I agree with some of this but there are caveats I would like to see implemented::
I actually agree. So long as the app is legal and the authors get their royalty, then we're simply seeing user choice in action - a principle normally supported on the internet. As a reader it doesn't bother me that some people might prefer to pay for slightly different variations of the text.
:: Yes if I'm desperate to sell to a whole segment of readers who don't like my work I could agree to this, but this sounds like we eliminate the author from this choices now. This type of egregious editing sets this company in the realm of being an editor and as such they should be entered into some form of contract with the copyright holder and have an agreement. If the author withdraws and says I don't want my work slaughtered by you then they should respect that. If they come to an agreement it should be one that financially benefits both parties.[This means it must also respect the contract the author has with the original publisher.]::
If the author says no to this publisher[Or the original publisher does not want to play with this group] there are still copies of the book out there somewhere and anyone wanting to buy those and slaughter them has the right to do so for personal purposes but not for distribution. This is why the program must be sold to the user with full editing capabilities to set their own parameters. To not do so means that they make it impossible for the user to edit that book; because the company and their program have no right [see above about agreement] to alter the book. If they change the software they should probably have a warning message that explains this to the user.
Heck, many books are published that are edited down or otherwise abridged from the authors original manuscript. Stephen King and Neil Gaiman immediately come to mind as authors who were not happy with the edited down versions of some of their books, and and were able to release full versions later. Readers originally had no choice - now they do. Is now having that choice wrong? Should be burn all those edited down version of The Stand or American Gods?
I'm not sure how this might pertain to the arguments since I would have to guess that in these cases the publisher and or the author have authorized the editions or they wouldn't be publishable. This is all accomplished through mutual consent.
What about all those abridged classics? Where's the brouhaha about those for depriving the reader of the original author's words?
Once again mutual consent.
::
This next could be seen as slightly dicier; but in fact it's not.
Censoring for profanity is ordinary in film, TV, and music - again, without consumer consent, and it's been going on for decades. Classic songs by The Doors such as Break On Through and The End that you may enjoy are censored versions, with the original versions not available until long after in collectors editions. If I watch rock music channel Scuzz and they play Fall Out Boy's hit This ain't a scene, it's an arm's race then the word "God" will be muted in "Goddamn". No user choice - it's enforced by the channel censors.
Once again there is a mutual consent that there are rules that must be interpreted and then they must abide by them.
So why the big protests about user choice being available for books?
The difference here would only show up in perhaps libraries because the cited example above is a regulated mass media distribution available to almost anyone. So yes if a library wanted to use the program then that would work; though again mutual consent should somehow apply [because right now on smashwords an author can chose to not make his work available to libraries and I might guess that that could apply in other areas.]
If I were published, and this was applied to my writings, then of course I'd probably be indignant.
[no comment]
But consumers generally welcome choice, and is apparently a good thing - unless you personally disagree with the choices made.
Authors have never in any way endangered the consumers choice. They can chose to buy or not to buy-to check out from library or not to checkout from library. Authors might chose to say-no do not condense my story or no do not censor and still not remove the consumers ability to chose.
In some basic sense I agree with what you are saying and as a hungry author I'm sure I would be tempted to let all of these things slide in reference to my work; if I could get my work in the hands of more people.
Profanity is not something I feel is dangerous and is not something I feel I need to staunchly defend to my own loss so the removal of profanity doesn't bother me.
What does bother me is what comes next or in many cases what come accidentally along with the filter. There are parts of my work that might be considered even more dangerous than profanity that can't be easily filtered without destroying the story and I'm pretty sure that anyone honestly upset by the profanity might likely be more upset about those more important areas of the writing and should not read it for that reason. What I'm referring to are the ideals and notions that lie within character thoughts and motives and there is no effective filter that can be used on those that does not destroy the work. I think that these high minded people should look at the profanity as the warning sign that behind all of that might lie the more insidious ideas that will erode whatever moral platform they are trying to defend by bleeping out profanity. They should be happy the profanity is there to make them put the work down; because if they are that closed minded then the book will never be a benefit to them : They won't want to understand it.
