Books without swear words - there's an app for that

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Took me a while to figure out what people were talking about when they said, "biro."

What would you call a Biro?

[murg]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

What would you call a Biro?

Mark.

[murg]

Originally Posted by theducks

Every day, I sit in my home office (a front room) and hear the grade and High school students talking swearing and generally using gutter language as they walk down the street ( And I was Enlisted Navy )
This is not a Ghetto neighborhood. Parents drive BMW and Lexus. Make 6 figure salaries

So the parents use this apps form of thought policing while at home... What about all the other hours of the day?

Your bad words are not my bad words. (I won't bring those up as they mostly belong in Politics )

And now the app will provide a very nice list of all the naughty words...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

What would you call a Biro?

A ball-point-, or just plain pen.

[tompe]

Since people do not seem to know what Moral Rights are I give the wikipedia link and a quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.[1] The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation. Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play. Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her copyright rights to a work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work.[2]

Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany,[3] before they were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928.[4] Canada recognizes moral rights (droits moraux) in its Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d'auteur).[5] Although the United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989,[6] it still does not completely recognize moral rights as part of copyright law, but rather as part of other bodies of law, such as defamation or unfair competition.[7]

Some jurisdictions allow for the waiver of moral rights.[8] In the United States, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) recognizes moral rights, but applies only to a narrow subset of works of visual art.[9]

Notice here: "The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation. Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play."

[eschwartz]

As for myself, I was aware. The U.S. opinion on that seems to be somewhat along the lines of:

Moral Rights can rot in hell.

Originally Posted by tompe

I find it depressing that some persons in this thread that are strong defenders of authors commercial copyright do not seem to care about the more important moral part of copyright.

I find this downright insulting. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I suppose I can see SOME Marion Zimmer Bradley as inappropriate for pre-teens, and some tweens. However, the Pern series is pretty damned innocuous, other than the whole "the dragons rule" in terms of sex. And even THAT is pretty much entirely off-screen, throughout. (At least, through, in the order of publication, "All the Weyrs of Pern," IIRC). There's nothing in there that would traumatize a tween/teen, IMHO. And frankly, I think a "kid" (assume 10-12) would skim right past the Queen's mating ritual bit. And certainly, her YA versions--the Harperhall trilogy--are absolutely aimed at the tween market, with NOTHING in them that I could possibly think any normal kid could find upsetting. I'm surprised to hear someone say so.

Hell, there's more violence, I think, in Narnia, than in the Pern books--unless, of course, ALL we're talking about now is SEX?

Hitch

Marion Zimmer Bradly wrote Mists of Avalon which is recommended all over but is seriously inappropriate for pre-teens and many teenagers iirc (it's been a while since I dealt with these issues regularly).

You're also wrong about MacCaffrey - gold dragon riders being pressured to sleep with the riders of dragons who mated with their gold dragon was actually one of the problem areas (I forget what book it was in). MacCaffrey generally had problematic pressure / lack of consent around sex iirc? The YA versions of her books are probably OK - it's the adult ones that look YAish due to cover design or back blurb that were typically problematic.

The Pern books have more violence in them than the Narnia books unless I'm wildly misremembering. Narnian violence is often implied, summarized briefly, or takes place off screen, while the Pern books actually describe the details of fights/Thread encounters or have detailed description of the aftermath, from what I remember.

It's just so varied - Night of the Baskervilles gave one kid nightmares for weeks, but other kids were fine with it. It really depends on what each kid's triggers are.

TL;DR Different people react differently. There is no one size fits all for art. Content you find entirely reasonable will give others nightmares. Content they enjoy will give you conniptions. Blaming and shaming people for their differences is not cool.

Knowing the people in question and having appropriate tools to mitigate or address individual issues is the most important part of determining what content is appropriate. Which is why local librarians are a vital resource for getting kids interested in reading, but that's a whole other topic...

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by tompe

Since people do not seem to know what Moral Rights are I give the wikipedia link and a quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights



Notice here: "The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation. Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play."

Moral rights are only relevant to a very small part of humanity.

They seem fairly prevalent in parts of the EU, but in the US are generally viewed as a horrendous violation of consumer rights.

Asian countries generally treat all copyright laws as hilarious delusions of non-Asian countries, unless they can be used for some advantage.

I have no idea how Africans typically view copyright, but I cannot imagine it's a big priority in most of the continent. Same for South America - they probably follow EU-style laws in the more developed countries, but most people there that I know simply do not care about copyright.

Australians and Russians seem incredibly comfortable with violating copyright laws whenever possible, likely because they're often viewed as oppressive nonsense.

TL;DR Moral rights are really not a strong foundation to base an argument on in a multinational forum.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's as I've been saying, it's more the themes of books that kinds are not yet ready for than some specific words. Parents need to take an active role in what their kids read. They need to help them make choices that are appropriate for them until the kids are able to make these choices on their own. It's not a matter of parents saying to kids "no you cannot", but helping them pick out books that are appropriate and that they might like. When the kids are mature enough, then let them read what they choose. But until that happens, help and guide them.

No one has disagreed with you. This app in no way stops or excuses a parent from being involved in their kid's reading.

Funnily enough, getting a censoring tool is being more of an active parent than one who lets kids read anything without paying attention or providing guidance.

It also helps parents avoid saying no. They can say 'Yes, just a second' and they can run the app through the book quickly before handing the phone/whatever over.

Sometimes kids like books that have swearwords in them. Sometimes books marketed for kids have swearwords in them! Sometimes kids read swearwords, don't realize what they are, and accidentally curse at Mom in the grocery store (the kid was so proud of learning a new word all on their own. The mother was less amused).

When something like this app is needed, there's nothing wrong with using it. But a lot of people seem deeply invested in denying that and shaming people who need or want it.

[DiapDealer]

It's all want. No one needs an app.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's all want. No one needs an app.

...No one needs ereaders either. In fact, even physical books are not necessary for life. The need vs. strongly desire debate is philosophically interesting, but this isn't a great place to have it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

...No one needs ereaders either. In fact, even physical books are not necessary for life. The need vs. strongly desire debate is philosophically interesting, but this isn't a great place to have it.

I agree. And I wasn't starting a debate. Because there's not one to be had. No one needs this app. They want it. And they can still have it. They can sideload content to it for their children to read to their heart's content. They just can't buy ebooks with it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

P.S. Anne MacCaffrey is the worst at misleading marketing. She's got books that look so much like they're aimed at the YA market - dragons/unicorn girl/plucky female half-elf on bright covers - but they're really not and it can be confusing and upsetting. David Drake's covers can also be misleading - his War God's series look like straightforward action adventures, but end up having graphic torture/rape scenes. I really wish there was a screening app that could look for content, that would have saved some people a few nasty surprises.

I cannot speak about David Drake, but I've read enough of Anne McCaffrey to know this just isn't so. Pern is not confusing and upsetting. I cannot think of anything she has written that's confusing and upsetting So please tell is what exactly in her Pern series that's confusing and upsetting as I cannot think of anything that would be no good for young kids.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Marion Zimmer Bradly wrote Mists of Avalon which is recommended all over but is seriously inappropriate for pre-teens and many teenagers iirc (it's been a while since I dealt with these issues regularly).

But it's not Mists of Avalon that's at fault. It's the legend of King Arthur. You shuld know this and thus prevent your kids from reading anything about King Arthur until they are ready. Don't even let them watch the Disney movie The Sword and the Stone as they'll just want more and more is not what you want to give them.

You're also wrong about MacCaffrey - gold dragon riders being pressured to sleep with the riders of dragons who mated with their gold dragon was actually one of the problem areas (I forget what book it was in). MacCaffrey generally had problematic pressure / lack of consent around sex iirc? The YA versions of her books are probably OK - it's the adult ones that look YAish due to cover design or back blurb that were typically problematic.

That's an issue? It's so innocuous that it's laughable. I know you are entitled to your opinion, but so am I in disagreeing.

The Pern books have more violence in them than the Narnia books unless I'm wildly misremembering. Narnian violence is often implied, summarized briefly, or takes place off screen, while the Pern books actually describe the details of fights/Thread encounters or have detailed description of the aftermath, from what I remember.

The Narnia books have way more violence than the Pern books. Also, the Narnia books also have veiled references to the Bible. Aslan is Jesus and it is very obviously so. C.S. Lewis was very religious and it shows in the Narnia series.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

No one has disagreed with you. This app in no way stops or excuses a parent from being involved in their kid's reading.

Funnily enough, getting a censoring tool is being more of an active parent than one who lets kids read anything without paying attention or providing guidance.

It also helps parents avoid saying no. They can say 'Yes, just a second' and they can run the app through the book quickly before handing the phone/whatever over.

Sometimes kids like books that have swearwords in them. Sometimes books marketed for kids have swearwords in them! Sometimes kids read swearwords, don't realize what they are, and accidentally curse at Mom in the grocery store (the kid was so proud of learning a new word all on their own. The mother was less amused).

When something like this app is needed, there's nothing wrong with using it. But a lot of people seem deeply invested in denying that and shaming people who need or want it.

What this app should have been used for is to show parents books that have these words in them. Then the parents can see how they are used and if the book is appropriate or not. Censoring just those words dose not change the words around those words and those books might be inappropriate. So using this app in the way it is intended is a bad idea. Also, because it covers up the words and the kids do see this, it means that a lot of kids are going to want to find out just what those words are even more so then if the words were visible. Sometimes the more you say no, the more kids want.

Lots of kids want to drink alcohol because they were forbidden. It's one reason why the US has such a high level of alcohol abuse. I was raised where I had easy access to alcohol and I never once abused it. To this day I have never become drunk. That is by my own choice and because of how I was raised.

I was also raised such that I didn't have to have books censored. My mother took an active interest in my reading and she made sure that the books I was reading were appropriate. And they were. I was also able to pick out the books I wanted to read. I never was told no you cannot read adult books. When kids are told that before they try to go for them, then they just want to read them even more.