that the minor can enforce the contract against the non-minor. This creates a strong disincentive against contracting with non-minors, but it does not make it illegal for a minor to enter into a contract.
Children (minors) actual can legally enter into contracts in the US. The sticking point is that in most circumstances the non-minor cannot enforce the contract against the minor, despite the fact that the minor can enforce the contract against the non-minor. This creates a strong disincentive against contracting with non-minors, but it does not make it illegal for a minor to enter into a contract.
Minors cannot consent to or enter into a binding contract until they reach the age of majority
Quote:
Children cannot form legal contracts. The Constitution gives contracts high regard generally, and prohibits Congress from interfering with them. There are, however, several exceptions as to who can enter into a contract, and one of those exceptions is minors. Minor children are not of legal contract age, that is to say, with few exceptions, they cannot consent to or enter into a binding contract until they reach the age of majority.
In the United States, the age of majority is determined individually by each state. In 47 of the states, the age of majority is 18. In Nebraska and Alabama it is 19, and in Mississippi it is 21. In American Samoa, a U.S. territory, the age of majority is only 14.
Fascinating. None of the banned apps were explicit; all were PG or PG-13.
Will they be reinstated in the regular categories, or will PG content be lumped into "explicit"?
And will truly explicit content be allowed? If so, Apple might become the world's biggest distributor of pornography.
What a road Apple chose when they decided to become the sole source of iCompatible software!
I'm thinking their reasoning goes like this:
1) ban all these booby apps because Steve Jobs finds them tacky
2) tell everyone instead that they were banned for being "sexy"
3) create "explicit" category where actual nudity is okay
(even though ironically nothing that's actually "explicit" will be).
4) When developers of the booby apps complain, tell them they can come back if they swap the swimsuits for actual nudity and go in the "explicit" section.
I think they are taking a calculated risk that most of the purveyors of these apps would be happier to show actual boobs than just wet swimsuits.
If there are "sexy app" developers who make the tamer apps (like pretty much everything recently removed), they will look pretty ridiculous in the "explicit" section next to a similar app that contains actual nudity. The pressure will be on them to make them *more* explicit (although again ironically avoiding anything that is actually "explicit" like vaginas and penises.)
You exaggerate way too much and too often. "tamer than a disney movie", C'mon. Further, your implication that the removal of the apps was a personal vendetta on behalf of some unnamed executive at apple is absurd. I agree that the apps might not have had any content more mature than a lingerie catalog, but you have t understand that some parents aren't comfortable with their children looking at that content.
The "Explicit" label is generally reserved for anything not PG-13 in the content world including music and movies, it does not imply "extreme" anything. It's just a label and a category that allows parents to better monitor what their kids are entertaining themselves with.
If you have any gripe take it up with organizations like the MPAA etc. In fact, given their influence we should be glad that Apple has taken control of the issue themselves and not left it to yet another third party rating system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think you are assuming a lot here. I don't see this necessarily as evidence of them "listening."
For starters, none of the apps that were banned could by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as "explicit" in the sense that this word is usually reserved for the extreme end of the scale in terms of adult entertainment. The apps that were banned were from the opposite end of that scale. The apps that were banned had no nudity for instance. Many had no content that you couldn't see in any fashion magazine any day of the week. Some were tamer than a Disney movie.
Those apps were most likely banned just because some executive at Apple "didn't like them" and didn't care about fairness or making any kind of sense with the admission policy. This is a bad thing that they did and putting in an explicit category (if they are in fact doing that), doesn't change that fact.
I can't see them adding a simple app that shows swimsuit pictures into an "explicit" category. That's just laughable.
So now still images of bikini-clad women need to be marked as 'explicit'? But only if it's not published by a global corporation? Even if it could have been taken from a G-rated movie available from the iTS?
It was stupid enough that these apps [men and women wearing skimpy outfits, but with NO nudity, as that is right out] had to be marked as being NC-17, for explicit nudity, now they will need to be marked as 'explicit'?
I would hate to think what category they would come up with for actual, explicit nudity, let alone 'real' pornographic videos.
It is not censorship when a store chooses not to sell a particular item. Store owners have a right to choose what they want to sell. Adult-themed items are not sold in every store. The items are not banned either because you can go elsewhere if you really need to look at porn.
May be you forgot, but App Store is the only place where you can buy an application (I don't talk about jailbreaking)
The move follows Apple's removal of more than 5,000 applications the company said were "overtly sexual." The change in policy came after the company received numerous complaints from users who were concerned children would be able to access inappropriate content from the App Store on their iPhone or iPod touch.
Does Apple or AI think we all came down in the last shower or something?
Parents are giving their children internet access devices and are then complaining about adult content in the App store?
Who do these concerned parents put pressure on, with regard to the rest of the adult content on the internet? They must be busy writing indignant letters and emails 24/7.
I for one do not believe Apple would be concerned at all about complaints of this nature, given that they are akin to complaining about the permissivity of a single hole in a sieve.
Change that second line to read "when a company wants to remove skank, filth, and crap from their product, it's called bowing down to the demands of a prudish, inteolerant vocal minority."
I actually agree with you. My point being that Apple is within their right to put whatever it is they want on their app store. Being selective and calling that "censorship" is seriously pushing it. True censorship deprives citizens. Citizens in this case, can simply go elsewhere, like another provider (Android), or simply use Safari on their iPhone.
People screaming censorship seriously have too much time (and not enough porn) on their hands.
I think "Adult" might have been a better name though. Explicit makes it sound like hardcore. But from what I understand... it was mostly just silly bikini pics and such (I don't have an iPhone).
You exaggerate way too much and too often. "tamer than a disney movie", C'mon.
One of the apps removed was one where you blow into the microphone and a girls skirt flies up. I can point to cartoons from the 30's and 40's (made by Disney, Warner Bros. etc.) that are "racier" than that or indeed that have the exact same content. We are talking 60 or 70 year old movies here! It is by no means an exaggeration to say that a lot of these apps wouldn't even qualify as "mature" let alone "explicit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
... Further, your implication that the removal of the apps was a personal vendetta on behalf of some unnamed executive at apple is absurd.
I don't see why this is "absurd." It's a theory. I may be wrong, but things like that have happened before and will happen again etc. It's certainly not "absurd."
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
... I agree that the apps might not have had any content more mature than a lingerie catalog, but you have t understand that some parents aren't comfortable with their children looking at that content.
I understand that parents come in all forms but that's essentially irrelevant to this argument. The ban is essentially pandering to a small group of American parents (if we believe Apple's PR anyway), lots of other parents wouldn't be upset if their kids see this stuff at all. Lots of other parents would be shocked that their kids can see a lot less. All of that is essentially irrelevant. What they should do is have a rational basis for the censorship, or simply not censor at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
... The "Explicit" label is generally reserved for anything not PG-13 in the content world including music and movies, it does not imply "extreme" anything. It's just a label and a category that allows parents to better monitor what their kids are entertaining themselves with. ...
For starters, what's "explicit" in your country is not necessarily the same as what's "explicit" in mine. In my country and in my experience, "explicit" refers to explicit sexuality or the sexual act, it involves the actual body parts of sex (penises and vaginas), and is generally used to cover the most extreme types of sexual situations in movies, full-frontal nudity, simulated sex, etc.
Secondly, for someone calling me out for "exaggerating," you are throwing some terms around fairly loosely yourself. There are many apps that are currently banned that are a whole lot *less* explicit than the average lingerie catalogue. You use "absurd" above, when you probably mean something more like "disagree," etc.
I understand that the USA is a deeply religious country and that things that are normal to the rest of the world are pretty sinful down there, but I am personally fairly outraged by this whole debacle and the cynical, immoral, and deceptive stance Apple is taking on this issue. I expected more from them. What they are doing here isn't even logical or good for business, it's just puritanical garbage.
I think Apple is lying when they say this was "initiated by customer complaints" and I have what is to me convincing evidence of that. I Apple is being purposely deceitful when they talk about the basis for the bans of individual apps being moral concerns. I may be wrong on both of these, but it's not "absurd," and it's not over the top or an exaggeration to say I am shocked and outraged by the whole thing.
Freedom is really important to me personally and I always find it ironic how many Americans argue in favour of these kinds of things given the reputation of the USA vis a vis "freedom." IMO the USA talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk when it comes to individual freedom. If you want to be free, you're better off living in Europe or South America.
Well, that was quick. I'm glad that Apple listens (sometimes ).
Bring back the apps, fully flesh out the Parental Controls, then we can put this behind us and move on
What do you mean "Apple Listens". Don't you think Apple "thinks"? You talk like Apple is clueless. Without direction, plan, or forethought in their actions. It's clear who the one who doesn't think is here.
Some of the greatest technological minds in the world working at this place, but yeah; they needed some whining jiggly tit developers to clue them in.
They don't need credit card. All they need is an iTunes Gift Card and open a separate account with is an email address and a U.S. address. Not necessary illegal. But doing so, bypasses Parental Control for the person that does it
Well, in Canada kids (or even adults) can't purchase apps with either gift cards or allowance accounts... unless they get US gift cards and have a bogus (but valid) US address. Canadian gift cards only work in the Canadian store.
Comments
4. Children cannot legally enter into a contract with iTunes (at least in the US), nor can they obtain credit cards, therefore it may not actually be legal for children to download anything at all from iTunes, Apps or content.
They don't need credit card. All they need is an iTunes Gift Card and open a separate account with is an email address and a U.S. address. Not necessary illegal. But doing so, bypasses Parental Control for the person that does it
This is what I suspected would happen when they first pulled the apps. I would assume that it was always part of the plan, but didn't tell developers because they didn't want to be held to a timetable. Apple likes to be secretive, and sometimes it hurts them in the PR department.
My thoughts exactly.
When a government suppresses information to keep their citizens in the dark, that's censorship.
When a company wants to remove skank, filth, and crap from their product, it's called bowing down to consumer demand.
This is not an accurate statement. Censorship need not be initiated by a government. When the MPAA, for example, requires that a movie be edited in a particular way in order to receive a particular rating, it is still censorship, despite the fact that the MPAA is not a government actor.
Similarly, when I choose not to say something to my wife because it will upset her, I am censoring myself. In this case, Apple is both a censor and bowing down to what they perceive as being consumer demand.
Not to bore the forum with Constitutional Law, but if the government were doing what Apple is doing, it would be looked at as the most problematic type of discrimination of expression, because it is patently content-based. Nonetheless, it is Apple's prerogative as to what they want in the store. I really love the app store and the devices that use the apps. I just hope that the iOS universe is not censored so heavy-handedly that I can't use my own adult judgment to decide what content to install.
I believe we will have more luck influencing Apple by correcting their perceptions as to what consumers want as opposed to making inaccurate legal analyses.
Originally Posted by aep528
4. Children cannot legally enter into a contract with iTunes (at least in the US), nor can they obtain credit cards, therefore it may not actually be legal for children to download anything at all from iTunes, Apps or content.
False. Children (minors) actual can legally enter into contracts in the US. The sticking point is that in most circumstances the non-minor cannot enforce the contract against the minor, despite the fact that the minor can enforce the contract against the non-minor. This creates a strong disincentive against contracting with non-minors, but it does not make it illegal for a minor to enter into a contract.
Children (minors) actual can legally enter into contracts in the US. The sticking point is that in most circumstances the non-minor cannot enforce the contract against the minor, despite the fact that the minor can enforce the contract against the non-minor. This creates a strong disincentive against contracting with non-minors, but it does not make it illegal for a minor to enter into a contract.
Minors cannot consent to or enter into a binding contract until they reach the age of majority
Children cannot form legal contracts. The Constitution gives contracts high regard generally, and prohibits Congress from interfering with them. There are, however, several exceptions as to who can enter into a contract, and one of those exceptions is minors. Minor children are not of legal contract age, that is to say, with few exceptions, they cannot consent to or enter into a binding contract until they reach the age of majority.
In the United States, the age of majority is determined individually by each state. In 47 of the states, the age of majority is 18. In Nebraska and Alabama it is 19, and in Mississippi it is 21. In American Samoa, a U.S. territory, the age of majority is only 14.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5030458_le...tract-age.html
I just hope that the iOS universe is not censored so heavy-handedly that I can't use my own adult judgment to decide what content to install.
But would you be so inclined to let your 14-year old daughter be freely tempted by some 18-year old drop-out to do so?
When a government suppresses information to keep their citizens in the dark, that's censorship.
When a company wants to remove skank, filth, and crap from their product, it's called bowing down to consumer demand.
But of course, when Tekstud inflates his ego, spews nonsense and "attempts" to pass it off as gospel, well he must right.
So then why is it like going back up then as "explicit"- consumer demand?????
Fascinating. None of the banned apps were explicit; all were PG or PG-13.
Will they be reinstated in the regular categories, or will PG content be lumped into "explicit"?
And will truly explicit content be allowed? If so, Apple might become the world's biggest distributor of pornography.
What a road Apple chose when they decided to become the sole source of iCompatible software!
I'm thinking their reasoning goes like this:
1) ban all these booby apps because Steve Jobs finds them tacky
2) tell everyone instead that they were banned for being "sexy"
3) create "explicit" category where actual nudity is okay
(even though ironically nothing that's actually "explicit" will be).
4) When developers of the booby apps complain, tell them they can come back if they swap the swimsuits for actual nudity and go in the "explicit" section.
I think they are taking a calculated risk that most of the purveyors of these apps would be happier to show actual boobs than just wet swimsuits.
If there are "sexy app" developers who make the tamer apps (like pretty much everything recently removed), they will look pretty ridiculous in the "explicit" section next to a similar app that contains actual nudity. The pressure will be on them to make them *more* explicit (although again ironically avoiding anything that is actually "explicit" like vaginas and penises.)
The "Explicit" label is generally reserved for anything not PG-13 in the content world including music and movies, it does not imply "extreme" anything. It's just a label and a category that allows parents to better monitor what their kids are entertaining themselves with.
If you have any gripe take it up with organizations like the MPAA etc. In fact, given their influence we should be glad that Apple has taken control of the issue themselves and not left it to yet another third party rating system.
I think you are assuming a lot here. I don't see this necessarily as evidence of them "listening."
For starters, none of the apps that were banned could by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as "explicit" in the sense that this word is usually reserved for the extreme end of the scale in terms of adult entertainment. The apps that were banned were from the opposite end of that scale. The apps that were banned had no nudity for instance. Many had no content that you couldn't see in any fashion magazine any day of the week. Some were tamer than a Disney movie.
Those apps were most likely banned just because some executive at Apple "didn't like them" and didn't care about fairness or making any kind of sense with the admission policy. This is a bad thing that they did and putting in an explicit category (if they are in fact doing that), doesn't change that fact.
I can't see them adding a simple app that shows swimsuit pictures into an "explicit" category. That's just laughable.
... we're witnessing the birth of the Hairy Palm Pilot
It was stupid enough that these apps [men and women wearing skimpy outfits, but with NO nudity, as that is right out] had to be marked as being NC-17, for explicit nudity, now they will need to be marked as 'explicit'?
I would hate to think what category they would come up with for actual, explicit nudity, let alone 'real' pornographic videos.
It is not censorship when a store chooses not to sell a particular item. Store owners have a right to choose what they want to sell. Adult-themed items are not sold in every store. The items are not banned either because you can go elsewhere if you really need to look at porn.
May be you forgot, but App Store is the only place where you can buy an application (I don't talk about jailbreaking)
Well, that was quick. I'm glad that Apple listens (sometimes
Bring back the apps, fully flesh out the Parental Controls, then we can put this behind us and move on
Yes, with "flesh" being the operative word here.
The move follows Apple's removal of more than 5,000 applications the company said were "overtly sexual." The change in policy came after the company received numerous complaints from users who were concerned children would be able to access inappropriate content from the App Store on their iPhone or iPod touch.
Does Apple or AI think we all came down in the last shower or something?
Parents are giving their children internet access devices and are then complaining about adult content in the App store?
Who do these concerned parents put pressure on, with regard to the rest of the adult content on the internet? They must be busy writing indignant letters and emails 24/7.
I for one do not believe Apple would be concerned at all about complaints of this nature, given that they are akin to complaining about the permissivity of a single hole in a sieve.
I don't believe this nonsense.
Change that second line to read "when a company wants to remove skank, filth, and crap from their product, it's called bowing down to the demands of a prudish, inteolerant vocal minority."
I actually agree with you. My point being that Apple is within their right to put whatever it is they want on their app store. Being selective and calling that "censorship" is seriously pushing it. True censorship deprives citizens. Citizens in this case, can simply go elsewhere, like another provider (Android), or simply use Safari on their iPhone.
People screaming censorship seriously have too much time (and not enough porn) on their hands.
People screaming censorship seriously have too much time (and not enough porn) on their hands.
Luckily... if get 'too much porn on your hands'... it washes of pretty easily.
You exaggerate way too much and too often. "tamer than a disney movie", C'mon.
One of the apps removed was one where you blow into the microphone and a girls skirt flies up. I can point to cartoons from the 30's and 40's (made by Disney, Warner Bros. etc.) that are "racier" than that or indeed that have the exact same content. We are talking 60 or 70 year old movies here! It is by no means an exaggeration to say that a lot of these apps wouldn't even qualify as "mature" let alone "explicit."
... Further, your implication that the removal of the apps was a personal vendetta on behalf of some unnamed executive at apple is absurd.
I don't see why this is "absurd." It's a theory. I may be wrong, but things like that have happened before and will happen again etc. It's certainly not "absurd."
... I agree that the apps might not have had any content more mature than a lingerie catalog, but you have t understand that some parents aren't comfortable with their children looking at that content.
I understand that parents come in all forms but that's essentially irrelevant to this argument. The ban is essentially pandering to a small group of American parents (if we believe Apple's PR anyway), lots of other parents wouldn't be upset if their kids see this stuff at all. Lots of other parents would be shocked that their kids can see a lot less. All of that is essentially irrelevant. What they should do is have a rational basis for the censorship, or simply not censor at all.
... The "Explicit" label is generally reserved for anything not PG-13 in the content world including music and movies, it does not imply "extreme" anything. It's just a label and a category that allows parents to better monitor what their kids are entertaining themselves with. ...
For starters, what's "explicit" in your country is not necessarily the same as what's "explicit" in mine. In my country and in my experience, "explicit" refers to explicit sexuality or the sexual act, it involves the actual body parts of sex (penises and vaginas), and is generally used to cover the most extreme types of sexual situations in movies, full-frontal nudity, simulated sex, etc.
Secondly, for someone calling me out for "exaggerating," you are throwing some terms around fairly loosely yourself. There are many apps that are currently banned that are a whole lot *less* explicit than the average lingerie catalogue. You use "absurd" above, when you probably mean something more like "disagree," etc.
I understand that the USA is a deeply religious country and that things that are normal to the rest of the world are pretty sinful down there, but I am personally fairly outraged by this whole debacle and the cynical, immoral, and deceptive stance Apple is taking on this issue. I expected more from them. What they are doing here isn't even logical or good for business, it's just puritanical garbage.
I think Apple is lying when they say this was "initiated by customer complaints" and I have what is to me convincing evidence of that. I Apple is being purposely deceitful when they talk about the basis for the bans of individual apps being moral concerns. I may be wrong on both of these, but it's not "absurd," and it's not over the top or an exaggeration to say I am shocked and outraged by the whole thing.
Freedom is really important to me personally and I always find it ironic how many Americans argue in favour of these kinds of things given the reputation of the USA vis a vis "freedom." IMO the USA talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk when it comes to individual freedom. If you want to be free, you're better off living in Europe or South America.
Well, that was quick. I'm glad that Apple listens (sometimes
Bring back the apps, fully flesh out the Parental Controls, then we can put this behind us and move on
What do you mean "Apple Listens". Don't you think Apple "thinks"? You talk like Apple is clueless. Without direction, plan, or forethought in their actions. It's clear who the one who doesn't think is here.
Some of the greatest technological minds in the world working at this place, but yeah; they needed some whining jiggly tit developers to clue them in.
They don't need credit card. All they need is an iTunes Gift Card and open a separate account with is an email address and a U.S. address. Not necessary illegal. But doing so, bypasses Parental Control for the person that does it
Well, in Canada kids (or even adults) can't purchase apps with either gift cards or allowance accounts... unless they get US gift cards and have a bogus (but valid) US address. Canadian gift cards only work in the Canadian store.