[Infowarrior] - EFF v Apple on iPhone controls

[Richard Forno]

I agree 100% with the EFF position here; Apple is over-reaching with  
regards to the items it so graciously allows be used on its iPhone/ 
iPod.   It's like Ford saying you can only use Exxon gas in its  
vehicles, or AT&T saying what specific devices you can and cannot plug  
into a phone jack in your house....   --rf


June 1st, 2009
Apple Rejects EFF Updates App, Claims Parody Content Is Objectionable
News Update by Corynne McSherry

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/oh-come-apple-reject

Last month, EFF got an email from software developer Duane Fields of  
Exact Magic, asking if he could use our logo on an iPhone application  
that exclusively displays content from EFF's RSS feed. Sounded like a  
great idea to us, as long as it was clear that the app wasn't an EFF- 
sponsored product.

But this morning Apple rejected the app. Why? Because it claims EFF's  
content runs afoul of the iTune's App Store's policy against  
"objectionable" content. Apparently, Apple objects to a blog post that  
linked to a "Downfall" parody video created by EFF Board Chairman Brad  
Templeton. The parody casts Hitler in the role of entertainment  
industry executive, ranting about the failure of DRM and the continued  
popularity of fair use. The parody includes the fleeting appearance of  
the f-bomb in a subtitle.

Now, Apple may find EFF "objectionable" for any number of reasons  
(here's just one.) But surely linking to a video that includes a "bad  
word" can't be one of them. After all, the YouTube app that Apple  
includes on every iPhone that ships will let you watch exactly the  
same video, bad word and all. And you can use the Safari web browser  
that ships with every iPhone to access EFF's website, as well as  
millions of web sites that include much more extreme language.

This is just the latest example of the failings of Apple's iTunes App  
Store approval process, which has been revealed to be not just anti- 
competitive, discriminatory, censorial, and arbitrary, but downright  
absurd. Just last month, Apple was widely criticized when it rejected  
the Eucalyptus e-book reader because it could access the public domain  
translation of the Kama Sutra (Apple quickly reversed course on that  
one).

Let's be clear: we are not saying that Apple has to carry apps it  
doesn't like in its App Store. But iPhone owners who don't want Apple  
playing the role of language police for their software should have the  
freedom to go elsewhere. This is precisely why EFF has asked the  
Copyright Office to grant an exemption to the DMCA for jailbreaking  
iPhones. It's none of Apple's business if I want an app on my phone  
that lets me read EFF's RSS feed, use Sling Player over 3G, or read  
the Kama Sutra.