WIRED: E-Reader iPhone App Rejected Because Users Can Download Kama Sutra

[Sonist]

Stupid decision, absolutely.

Or is it? The explanation might be simple: the 3.5" screen of the iPhone is just too small for comfortable viewing of such material.

As we all know, in sex and screen, size matters. Thus, Apple may be simply withholding approval of such applications, until the press-conference announcing the introduction of its 10" tablet.

I can just see Steve Jobs pull "one more thing" at the end of the tablet press-conference, and announce the immediate availability of the Porn section of the iTunes store, with a million apps to start.

[Barcey]

Actually it was a text only version of the Kama Sutra so the size of the screen shouldn't matter. I suspect that someone at Apple had a very embarrassing experience working from a non illustrated version of the book and felt very strongly that the Kama Sutra should only be made available with illustrations. It could be a health and safety issue.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Gudy

And that's the way it should be. If a certain purveyor of goods, digital or otherwise, is chronically prone to bouts of abject and gross stupidity, I want to know about it, so I can avoid them like the plague or otherwise factor in that stupidity when doing business with them. The fact that some of their staff are sensible people means far less in that regard, especially if there aren't enough of those to keep the stupid ones in check.

Besides, these episodes nicely refresh my memory regarding any policies about content those censoring bastards decide is too dangerous for my fragile mind, regardless of my own opinion on the matter.

Or, for an explanation that is a bit more nuanced than mine, try this (from Pam Jones of Groklaw):

From: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.com>
Date: May 23, 2009 5:52:53 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Apple's iPhone Channels the Prudes -- "Pick a Little, Talk a Little!"

I think what Apple is doing makes good legal sense. If you saw the recent litigation by Cartier against Apple, you see that people won't sue the 3rd party apps authors; they'll sue deep pocket Apple.

Cartier dropped the suit after Apple dropped the app Cartier found infringing. http://blogs.computerworld.com/carti...pp_third_party

What does that tell us? That Apple can get sued for whatever apps it allows.

If I were Apple, I'd be very careful what I endorsed as an iPhone or iTouch app, one that could use the Apple name, for the simple reason that there are litigious jerks out there who will sue large and successful companies.

Apple doesn't create those jerks; it merely has to live among them. By the way, if you go to PACER and search for all litigation with Apple in the header, you get more than 6,000 results. It is what it is, and their lawyers are just trying to cope with expected legal issues. I'm sure Apple couldn't care less what you read.

You can already read the Kama Sutra if you want to on your iPhone. Just use your Safari browser and go to Project Gutenberg or Wikipedia.

Seriously.

Of use your Kindle app.

Apple, as I see it, just doesn't want to get sued. Maybe it noticed the S.C. attorney general going after Craigslist, even thought here was zero chance of it being appropriate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05...er_craigslist/

PJ
Groklaw

[Gudy]

This 'explanation' in fact explains nothing about the decision. The app was rejected for the fact that the user can use it to download and display perfectly legal content that Apple finds objectionable. This is, apparently, basically all that app does. Which is the same as what the Kindle app or Apple's own Safari browser do. Which are not banned.

Furthermore, the objectionable content was not in any way, shape or form contained in the app, which makes the cited reason for the rejection completely bogus. In fact, it could probably be argued, depending on how Eucalyptus works, that the objectionable content may well be less tightly bundled with the app than Amazon's Kindle ebooks, including the erotic ones, are tied to the Kindle app.

That Apple are censoring bastards is something I find personally objectionable, but that is not the heart of the problem. Which is twofold: a) the cited reason for the rejection does not match the available facts (aka Apple is, or is at least perceived to be, lying), and b) the rules about 'objectionable content' are enforced in a completely arbitrary and/or clueless manner (aka Apple is, or is at least perceived to be, being a - possibly clueless - bastard about it).

[RickyMaveety]

That is beyond idiotic. Anyone with an iPhone could take all sorts of pornographic and offensive photos and store them on the phone, or even email them to others.

Any hardware or software that deals with user controlled or created content has the potential for use (or abuse) of adult content. If you can send or receive an email on your iPhone, then you can send and/or receive some pretty offensive porn, if that's the sort of thing you want to do.

Blaming the app for the manner in which it is used makes no sense at all. And, really, the Kama Sutra as porn?? Well, maybe technically, but it doesn't even hold a candle to some of the crap that's cranked out in publications today.

[wodin]

All of which is why I have not found it necessary to drop a single dinar on anything remotely associated with Apple for the last approximately thirty years. Apple's hardware and software may be superlative, but their business practices suck!

And Amazon and Sony are not far behind!

[Kris777]

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/...c-ebook-reader

Apple changes its mind on ‘pornographic’ ebook reader
26.05.2009
An ebook reader app called Eucalyptus, which was banned by a prudish Apple enforcer because it contained ancient Kama Sutra texts, has finally been cleared for download on the iTunes Apps Store.

The US$10 Eucalyptus app is a stylish ebook that allows readers to access 20,000 Project Gutenberg texts, including authentic ancient texts such as the Kama Sutra.

The Kama Sutra is an ancient Indian text and work of Sanskrit literature which, while containing a good portion on sexual behaviour, is mainly intended as a manual for living a good and full spiritual life.

Unfortunately, an Apple enforcer more worried about people’s text lives than spiritual wellbeing refused to approve the Eucalyptus app for download via the iTunes Apps Store because of a reference to the Kama Sutra.

The banning of the Eucalyptus ebook reader for pornographic reasons led to a flurry of angry blog posts and tweets.

A chagrined Apple eventually relented and Eucalyptus is now available for download.

By John Kennedy

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Or, for an explanation that is a bit more nuanced than mine, try this (from Pam Jones of Groklaw):

The problem with her explanation is that Apple set itself up to be sued when it decided to review and approve the apps.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Sonist

As we all know, in sex and screen, size matters.

But my girlfriend said she was happy with only six inches!

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

But my girlfriend said she was happy with only six inches!

I once heard someone say "it's not the size; it's how you use it!"

...wait, we are still talking about screens here, right?

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The problem with her explanation is that Apple set itself up to be sued when it decided to review and approve the apps.

Perhaps so. I should have noted that I neither endorse nor reject Pam's explanation. I simply thought that y'all might be interested in an opinion from someone with actual legal and IP experience.

Xenophon

[stustaff]

I really dont get peoples issue with this!

it works on two levels for me.

1, its apples app store! they choose what content to host and can host or not host anything they like for any reason they like.

Its a basic right that anyone has MR for xample will remove certain things from its forums for its own reasons too.

2, An individual reviewed the app and applied Apples regulations incorrectly in making a decision.

Mistakes happen! it has now been rectified and the app is available.

Why anyone could be bothered by their actions or choose not to have an apple product because they follow standard business practices is ridiculous.

Do these people also not buy anything by microsoft because they restrict what content can be played on the 360? or Sony and nintendo for the same reason?

What about newspapers and magazines who choose not to allow some content to appear on their pages?

Dont watch any tv stations cos they bleeped out someone swearing in a film!

etc etc