The 'Clean Reader' furore.

[Camy]

A new app has been released that is causing a lot of grief among writers who value their work.

Clean Reader, with its tag line: 'Read books, not profanity', bowlderises ebooks on a sliding scale of 'clean', 'cleaner', or 'squeaky clean.'

Ragged Feathers, Lili Saintcrow's blog pretty much sums up the app's opponents - count me in.

It's important you read this as, if we're not careful, it could signal the beginning of the end.

[Cole Parker]

I love her choice of words! I wouldn't want mine changed either, should I have the talent to choose them that she does!

At least they complied with her request without quibble.

C

[JamesSavik]

>>So there’s this–an app called "Clean Reader" that purports to “scrub” books of offensive terms.

What's left and why would it be interesting?

I can remember reading hundreds of pages just to get to the icky part that I found fascinating.

[Graeme]

It looks to me like a couple who had what they thought was a good idea (and it might be for their family), but didn't really think about the bigger consequences.

As an analogy, I would love to buy the movie Pride to watch with my family, but there are two scenes that I just feel are (currently) inappropriate for my kids (that will change as they get older). Neither of those two scenes were, in my opinion, necessary for the story (in one case the basic scene was fine and needed but it showed details that were unnecessary for the plot that I'm not comfortable with my boys seeing it until they're older). If I could have a version of the movie without those two scenes (or have those two scenes modified), I'd take it, and then get the 'original' later on when the boys are older.

I see this app in that light. It's not for adults (any adult who wants it is, in my opinion, being deceitful with themselves), but for parents who want some control over what their kids read. As such, from what I've read about it, it's a complete failure -- and I suspect any attempt to do a better version would also be an abject failure. As the authors have said, it's just not possible to extract out words and phrases from a story without damaging that story. The only way it can legitimately be done if is the author cooperates to produce an appropriate version (analogous to a modified movie being produced to meet a particular market, such as airlines, or countries with different classification criteria). That's not what's happening here, and that's why the app is a failure.

[Nigel Gordon]

From the discussion I have heard about this on UK radio over the last couple of days it is fairly clear that this application (at least under European Law) is breaching copyright. That being the case maybe we should all issue Notices Before Action against them. As they do not give contact information on their site, you can use their contact form to issue the notice. Suggested wording should be:

I have been made aware of your product and its potential use on my copyrighted works, please be advised that any amendment, alteration or variation of my copyrighted works without my express permission is a breach of copyright. That being the case I require that you immediately take steps to ensure that your application cannot be used with any of my copyright work. In the event of you failing to take such measures and your application being used to breach my copyright be advised that I will hold you liable for damages to the sum of ten thousand Euros for each and every breach.

My copyrighted works may be identified by the author's name of ...........

That puts them under notice that their product may be used to breach your copyright and that they need to take measures to prevent it happening. If they fail to take measures to prevent it and a breach of your copyright occurs they are then liable for damages. Just make sure you list all the names you write under, put the wording 'Breach of Copyright - Notice Before Action' in the subject field and print off a copy of their contact page with the elements filled in, for your records, before you click on their send button.

Please pass the above text on to other online authors, if enough of us send it in they might start to think they may have a problem.

By the way there is a name for such activities that attempt to 'clean up' works of literature, it is bowderism.

[colinian]

This app edges on piracy. The Clean Reader app changes a work without approval of or compensation to the author of that work. As a result, it breaches U.S. Copyright law.

Amazon does not offer Clean Reader in their Appstore. We should write Amazon and state our disapproval for the app and request that they do not offer the app in the future.

Colin

[Nigel Gordon]

This app edges on piracy. The Clean Reader app changes a work without approval of or compensation to the author of that work. As a result, it breaches U.S. Copyright law.

Amazon does not offer Clean Reader in their Appstore. We should write Amazon and state our disapproval for the app and request that they do not offer the app in the future.

Colin

It might also be worth writing to Apple and Google pointing out this application breaches copyright law and that they are assisting in a breach of copyright by distributing the software.

[Camy]

Cory Doctorow has a different viewpoint:

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/25/i-hate-your-censorship-but-i.html

[Nigel Gordon]

Cory Doctorow has a different viewpoint:

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/25/i-hate-your-censorship-but-i.html

He is basing is argument on the Moral Rights of authors, these are totally different from strict copyright. The principle in copyright is that any unauthorized change to a work that is published, and making it available to view in a reader is publication, is a breach of copyright. There was a case in the 1950s where a publisher who had permission to publish a authors work changed the spelling in the work from British English to American English without clearing it with the author. They were held to be in breach of copyright.

[Cole Parker]

But if this app is in the hands of the user, not the supplier of the story, I can see where Cory has a point. I can change any of the stories I find online if they seem offensive to me by copying them and then making changes in the text. No one is hurt by this. No one loses money or respect. Now if I try to sell my adulterated copy, or perhaps even distribute it, then I'm probably breaching the copyright rules. But for my own use, this is certainly acceptable, legally. Isn't that what Cory is saying?

[Nigel Gordon]

Actually Cole under European copyright law you do not have the right to make changes to text of online material for your own use, I don't know what the position is in the US. The position with respect to Clean Reader is that you are not making the changes, the changes are being made by the application. As such the publishers of the application are effecting publication of the amended text so are in breach of copyright.

[Cole Parker]

"Actually Cole under European copyright law you do not have the right to make changes to text of online material for your own use."

This seems incredible to me. Do you mean if you've bought a paperback book and am reading it and find a typo, if I use White-out, cover the error and fix it, I'm breaking the law? I bought the book. I own it. I can give it away if I want to. I can burn it. It's mine. But I cannot change a word in it, even a misspelling?

That's amazing.

C

[Camy]

Actually Cole under European copyright law you do not have the right to make changes to text of online material for your own use, I don't know what the position is in the US. The position with respect to Clean Reader is that you are not making the changes, the changes are being made by the application. As such the publishers of the application are effecting publication of the amended text so are in breach of copyright.

The book isn't changed. The app - an ereader - puts a layer over the text that hides 'questionable' content and replaces it. But the original book remains beneath. You can read it with its prudish bowlderising switched off.

[Graeme]

The book isn't changed. The app - an ereader - puts a layer over the text that hides 'questionable' content and replaces it. But the original book remains beneath. You can read it with its prudish bowlderising switched off.

And that's the argument from the app developers that they're not in breech of copyright. They're not changing the story -- they're allowing the reader to change the display of the story if they want. From an abstract point of view, it's the reverse of all those students that take a highlight marker to a book. Instead of highlighting words/phrases, they're either masking those words/phrases or, if desired, sticking a piece of paper over the top of those words/phrases with an alternate.

It would depend on the text of the copyright laws, but browsers that allow font sizes to be changed (ie. all modern browsers) may be in breech under a a strict reading, since they're altering the story. After all, large-text versions of books are sold separately -- shouldn't large-text versions of eBooks also be sold separately (playing Devil's Advocate -- I certainly wouldn't want this to happen).

As I said in my earlier post, I understand what the app developers were trying to do. I just don't think it can work without the support of the authors.

[Cole Parker]

Another of theses confound issues where you can see good on both sides! Rats!

C

[Graeme]

Another of theses confound issues where you can see good on both sides! Rats!

C

I agree. I think the weight of evidence leans towards the authors who object to the app, but it's certainly not black-and-white. In my case, I think the fact that the app really isn't effective is enough for me to not approve of it.

[DesDownunder]

I think it comes down to the interpretation of the reader.

e.g. the following sentence without any punctuation:

"He helped his uncle Jack off the horse."

Will the App insert some punctuation and then judge it to warrant alteration or omission?

Whilst this example is dependant on "jack" being a name or a verb, there is still a chance for the App to misconstrue the intention...and it does so because we have not yet developed artificial intelligence that can recognise irony or intentional humour.

Consider then, the punctuation signifying the emphasis for irony/humour.

"He helped his Uncle Jack, off the horse."

or

"He helped his uncle jack-off the horse."

Now, this might not be the best of examples, but shift our investigation to George Orwell's book 1984 with its "Newspeak" (see note at end) and imagine how the major point of the book could be misrepresented by substitution of some of the words. Clock Work Orange's droog-speech is another example where the author's words just cannot be changed and keep the writer's meaning and artistic integrity, intact.

The point here is that no App, and few individuals (with perhaps, the exception of a good editor) can interpret an author's intentional choice of words. This is the real affront to an author, that their words are altered to change the meaning, if not the interaction of the reading experience.

Consider the alteration to Lennon's song, Imagine.

*Cee Lo Green upset John Lennon fans on Saturday night by performing a soulful version of the songwriter's classic "Imagine" with the lyrics changed from "nothing to kill or die for / and no religion too" to "nothing to kill or die for / and all religion's true." According to some fans, Green changed the meaning of the song by switching out the line. "The whole point of that lyric is that religion causes harm,"

*Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/cee-lo-green-outrages-john-lennon-fans-by-changing-lyrics-to-imagine-20120102#ixzz3Ve97GIaQ
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

The situation changes however, when we consider the performance of a stage play where actors alter emphasis and occasionally, words and phrases for effect, but that's really, another discussion. Although if Shakespeare were alive he might not quite understand a Nazi version of Richard III.

As for protection of the pre-pubescent child from porn or other sexual articles, I am reminded of the conversation between a father and his son:

Father (to his son): Johnny, I want to talk to you about sex.

Johnny (in reply to his father): Sure Dad, what did you want to know?

Note: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.

This, for me is the real danger of the App.

[colinian]

Clean Reader only works on books that are purchased through Clean Reader. They act as a seller of eBooks. Those eBooks can be "sanitized" for reading by their app at the time an eBook is opened to read. The level of "sanitization" can be altered while reading the book. You can't use Clean Reader to "sanitize" your Amazon or Nook or any other collection of eBooks. You can't do anything useful with the Clean Reader app until you provide them with a credit card number and buy a book from them.

Colin