Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iBooks EULA Drawing Ire
An anonymous reader writes in with one of many articles about the iBooks EULA, this time questioning whether it is even enforceable. Quoting: "The iBooks Author EULA plainly tries to create an exclusive license for Apple to be the sole distributor of any worked created with it, but under the Copyright Act an exclusive license is a 'transfer of copyright ownership,' and under 17 U.S.C. 204 such a transfer 'is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed.' When authors rebel and take their work elsewhere, Apple has, at most, a claim for breach-of-EULA — but their damages are the failure to pay $0 for the program."
Your anus after using apple products
The quote is a misstatement of the policy.
Bic Pens Inc now claims exclusive distributorship rights for anything created with one of their writing implements.
Not to be outdone, Starbucks now claims exclusive distributorship rights for anything created while under the influence of their beverages.
"of any worked created with it"? Really? Even the summary isn't in English now....
Write boring code, not shiny code!
People assume that the EULA will be fair and there are some laws as to what can and cannot be.
Sadly this is not true and it's only a matter of time before art and music uploaded to a device
become usable by the provider for commercial purposes for free.
Not really, people distributing their works for money aren't typically going to also distribute them for free. That would undermine sales. Some people will distribute works under a pay what you can, pay what you want or pay what you think it's worth model, but in any of those cases it's going to be a commercial distribution.
It might be technically a misstatement, but it's correct in virtually all cases.
Unfortunately, it stipulates that you must sign a contract prior to consideration of your work being distributed through iBooks.
What this means. Don't attempt to get published through Apple or you will be beholden to them in perpetuity AND they don't even have to publish it.
Tricky, scheister-y Apple.
Worst part, there will be an endless stream of authors clambering to be first in line to give up their copyrights in exchange for a chance at being published.
That sucks.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
AFAIK neither of those formats are actually "free" they both are licensed. Just that they are well documented and the genie is out of the bottle making actual licensing difficult or impossible.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
First entry up on google for self publishing epubs:
http://www.lulu.com/
They even do paper versions.
Deleted
Xcode is free. Who did you pay $99 for it because you got ripped off.
Actually, PDF is an open standard and Adobe has granted anybody royalty free use of it. There may be patents that are not known that could apply, but for now there aren't any that have been asserted.
The MP3 patents are most likely expired by now in the US, that should apply to other jurisdictions as well as the US presently conforms with the WTO's TRIPs
PDF is free and open now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf
Relevant snippet:
"While the PDF specification was available for free since at least 2001,[4] PDF was originally a proprietary format controlled by Adobe, and was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008.[1][5] In 2008, Adobe published a Public Patent License to ISO 32000-1 granting a royalty-free rights for all patents owned by Adobe that are necessary to make, use, sell and distribute PDF compliant implementations.[6]"
Apple makes great products, and I was their customer for almost twenty years, but a few years ago I gave them up. I could no longer stand the bullshit and shenanigans which come with all their products. For me, the breaking point came when my next-gen iPod couldn't use the $1 cables I'd had with my previous-gen iPod, and now I was expected to buy Apple-branded chip-locked cables for $50. FIFTY DOLLARS!
No. No, no, no. Fuck you, no. I still own and like my MacBook Pro (from 2007), but it is starting to get a little long in the tooth, and in the next couple years I'll replace it with something other than a Mac. I replaced my iPod with an Android pod. I bought an Android tablet instead of an iPad. I'm a programmer who might write apps, but I don't even consider the iOS platform.
iBooks? Sounds great! The world desperately needs to shake up the textbook industry, and I'm happy that a large company is doing something about it. But no, I won't consider it. Since I gave up Apple, they have continued to release products which look great and reportedly work great, but no, I'm not willing to put up with the bullshit to use them, because that would make me feel like a chump.
I do have a sliver of hope that all the bullshit was due to Steve Jobs' personal hatred for his customers, and now that he is dead perhaps Apple will slowly shed that hatred. There are no signs of that yet, but I would expect it to take a while.
Lulu is good. My sister used it: http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/the-god-eaters/16595193?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1 (Blatant Plug)
Apple isn't demanding to be sole distributor of your works, just of the format it's tool creates. Go ahead and distribute your works elsewhere, as long as you don't distribute it using their modified ePub3 format. Or distribute your works in their format gratis. That's also okay.
$99 annual developer's fee later *cough*xcode*cough*
Well, the big difference there is that nothing stops you from cross-compiling your software on other platforms.
YA.NEWS.SERVICE February 1; Cupertino, California - Apple Incorporated, formerly Apple Computer will again be changing the company name to Apple Syndicate. Anyone who doesn't like it will find themselves in the Baylands wearing concrete Birkenstocks at low tide and sea water at high tide.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
First off for a contract to be valid both parties have to receive something. Simply signing away all rights for nothing isn't valid. It can be for a $1 or certain considerations but something needs to be exchanged. Everyone is trying to make the case that Apple will receive exclusive rights to the original work which is not what is stated EULA. Apple is making it a condition of using it's free tool that you can only sell the outputted file through Apple. You can give it away but if money is exchanged Apple has to get a cut. You can take the original text and use say InDesign to create a new layout of the book and sell it to anyone.
Here's the real fly in the ointment. I was considering using Kickstarter to raise money for a project and one of the premiums would be an eBook That would be potentially formatted through the Author software. Technically they aren't buying anything you are simply offering them some free stuff if they contribute money but it gets sticky because you can't ask for money over the internet without offering something in return. The point is there's plenty there for Apple to sue you over. I think anyone that posts a book project on Kickstarter that plans to do a version with Author will get visited by Steve Jobs ghost and several lawyers.
Xcode 4 costs money. You also have to pay money to test or distribute iOS applications.
XCode 4 doesn't cost a dime. You only need to pay money if you want to deploy your app via the App Store.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Apple makes no claims on copyright, or on your work - ONLY on output of the software. You are totally free to format the same work in some other tool and sell that.
Again, to put it another way, It's not exclusive as to your content but ONLY TO OUTPUT FROM THE TOOL.
The free tool, that Apple gave you for free. And they ask to make money if you want to sell something produced with it? How dare they!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If Bic sent you a pen AND AN EDITOR to write for you, then you might have something.
Bic sends you and editor, for free, to help produce a document with better writing and grammar. Now are you upset they want to help sell the result?
If you want to be outraged try getting a contract with a real book company sometime.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You sign a contract with a publisher, compare the rights to your work with the publisher with the rights to your work when publishing with iBooks Author. Indeed.
$99 annual developer's fee later *cough*xcode*cough*
Well, the big difference there is that nothing stops you from cross-compiling your software on other platforms.
Except when Apple sends you a not-so-nice-gram pointing out where you signed-your-rights-away-in-a-EULA
Doesn't this sound an awful lot like the "Bad Old Days" of the music business, where performers signed contracts, only later to find they surrendered all their rights to some shady producer?
What's old is new again?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
TFA said so plainly. The iBooks format is html5 wrapped is a very thin container (Apple likes content standards). Their authoring tool is essentially a specialized html editor. Nothing stops you from taking the content you used to create an iTextBook and then using it to create a nearly identical eTextBook on another platform. You just aren't supposed to take the exact same thinly wrapped .ibook file and make that available outside of Apple's store. Maybe it's a silly clause, but obviously since they don't claim to own your content then they aren't stopping you from releasing said content in any form you choose.
Xcode 4 is a free download for all members of the iOS and Mac Developer Programs.
http://developer.apple.com/xcode/
Mac Developer Program
Distribute Mac apps on the Mac App Store
$99/year
http://developer.apple.com/programs/mac/
iOS Developer Program
The fastest path from code to customer.
$99/year
http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/
I don't know what your definition of "free" is, but mine doesn't include $99/year.
If it was just about the format it wouldn't be an issue. It's about the EULA. It's about Apple seducing (iEverything looks damn sexy, easy to use, etc...) authors into a walled garden. It's about limiting the rights of authors by hiding the nitty-gritty in a document that doesn't get to be seen until after you've spent all that effort to make a shiny new iBook. You're options at that point amount to: export it to severely format deprived pdf or (by changing the extension from ibook to epub, and again, losing any and all formatting) epub or straight up text (sans pictures, etc...).
The whole reason for using iBook Author was to make it shiny. To give it that magical quality that people lust after.
Now, once a competent conversion program comes out, that keeps all the formatting and everything, the iBook lock-in hurt will be lessened.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
All any of those programmes do is help the mind make physical what is already mental. There are lots of applications (think Fink) that can be put on an iPad and, by the very basis of GPL, protect the users right to distribution and ownership, providing they don't incorporate work protected under the type of scheme GPL uses. Yet, despite use Xorg on an iPad, the license still says that work is Apple's, despite the fact they don't own most of the processing hardware's IP.
See, neither analogy is correct. There's a reason Jobs didn't want to DRM the crap out of everything for distribution, but we have gone a long way since Apple tried to tempt the Open Source Movement with somewhat more liberal licensing to what it has become in the past four or five years.
Try it this way, every Nokia F4xxx camera gives Nokia a partial share of the copyright of any image created with it, regardless of post-production processes involved. Hardware Nokia doesn't own exclusively, software Nokia provides and a functioning platform not created by Nokia that could be ported to run on the camera. Would you think that it's fair that Nokia declare ownership of your work? If you put an image on your free blog from your camera while on your vacation, that blog company may receive a cease and desist order from Nokia because of the advertising which pays to keep it free in the first place can be counted as gross profits. Would they? Probably not, but it doesn't mean that, similar to the history of the RIAA and MPAA suing kids for millions of dollars, Nokia, or a group representing like minded interests, wouldn't start nailing out some test cases to guarantee their right to do so in the future.
I wouldn't buy such a camera with such a condition attached to it, but fans of that line probably wouldn't think twice about it. On the other hand, a following AnonCow may have pinpointed a far greater danger to Apple than displeasing some, MAYBE, 14% of fans: They officially have ownership to all illegal activities so involved. Of course, they can claim the activity is a breach of contract with the EULA, but if multiple breaches are caught, it may go in the direction of selling bongs as tobacco accessories: Enough incidence of its criminal use may result in singling it out legislatively. Of course, unlike stoners, Apple is part of a few lobbying firms who might get legislation written to protect it instead. Because money makes everything fair in a Democracy whose politicians are otherwise incorporated into the Free Market, regardless of being in a mixed economy since the first post-Articles presidential administration.
Anyone still Occupying shit out there? I dunno, it's not on the television anymore. It's probably not that important.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
If Apple doesn't publish you. GAME OVER. The only way to get your book out there after that is to give it away...for free!
No, you simply re-format your content in some other tool and sell that.
Where do you Apple Haters get such thick skulls? Do you spend all day beating your head against logs with the aim of disallowing any logic or reason to enter?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except when Apple sends you a not-so-nice-gram pointing out where you signed-your-rights-away-in-a-EULA
I don't get your point. They don't do that in their developer agreement.
iBooks Author (the application) takes your text and layout and generates an .ibook file consisting of ePub/html 5/extensions.
Bison (the FSF yacc replacement) takes a yacc/bison grammar file and generates source code. That source code contains FSF IP in the form of copyrighted source code. The FSF has a special exemption but otherwise, your generated grammars could only be distributed under the GPL.
Generated .ibooks files may contain copyright Apple IP, in which case it wouldn't just be a matter of the EULA.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
XCode 4 doesn't cost a dime. You only need to pay money if you want to deploy your app via the App Store.
The last time O was looking at developing Apple software, if I wanted to test my own app on my own device - iTouch, iPhone, iPad - I had to join the Apple Developer program for $99.
Or I could jailbreak my own device; which I have a problem with because when I test, I want the software to run an a machine like my customers would - in honor of Murphy's Law.
Have things changed?
Haha... I just posted this in the other apple story, but it seems even more appropriate here. Hope you got some modpoints, mactards...
----------------
Hahahahaha... fuck you apple fanboys. You know, it's been sad to watch otherwise smart folks bend over to suck Cupertino's cock. Some of us knew all along that Jobs would be even worse than Gates if he only had the chance.
Apple, as a company, reminds me of some hipster asshole who steals his ideas from some unheard-of artist, and then gets pissed when people start copying him in return.
Hey - what was Apple's position on SOPA/PIPA anyway? Hmm.. seems like they were strangely silent. Good thing you signed up for their walled garden. I hope they're still around in 25 years when you want to reference that iTextbook that can't be viewed on any other manufacturer's device.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Really. It's even in the fscking EULA:
"Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner."
Note the "content". Software (as iBooks Author) creates files or documents or "works", but not content. Authors create content. This content is yours.
If you think this is word-wanking, try the following gedankenexperiment:
You write a book using MS Word for the text, Photoshop for the illustrations and you even buy some high-quality photos for it. Then you import all of that into iBooks Author to create a book for the iBook Store. You also import all of that into InDesign (or whatever software you bought for creating ePubs) to sell elsewhere.
How should the book you created from *your* content be affected by the iBook Author EULA? It isn't. Apple even spells this out in the EULA. The content of course is yours to sell.
I'm not an Apple fanboi and I don't like Apple very much but I think iBook Author and the iBook store is a good idea. I also don't like the EULA terms very much but they are not what some people would like you to think they are. If you want to sell the file created with iBooks Author you can sell it only via Apple. But if you want to sell your content in that book elsewhere you can still do that.
Meanwhile I just hate that kind of sensational journalism that ignores facts and just wants to drive page-views by fueling hate and fury. Really, I'm sick of it. Be rational and READ THE FUCKING EULA.
He was talking about real writers, who drank and wrote fucking awesome novels... that they had mental disorders doesn't factor into this. That they suffered for the art doesn't factor into it. They were fucking great writers not artsy types sipping 5 dollar coffees waiting for inspiration. Inspiration comes from real life and any two bit drunk with severe mental issues will see more of it then any wannabe at Starbucks.
Normal people don't write great works of art. Normal people buy them and wish they had a fraction of the talent without being willing to pay the price for it. The candle that burns brightest, burns the shortest. Now if I was a heavy drinker, had mental problems that would make any shrink go "get him off, GET HIM OFF!" and blew my brains out at the end of my natural life expectancy, this post would have been a lot better.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's $2. I agree with your point though.
The tools might be free of charge, and you might be writing a free of charge application, but getting the result delivered to the walled garden (or even within your own company) is not free: Choosing an iOS Developer Program
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
It's free if you have OS X 10.7. I think XCode 4.x is $4 if you have 10.6, but XCdoe 3.x is free.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I believe what the poster meant was with pdf and mp3, one is free to view/listen on any device they own. Apple's DRM schemes do not allow that. That's why I get my music from Amazon.
The two ideas are *exactly* alike, Mr Apple fanboy! There's nobody putting a gun to your head and *forcing* you to use GPL.
You really don't have to write an application using GPL software, it's just that if you do then you have a vast audience of people who may elect to use it, and also probably a better looking application with a faster development cycle.
BTW, what does really force you is copyright law. It forces you to obey intellectual property rules under threat of legal reprisals.
You're full of shit, and I say that as a proponent of permissive licenses and an opponent of the GPL.
If you take something GPLed, and make something OUT OF IT, that's GPL. If you make something WITH IT, as you said "the output", that doesn't have to be GPL. You can use emacs to edit your proprietary source code, you can use gcc to compile proprietary binaries, you can use gdb to debug it, you can do this all on a GNU/Linux distribution fo your choice, and nowhere along the way does any of that output become GPL. So quit the FUD. The GPL virus only "infects" your code in cases where YOU'D BE GUILTY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT without the GPL (or an even freer license, such as BSD).
No it doesn't. I downloaded it from the App Store on 10.7 for absolutely nothing. If you paid for it, you got ripped off.
Those are costs for distributing your app on the App Store not the price of Xcode. From here with such links as:
Download Xcode 4 for Free
and
Download Xcode 4.2.1 for Lion
from the Mac App Store for Free
If you paid money for Xcode, you're an idiot.
Shut up, you bloody curled up little cunt hair.
I don't know what your definition of "free" is...
free
Adjective: Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
Adverb: Without cost or payment: "ladies were admitted free".
Verb: Make free, in particular.
Synonyms:
adjective. loose - open - gratuitous - vacant - independent
adverb. gratis - freely - for nothing - loosely - free of charge
verb. release - liberate - deliver - set free - rid - disengage
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
I don't know what you intended, but what you wrote is patently false.
The output of a GPL program is not affected by the license in any way, shape or form.
If you take someone else's GPL software and you make changes to it, and you distribute those changes, then and only then does the GPL come into play.
Apple's software, on the other hand, is insidious because it does infect the output. You are forbidden from selling the output of that software on any service other than Apple's.
So if what you really meant to say is that GPL has no effect whatsoever on how you use the software (as opposed to how you distribute it), and that Apple's software does... then yes, I couldn't agree more.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Or you can get a free developer account and not pay for XCode 4. I noticed a while back that it was $4.99 on the Mac App Store for Snow Leopard, which must be an idiot tax.
Developer accounts themselves are free, you only have to pay for a developer program if you want access to Beta versions, want to test on an iOS device and not just the simulator, and/or deploy an app to the App Store.
Being successful and being 'evil' by slashdot standards are not mutually exclusive. Rather the opposite: Most of the things the slashdot crowd opposes are things that would be done either to increase profit or to gain power with which to increase profit in future, so you'd expect the evil companies to be the more successful.
Xcode is a free download, period. You don't have to be a member of anything. See http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12#
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Those are costs for distributing your app on the App Store not the price of Xcode. From here with such links as:
Download Xcode 4 for Free
Membership is mandatory to download the "free" Xcode 4. You will find this when you follow the link you provided.
If you paid money for Xcode, you're an idiot.
Xcode 3.2 was free of cost to download. Xcode 4 is not.
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
Apple's form of viral only works by choice (people buying the products, using the authoring tools). You don't have to write an eBook using Apple's tool, it's just that if you do you have a vast audience of people who may purchase it and also probably a better looking eBook.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are different approaches to making something viral.
This viral example is silly, I've seen it repeated far too many times, most recently in an old copy of "The Pragmatic Programmer", which is a very sharp book otherwise.
*Every* license that requires you to license a copy of a work in a certain way, if you distribute it, is "viral". Many licenses don't allow you to distribute at all. There's no such thing as "viral by force". The GPL actually allows you to do whatever you want on your own system, completely ignoring the license (making it much freer and less "virus-like" than a proprietary program running on my system that I can't modify legally). It's when you distribute (using more modern terms, "convey") the work that you have to make sure you've got GPL'd source code available (if not readily available, at least by request). Those who choose to license under the AGPL are curtailing unrestricted personal modification, to close the so-called "application service provider loophole". So, if you run an AGPL'd Web service/application, you're required to release the modified source.
At any rate, the comparison you make is non-sequitur:
1. When you modify a GPL'd work and then convey a copy of it, you must license the copy under the GPL (aka follow the terms of the GPL).
2. When you format your own copyrighted work with Apple's tool, you are not allowed to distribute the output of that tool on your own. That version may only be distributed by Apple. The question being discussed is whether or not you've transferred copyright to Apple, which apparently isn't allowed under U.S. law without some signed paperwork.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Apple does not lock you into anything,
Or claim any work ownership.
all they are doing is making sure the tool they made is used on their store.
What's wrong with that?
Download free Xcode. Sell on your own website.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Replying to self: Xcode 4 is free for download from App Store from Lion. You have to pay if you are on Leopard/Snow Leopard.
Except when Apple sends you a not-so-nice-gram pointing out where you signed-your-rights-away-in-a-EULA
I don't get your point. They don't do that in their developer agreement.
I think many of the people commenting on these threads are confusing things. Whether due to sincere ignorance or an attempt to muddy the debate probably varies. When discussing the free nature of Xcode and self distribution of Macintosh applications, they will invariably thrown iOS development or Mac App store requirements.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Obviously everyone was confused what I meant by "output" in my message, rightfully so from the context...
I didn't mean that a GPL authoring tool would yield GPL covered text. I meant "output" really as "derivative", as in other products made from it must also be licensed under the GPL.
When I talk about Apple I'm talking about Apple products, not "output" as in eBooks.
Sorry for the confusion and all of the misplaced indignation from the GPL proponents (I am one myself).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think he's upset that they want to be the sole distributor of the work
Apple does not want to be the sole distributor of your work. Only the output from the authoring tool.
You are free to author your same work in other tools and sell that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You want your education to be based on older inferior technology, just to spite Apple?
Insane.
I would rather students be given good tools for learning, period, regardless of source. I would FAR rather have avoided my own early stumblings around physics classes that could have been greatly improved with a really good interactive textbook to explain concepts. Especially at the college level where just 3-4 textbooks can early exceed the cost of an iPad!
It's when you stop caring about education and start caring about other things that I think is a sign that higher education will yield no benefit. If it's a secondary goal I certainly would not pay money for it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't care if its enforceable or not, as if they are really trying to force you to transfer ownership just for using their 'distribution channel' then shame on them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I agree that Apple claiming they own the actual output is unprecedented, odd and disturbing.
But it has no practical effect on the author. Everyone is up in arms because they are claiming is has the huge effect of being unable to sell your work through anyone else, which is simply not true.
Actually though there is a real-world president. If you write a book for a traditional publisher you own the copyright but have NO ability to sell it elsewhere, or any control at all over it really. Far more heinous than Apple's terms.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple's DRM schemes do not allow that. That's why I get my music from Amazon.
Huh? You can play music you get from Apple on any device that can play AAC. That includes things like the Zune...
I get some music from Amazon, but some from Apple too. There's no practical difference at this point except that it's slightly easier to buy it from iTunes so often I use that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sole commercial distributor, not sole distributor. The quote is a misstatement of the policy.
And this only refers to the binary produced by the iBooks Author program. Apple makes no claim on your content, you are free to produce other ebooks using different tools and distribute elsewhere.
$99 annual developer's fee later *cough*xcode*cough*
Well, the big difference there is that nothing stops you from cross-compiling your software on other platforms.
And nothing prevents you from generating your ebook with a different tool and selling it on other platforms. Only the binary generated by iBooks Author is restricted, not the content itself.
Uhhhh - a lot of people distribute their work both free, and for a fee. http://www.baen.com/library/intro.asp
In fact, the idea that free copies of your work will "undermine sales" is so terribly misguided - I wonder if you've been studying economics at RIAA University.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I never paid for any Xcode version. Whoever you are, you're smoking crack. you only have to pay when you get signing keys and sign up for the developer program to publish things on the app store (Mac or iOS). Can I get any clearer?
INAL but not enforceable in New Zealand, and would in fact breach NZ Law
There are many, many software packages that restrict the use of their output. Look at the license of the Home & Student edition of Office 2010: you can't use the output for commercial purposes. Same with many packages that come in a free and for-pay version: the free version is non-commercial. The only difference here is that Apple hasn't (at least yet) offered a for-pay version without the restriction. Also consider that business tools are commonly used to restrict distribution as well. Amazon won't allow your book to be part of the Kindle Lending Library if you sell it elsewhere, and that's for the *content*. iBooks Author only restricts the the formatting of the content into a particular output format. There's nothing wrong with a company investing in producing a tool that didn't exist before and which creates interactive eBook output that can't be created easily elsewhere and which can't even be display with full fidelity elsewhere and deciding that it doesn't want to put this tool out there to the advantage of competing stores. Why would a for-profit company do such a thing?
You're still wrong though. Downloading from http://developer.apple.com/ requires a program membership (Mac or iOS), and downloading from the App Store checks your OS version and only gives it to you free if you're on Lion.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Free developer accounts don't give you access to download it. You need at least one paid membership.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
10.7 gives it to you free. 10.6 does not.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Xcode has been free of charge for most of its life, but for some reason, Apple was charging $5 for Xcode 4 at the App Store for a brief time in early 2011. It reverted to free after Lion came out.
Replying to self: Xcode 4 is free for download from App Store from Lion. You have to pay if you are on Leopard/Snow Leopard.
I am not yourself, I just wanted to mention that the amount you have to pay if you are on L or SL is a small amount ($5), which suggests it's one of those cases where Apple believes it sometimes must charge nominal fees for updates (seemingly always ones which provide new features) to be in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley regulations on cost-and-revenue accounting. See also: the $1 (or was it $2? can't remember) fee they charged for certain 802.11n WiFi firmware upgrades.
No... nothing's changed. XCode is perfectly free to download, and always has been. This is entirely separte from the developer license you need to install apps on a physical device. That does cost money.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I am relatively certain that the iAuthor program produces an epub3 like file format. This is not a BINARY format. A binary format is an executable. The iAuthor format is zipped html5 files. In fact, you can manually edit the files in a text area. The only binary like files that it may contain would be YOUR video files, audio files, and pictures.
NDxTreme Content on the Edge.
It is free if you're using XCode to produce Mac apps.
So how come it says free on the web page?
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12
Usually such people distribute the online version for free, and sell the printed version for a fee. It makes no sense to sell the same online version both for free and for a fee.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
I'm on Windows and on the page it says, "To download Xcode from the Mac App Store, you need a Mac with Mac OS X 10.6.6 or later .". So where can I get one of those for free?
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
"if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple."
THAT definition of "work" is the work produced by the software. NOT the "Work" you did in writing and gathering content for a book.
Curious, do Apple Haters take online courses on how to reduce intelligence?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Funnily enough no one ever adds the cost of a PC when quoting the price of DevStudio.
Without buying an appropriate computer you can't program. Period.
...are like? Authors distribute their work through publishers, and each publisher and each is different (see http://beckerinfo.net/scp/2008/02/11/what-to-look-for-in-publisher-copyright-agreement-forms/ to get an idea). In fact, many "highly-regarded" journals have draconian agreements: http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.shtml If you wonder why legal fees are so high, these guys are one of the two big culprits (the other being the law schools)..
This is a free program that Apple has put a lot of R&D effort into--obviously they are using it as a way of priming their eTextbook initiative and understandably they don't want to subsidize other ebook ecosystems.
Noone is putting a gun to your head, and noone is saying that this is the only format than an iPad can use.
Apple can't acquire your copyright except through written contract. To paint this as an attempt to 'steal' your copyright in the books you write is simply incorrect.
Apple is merely trying to control how you distribute the files outputted by iBooks Author. This is done to try and keep up Apple's walled-garden approach.
Apple's EULA clearly indicates that copyright in the work is retained by the owner. (Section 2.d of the license.)
Apple's EULA still might not be cool, but it does not try and create an exclusive license. (And even if it did try, it fails.)
A lengthier analysis can be found here: The iBooks Author EULA: What does it really mean?
He had a decent life before the drugs, and booze. Some writers need some sort of stimulating drug, to heighten there awareness, transform, or alter there way of thinking. This whole point is really mute because hundreds of writers are sober but can think outside the "norm" to bring good stories. Writers that really make no sense are the ones that stick out. You can say that for just about any thing in the form of media, ie, music, movies, on and on... you find those who use stimulating drugs and those who never did and really make up crap about there lives for there lives to appear dark or haunted.
The other thing from previous comments, you look at the eras these writers grew up, and lived in, they were surrounded by religious fiends. A lot of there writings were considered evil and went against the "Normal" standards, but they never really got silenced or continued on. There are several legit points you can continue to bring up as well about those writers. But only they really know what drove them to write..
That is your work.
No it's not. The end formatting done is generated from the layout I did by eye, into reams of horrifically complex ePub code. I certainly had nothing to do with that actual code, I just inserted text and other elements it used.
Would you say the output of the word processor should be owned by the creator of the word processor?
No, nor would I say the output of iAuthor should be owned by Apple. But since the output is only readable in iBooks, and as noted you can format your work in any other tool (good luck with that) I don't see any practical issue with that.
Especially not as an author, since that arrangement is FAR better than what a "real" publishing house gives you. In that case the publishing house realistically owns output AND input, even though technically you have the copyright.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is not a BINARY format. A binary format is an executable.
When did that happen?
The distinction between a "binary" file and others was always a bit dubious, though it does have a clear meaning in FTP. (When it comes down to it, it's all binary really. Though early FTP programs would convert between ASCII and EBCDIC when you sent a text file between two systems that used different encodings, a nice feature at the time.)
I was under the impression that it meant a format that wasn't human-readable (something other than plain text). So XLS would be considered a "binary" file type, where a CSV wouldn't be.
How would you classify PDF (it's a mix of both) or BMP (a "binary" format if I've ever seen one)?
epub is interesting, in that it's typically just HTML and CSS (plain text) possibly some images (binary) wrapped up in a zip file (binary). Do you count the wrapper or the contents? Do you call it a mix?
Well, if I were sending an epub via FTP, I'd make sure that I sent it in binary mode.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Everyone who writes software already has a Windows or Linux PC. Buying a Mac just so you can write iOS apps is an extra expense that must be factored into the total cost of iOS development if you're not already a Mac user. (That's most people, btw. Apple may be a big name, but Macs are still an obscure alternative.)
I can write Windows apps on Linux and vice versa. I can write Android and Blackberry apps on any system I like. I don't need to buy additional hardware or pay for special software. This is not the case with iOS development.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Or just use XCode 3 if you are on L or SL... it comes with your OS disc.
XCode is perfectly free to download, and always has been.
Nonsense!
This is from the Wikipedia entry for Xcode. It's the best I'm willing to do this late in the evening.
Apple released the final code for Xcode 4.0 on March 9, 2011. The software was made available for free to all registered members of the $99 per year Mac Developer program and the $99 per year iOS Developer program. It was also sold for $4.99 to non-members on the Mac App Store (no longer available). As of July 20, 2011 (the day of Mac OS X Lion's release), Xcode 4.1 was made available for free to all users on Mac OS X Lion on the Mac App Store. On August 29, 2011, Xcode 4.1 was made available for Mac OS X Snow Leopard for members of the paid Mac or iOS developer programs. On October 12, 2011, Xcode 4.2 was released concurrently with the release of iOS 5.0, it included many more and improved features like storyboarding and automatic correction.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Humble Bundle, et al., deigns to disagree.
That's the boilerplate for all App Store pages. Now if you re-read the page...
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
That's not even a little bit true.
I can write a book using any number of GPL licensed programs and use the work however I like, sell it, give it away, or release it into the public domain. I can compile a program using gcc and release my program under whatever license I feel appropriate.
Apple's form of viral only works by choice (people buying the products, using the authoring tools).
Even if what you said about GPL licensed tools was true (which it quite clearly is not!) wouldn't the same thing apply to those tools? Is RMS standing behind you with a gun, forcing you to use gcc?
Required reading for internet skeptics
I googled Humble Bundle and found a site selling games. We're talking about books, aren't we?
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/01/enthusiasm-for-ibooks-author-marred-by-licensing-format-issues.ars
So creating an open editor for this would require a lot of reverse engineering.
1) use apple software to do your content
2) distribute it with all plateform except apple
WHat are they going to do ? Sue you for 0$ ? You do not distribute through their plateform so they can't ask for exclusivity. And other distributor can all distribute it , sell it, and ihpone/ipad owner can download it or save it locally. And what apple could do agaisnt that , except a dick move like revocking the key of the content maker and making those ibook unreadable ? I don't see that flying far.
When I can just download a book/pdf/txt to my laptop, soon to be touch screen pad, and view any format I want in a size comparable to a book I don't have to squint at, it makes an E-reader a worse decision than a smart phone. When you own an I-anything , it is a warning to the public that, a) if venereal disease were fashionable, you'd have black gonorrhea. b) your genetics would likely produce more I-diots , so expect only other Mac-o-cephalics and occasional trailer house queens to shunt for you. c) higher education is only wasted on you.
Why do people quote Wikipedia like it's the Library of Congress or something?
I have never paid for a developer license. I have never paid for Xcode.
You are wrong! (stop quoting Wikipedia and do your own research. Now get off my lawn!)
Authors can still do everything they could before, but now they have an additional option. Nobody is required to use iBooks Author, even to publish through Apple. It seems like we are in a looking glass world where giving authors additional options that they did not have previously is seen as "limiting their rights." How can more be less?
Free developer accounts don't give you access to download it. You need at least one paid membership.
Stop lying! I downloaded with my free developer account.
10.7 gives it to you free. 10.6 does not.
I downloaded it for free on 10.6. End of story.
Everyone who writes software already has a Windows or Linux PC.
No they don't. There are plenty of Mac developers that don't own a PC.
I didn't have to buy any new computer when I started programming iOS. Cost of XCode: 0. Code of development kit: 0.
people distributing their works for money aren't typically going to also distribute them for free. That would undermine sales.
Sorry, but you're 100% incorrect. Very often what seems to be obvious is shown by scientific research to be completely false*. One book publisher thought the same thing as you a couple of years ago, so he commissioned a study to see how much revenue he was losing to piracy. With a book, it takes a few weeks for it to hit the net because it has to be scanned and OCRed, so they looked at how much sales dropped when the pirate edition was availabe. Both the researchers and publisher were amazed when it was shown that rather than a sales dip, there was actually a sales SPIKE. People read the book, liked it, and bought it.
I'll bet you think libraries cost publishers money, but you're wrong there, too. I have a dozen or more Asimov books on my shelf. Were I unable to read library books for free (I've read a few hundred of Asimov's) I would have never bought a single one. Only the rich or foolish would buy a book from an authout he hadn't read before unless it was highly praised by people he admired. BTW, you can get music CDs and movie DVDs at the library as well -- completely free. No charge. Walk in broke, walk out with an armload of books, CDs, and DVDs.
Most musicians give their music away. Of course, most musicians aren't RIAA's musicians. Professional musicians I know wouldn't touch an RIAA contract with a ten foot pole; they know the RIAA is made up of nothing but thieving parasites that suck the lifeblood from artists.
Want some free sci-fi ebooks? Go to boing boing, Doctorow credits his status as a New York Times best seller to the fact that he gives his books away for free on there. As he says, nobody ever lost a dime from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity.
They're not going to read your book if they've never heard of you. BTW, my old Paxil Diaries on K5 half a deceade ago will be in print soon, at the request of readers. Had I not put them on the net, there's no way I could turn them into a book and have anyone read it.
* another example, although not on topic, is marijuana research. Since all smoke contains carcinogens, it was thought that marijuana cased cancer, so they did a statistical study to back up the hypothesis. They had 4 groups of geezers: nonsmokers, long term cigarette smokers, long term pot smokers, and long term smokers of both substances. They were amazed to find that there was no statistically signifigant differences between long term pot smokers and nonsmokers, and the potsmokers actually had fewer cancers (again, statistically insignifigant). What blew them away was the finding that those who smoked both pot and tobacco had half the cancer rates of those who only smoked tobacco! Rather than causing cancer, it appears to prevent it.
That's what science is for -- to test whether your perceptions are real. As often as not, they aren't.
Free Martian Whores!
You should read the link GP provided. You might learn something. But I'll help you out: Baen books provides some ebooks for free, sells some ebooks for a fee, and, yeah, they sell printed books for a fee.
But notice that they sell for a fee and provide for free. Moreover, an ebook title may only be free for a limited time.
In the case of Apple... I haven't read it thoroughly, but my understanding of the EULA is that you are limited to the product produced by Apple's software being sold through Apple, but that certainly doesn't in and of itself preclude selling the same *content* produced with *different* software through a different venue.
But, really, what is the big deal? It isn't like there aren't other ways to produce ebooks for sale (or for free) elsewhere. Even if Apple has a stupid requirement listed (which, btw, isn't unheard of -- I don't know the current situation but there certainly used to be "indy" game dev suites that similar stipulations) all it does is act as a disincentive to using their software and their retail outlet.
Despite all the hatred Apple gets on slashdot they don't seem to make a habit of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Not really, people distributing their works for money aren't typically going to also distribute them for free. That would undermine sales. Some people will distribute works under a pay what you can, pay what you want or pay what you think it's worth model, but in any of those cases it's going to be a commercial distribution.
It might be technically a misstatement, but it's correct in virtually all cases.
That's not what the terminology is for. What it means - you can use the authoring tool to sell content with Apple. You can also use it all you want to produce and distribute free content. In other words, free for non-commercial use, but you can profit through it too - we will be your exclusive distributor.
Amazon has signed authors to exclusive deals as well. The difference is, they cannot distribute eBooks on other platforms. With Apple, you can do whatever you want with any tool you want. If you use their tool, you can still do whatever you want... but to sell books on another platform, you need to use another authoring tool.
Richard Stallman was right ------ Again!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I am qualified to positively assert that XCode 3 did *NOT* come with Snow Leopard... or at least did not in Feb 2011, which is when I got my current Mac.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No they don't. There are plenty of Mac developers that don't own a PC.
They make up an incredibly tiny portion of the market. Developers with access only to a Mac are a rounding error.
Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99
Required reading for internet skeptics
Why quote wikipedia? It was handy.
You are wrong! (stop quoting Wikipedia and do your own research.
Sigh, do I really need to do a google search for you?
Xcode 4 available to all on Apple's Mac App Store for $4.99
Hacker News | Xcode now costs US$ 4.99
What Changes with XCode 4 Not Being Free Anymore?
Do you need more? I've got a ton of results.
Required reading for internet skeptics
> We're talking about books, aren't we?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the behavior of consumers. Is there some special reason why consumers would pay for games even if given the opportunity to obtain them for free, which wouldn't be applicable to books also?
Right, except for those like Cory Doctorow, that release their work under creative Commons and for Publication for profit at the same time!
many companies (including Microsoft) have Student and Home editions of their software and it says right there in the EULA that you aren't allowed to use those programs to produce content for commericial distribution. Look it up.
Your argument has been destroyed and it was the easiest thing I did all day.
Everyone who writes software already has a Windows or Linux PC
Ah yes, the free one that came with the apartment. You seem to live in a world where people cannot freely choose to buy a Mac and not a PC. If you are living in a Wintendo world, why not just develop for Wintendo?
Well over half the speakers (mostly devs) on the last JavaZone conference had Macs. The one explaining how to deploy Java apps to Windows Azure necessarily had a PC because of Visual Studio - but could have had a Mac running Windows.
Which environment has this "rounding error" of yours?
One of the first things I did after upgrading to Snow Leopard was to install the optional extras of X11 and XCode. On the second of the two disks.
They make up an incredibly tiny portion of the market. Developers with access only to a Mac are a rounding error.
How do you know?
Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99
Even if it were true, so what? It would be a small charge for software for an obsolete OS. But it's not true.
What you appear to be confused by is that back when Snow Leopard was the current OS, XCode was sold for $4.99. It isn't any more.
Actually you only have to purchase a compatible OS. I can run Windows 7 in a VM (I do this on my hysterically overpriced Mac Desktop Pro) and use VS just fine.
Loading...
An EULA that contains unenforceable claims? How unexpected!
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Not end of story.
"Requirements: Mac OS X 10.7 or later".
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
From where, The Pirate Bay? The download link for free developer accounts (I have one) just links you to http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ - which prompts you to either get it off the App Store (which explicitly states "Requires Lion") or pay for a developer program membership. Logging into my paid developer account removes the prompt to pay but still just links to the app store. Unless you downloaded Xcode 3, which is a free download...
So, um, yeah. Stop lying.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I am running it under 10.6 at this very moment. Now, end of story.
From where, The Pirate Bay? The download link for free developer accounts (I have one) just links you to http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ - which prompts you to either get it off the App Store (which explicitly states "Requires Lion") or pay for a developer program membership. Logging into my paid developer account removes the prompt to pay but still just links to the app store. Unless you downloaded Xcode 3, which is a free download...
So, um, yeah. Stop lying.
I don't know what your problem is, but I downloaded Xcode 4 FOR FREE from my Snow Leopard Mac (I do not have Lion).
I'm not confused by anything. The claim was that Xcode was always free. That claim is false.
Get over it.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Going back to the head of this sub-tthread and searching through indicates that the word "always" was never used.
Someone else on another branch of the thread wrongly said Xcode was always free. That doesn't make you right on the false statement you have made on this sub-thread with me.
I repeat XCode is free. The statement you made: "Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99" is wrong.
What the hell? How can that be overrated? I mean, this is offtopic and can be zero'd to death, but really? I made a functional analogy in a well thought out correction, and it's overrated at 1? ONE! How the F~3 does this happen? When did we get that class of moderation?
Was some moderator freezing in DC when scrolling slashdot and did the missed-the-point moderation-of-bias? How do you justify 1 as overrated? Was it the weed? Were you upset that Apple has more lobbying money than your stoned ass?
Meh, -1 offtopic. Still, the above post is just so unfairly underrated. There's a whiny, anoncow grammar-nazi a few posts down with a score of two, and that's offtopic by default! What the F~3?
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I repeat XCode is free. The statement you made: "Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99" is wrong.
Actually, it's 100% correct. I emphasized a key word for you, hope that helps.
Why is this so important to you?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Actually, it's 100% correct. I emphasized a key word for you, hope that helps.
It just helps show you're not even consistent with your tenses. You previously used the present tense
"I can write Windows apps on Linux and vice versa. I can write Android and Blackberry apps on any system I like. I don't need to buy additional hardware or pay for special software. This is not the case with iOS development."
Why is this so important to you?
I'm still posting. But then so are you. Why don't you accept when you are wrong?
Sorry, what was I wrong about? As far as I can tell, I'm still in the right.
On tenses, yes, I use the present tense when it's appropriate. I've used the past tense when it was appropriate.
Would you have preferred that I had written everything in the past tense, even at the expense of readability? I think I'd have lost my mind!
Required reading for internet skeptics
XCode is not free for me. I don't have a Mac and there is no way I can legally get XCode without spending money. Of course, without a Mac there would be no use for me to have a copy of XCode, nor am I even interested in using it, but that's beside the point. The point is, I can't download it for free right now.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
No, not end of story.
The App Store won't even give it to you (barring a bug in MAS) when you don't meet the minimum requirements- the minimum requirements being OS X 10.7 Lion. I.e. not Snow Leopard, which is 10.6, a lower number than 10.7, which is the requirement.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I do not have a problem. There is no way to download Xcode 4 from the Developer Center unless you have a paid program membership. It says this in no less than 5 places. You have to go to the App Store, which only offers it for 10.7.
Jesus, I can't understand why you don't get it through your thick head that you are clearly wrong. Every piece of information about Xcode 4 disagrees with your assertion. Including no less than three Apple sites.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
No, not end of story.
The App Store won't even give it to you (barring a bug in MAS) when you don't meet the minimum requirements- the minimum requirements being OS X 10.7 Lion. I.e. not Snow Leopard, which is 10.6, a lower number than 10.7, which is the requirement.
I didn't get it from the App store. I got it directly from the apple.com webpage that has development tools. I got it for free and am running it under 10.6.
I do not have a problem. There is no way to download Xcode 4 from the Developer Center unless you have a paid program membership. It says this in no less than 5 places. You have to go to the App Store, which only offers it for 10.7.
Jesus, I can't understand why you don't get it through your thick head that you are clearly wrong. Every piece of information about Xcode 4 disagrees with your assertion. Including no less than three Apple sites.
No reason to bring in your imaginary friend, Jesus, or the thickness of my skull. Fact 1: I am running Snow Leopard 10.6. Fact 2: I downloaded it from a free developer account. Either things have recently changed or you DO have a problem.
I just signed into my Apple Developer account (which is free to join, $99 to deploy) and it gave me a download link http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12 which says free. I've already put it on my Mac so I know it works.
And if you go to your own F'ing link
http://www.astrobetter.com/mac-app-store-xcode4/ (who posts a link from Mar 2011?)
and F'ing READ you would find the following:
"John July 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Following today’s release of OS X Lion, XCode 4.1 is now available for free: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090 for details."
Google doesn't F'ing think for you dude!
Google doesn't F'ing think for you dude!
It won't read for you either.
Again, the claim was that xcode has always been free. This is, as I and many others have already demonstrated, a false claim. Xcode has not always been free.
Why is this such a contentious issue? How much of your identity is dependent on xcode having always been free? I'm sorry that I've caused you and a few others here so much emotional distress, but facts are facts.
Required reading for internet skeptics