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

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Moral rights are only relevant to a very small part of humanity. (snip) Moral rights are really not a strong foundation to base an argument on in a multinational forum.

What, then, is relevant to all of humanity, so that we are allowed to base our arguments on it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

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

I think you're being extremely offensive to our Australian and Russian members in suggesting that they all pirate ebooks.

It's certainly true that many of our Australian members (for very good reasons) circumvent geographical restrictions, but geo-restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's certainly true that many of our Australian members (for very good reasons) circumvent geographical restrictions, but geo-restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.

Actually, they do.

[murg]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

What, then, is relevant to all of humanity, so that we are allowed to base our arguments on it?

Belly-button lint.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

Actually, they do.

No, they don't; they are there for contractual reasons. What do you believe the connection with copyright law is?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, they don't; they are there for contractual reasons. What do you believe the connection with copyright law is?

The license is there just because if copyright laws so geographical restrictions are a result of copyright laws.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

The license is there just because if copyright laws so geographical restrictions are a result of copyright laws.

I suspect that I didn't express myself very clearly, for which I apologise. What I was meaning is that circumventing geographical restrictions rarely involves an infringement of copyright. It could do - eg downloading a book which is in the public domain in one country but not in another - but in the case of a purchase of a commercial book it's unlikely to.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I suspect that I didn't express myself very clearly, for which I apologise. What I was meaning is that circumventing geographical restrictions rarely involves an infringement of copyright. It could do - eg downloading a book which is in the public domain in one country but not in another - but in the case of a purchase of a commercial book it's unlikely to.

So what about a case where the author is declining to sell the book in a particular area for tax purposes? With the new VAT laws, I can see an author declining to sell a book to some places so that they don't have to worry about complying with VAT laws in that region. Are you saying that the author doesn't have the right to choose where to sell their work?

Shari

[ApK]

Originally Posted by shalym

So what about a case where the author is declining to sell the book in a particular area for tax purposes? With the new VAT laws, I can see an author declining to sell a book to some places so that they don't have to worry about complying with VAT laws in that region. Are you saying that the author doesn't have the right to choose where to sell their work?

Shari

No, he saying that it has nothing to do with copyright law.

If I sell iron widgets, I can choose to sell or not sell in those same markets for those same reasons. It's a matter of business policy, agreements and contracts, not copyright.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

So what about a case where the author is declining to sell the book in a particular area for tax purposes? With the new VAT laws, I can see an author declining to sell a book to some places so that they don't have to worry about complying with VAT laws in that region. Are you saying that the author doesn't have the right to choose where to sell their work?

Shari

No, I'm saying that lying about your location isn't copyright infringement. It may well violate other laws, but not copyright law.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm saying that lying about your location isn't copyright infringement. It may well violate other laws, but not copyright law.

Your lying causes the seller to infringe copyright. And lying is bad in itself so a much worse action than a simple copyright infringement.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

Mists' big "no-no" is the incest between Morgana and Arthur, which is clearly part of Arthurian legend since the dawn. Sure, if you want a kid to watch the animated SITS, they won't get that bit. But any other version? It's there, no matter how "glossed over." The big problem with Mists is that it's quite feminist, really.

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.

And it's so glossed-over as to be non-existent, really. Did I like that idea that the Queen riders didn't get a choice of "husbands?" not really. But did it intrigue me? That a woman would choose to put her Weyr first? It was an interesting idea to me, as a youngster. I also read GWTW the summer I was 12, to be 13 that Fall. Did I think that Rhett should have raped his wife? Wait, let me think...

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.

Oh, YES. Sorry, but Narnia's violence way outpaces Pern, by a massive factor. Pern has no war, and you can't say that about Narnia. Aslan is killed, if you'll recall, and if you think that a youngish reader won't be upset about THAT, you're wrong. His subsequent christ-like resurrection aside, it's violent. So are the wars. Pern? On Pern, they chase Thread, and dragons and riders are injured, by and large. You can't compare the two, for "violence." So, again, it sounds to me like we're talking about SEX as the big bugaboo, in terms of propriety.

And I have no idea how this is pertinent in a discussion about an app that replaces word A with word B. That app wouldn't do scat about the violence in Narnia, or the topic of choice at Pern.

I'd put in a big spiel, here, about why on earth anyone's religious beliefs were brought into this discussion--after all, sorry, but the other word for "scat" has nothing to do with whether one is Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or Wiccan--but I've decided it's not worth it.

Hitch

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

I'll keep repeating this until people get it: Different people react differently.

That you didn't have a problem is great. That does not invalidate the fact that other people had problems.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Mists' big "no-no" is the incest between Morgana and Arthur, which is clearly part of Arthurian legend since the dawn. Sure, if you want a kid to watch the animated SITS, they won't get that bit. But any other version? It's there, no matter how "glossed over." The big problem with Mists is that it's quite feminist, really.

And it's so glossed-over as to be non-existent, really. Did I like that idea that the Queen riders didn't get a choice of "husbands?" not really. But did it intrigue me? That a woman would choose to put her Weyr first? It was an interesting idea to me, as a youngster. I also read GWTW the summer I was 12, to be 13 that Fall. Did I think that Rhett should have raped his wife? Wait, let me think...

Oh, YES. Sorry, but Narnia's violence way outpaces Pern, by a massive factor. Pern has no war, and you can't say that about Narnia. Aslan is killed, if you'll recall, and if you think that a youngish reader won't be upset about THAT, you're wrong. His subsequent christ-like resurrection aside, it's violent. So are the wars. Pern? On Pern, they chase Thread, and dragons and riders are injured, by and large. You can't compare the two, for "violence." So, again, it sounds to me like we're talking about SEX as the big bugaboo, in terms of propriety.

And I have no idea how this is pertinent in a discussion about an app that replaces word A with word B. That app wouldn't do scat about the violence in Narnia, or the topic of choice at Pern.

I'd put in a big spiel, here, about why on earth anyone's religious beliefs were brought into this discussion--after all, sorry, but the other word for "scat" has nothing to do with whether one is Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or Wiccan--but I've decided it's not worth it.

Hitch

My standards of appropriate are based on how detailed and graphic content is, because that's what I've seen bother kids. Something that's explained at a high enough level can be appropriate for anyone.

"Arthur slept with his sister, yuck!" works for most elementary school kids, details of the sex does not. I can't remember exactly what the problem with Mists was - it was a long time ago - but I suspect it was something like that.

There are certainly kids who could be upset by the Narnia series. I simply didn't run into any that I remember. I put that down to the way Narnia books gloss over potentially troubling scenes. Like the Hobbit - the Hobbit is a story of failure, torture, death and woe, but troubling details are elided (a particularly egregious example is the 5 Armies' 'and then Bilbo got hit and slept through it all'). Structuring tales that way lets kids grapple with higher level concepts without being bogged down with details they aren't ready for yet.

You and JSWolf are the only ones bringing religion into the discussion. Way to stereotype, dudes.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

You and JSWolf are the only ones bringing religion into the discussion. Way to stereotype, dudes.

Nope. Someone else brought up the "as a Christian I'm concerned for my child's soul" aspect several pages back. Jon and Hitch were only responding.