Slashdot Mirror
Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing
bonch writes "After drawing criticism over iBooks Author's licensing language, Apple has modified it in a software update to make clear that Apple is claiming rights to the .ibook format itself and not the content therein: '[The license restriction] does not apply to the content of such works when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format.' In other words, the content may be sold on competing book stores as long as it is not packaged using iBooks Author."
Hands up all those people who didn't already realise that's what it meant.
By reading this fRiSt PsOOT you agree to give Apple all rights to retain and distribute future posts.
The term implies that you cannot distribute using the .ibooks format, not that you cannot distribute the output of iBooks Author. I guess the term's as valid and enforceable as that sort of shrinkwrap term is valid and enforceable in your jurisdiction. IOW, what would be the damages, Apple? Would you sue someone for... the price of iBooks Author?
Of course, if you're using another package to create .ibooks files then you won't be agreeing to this EULA anyway. Otherwise it would be interesting to understand what sort of legal position Apple think they have which entitles them to restrict the third party creation of files in the .ibooks format.
I still find it absolutely mind-boggling that anyone thought Apple was claiming rights to the content...
Apple has modified it in a software update to make clear that Apple is claiming rights to the .ibook format itself and not the content therein:
Bet the ball on this got rolling just after somebody in Cupertino read the knee-jerk comments on Slashdot.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It is worth noting that you can't export to standard EPUB3 file format, only to PDF. PDF is obviously non-interactive, while the EPUB3 standard would allow for most if not all of the interactive elements that can be created with iBooks Author.
Many argue that they are in their right to put that EULA, and that others have done it before (Microsoft's Word, for example). And they are absolutely right.
That does not mean, however, that this isn't a very greedy move - many even describe it as 'evil' - and just like it happened with Microsoft in the past, I can totally understand why.
Having a right to do something is not incompatible with being greedy or even evil.
A peek into .iba files and a comparison with epub files evidences that Apple deliberately re-designed and implemented features in order to make the ibooks file format incompatible with industry standards. Again, while they are fully in their right to do this, this should be worrying to anyone who appreciates healthy competition and doesn't enjoy Microsoft-like monopolies. Ironically, this has happened with Apple being a member of the International Digital Publishing Forum, who manage the EPUB standard.
(This really smells like embrace-extend-extinguish to me.)
Perhaps what bugs me the most is that in spite of all this, no-one (AFAIK) has taken the time to provide an alternative tool which allows to create interactive ePub documents just as easily. It seems to me that Apple was first to do this "properly" (as it usually happens), and in this case there is no technical reason why it could not have been created 1 or 2 years ago by other industry leaders - I have used iBooks Author and it isn't much more than a glorified presentation editor.
It's still equivalent to saying that if I make a PDF with Adobe Acrobat that I can only distribute it through Adobe's services. Or that I write a Word DOC that can only be hosted on a Microsoft service.
Proprietary formats already have deeply annoying lock-in, this is taking it one step too far.
Whats the hubub over fancy document formats which reinvent the wheel. Compressed postscript is fine.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Isn't this the same as the complaints about the GPL being too restrictive? You're offered a tool that is free as long as you abide by the license (no option for a paid version with fewer restrictions for this tool). If you don't like the restrictions, don't use the tool. Big deal.
We need a converter to get .ibook to EPUB. If the InDesign upgrade adds everything Author does then I'm happy but the odds of that are zero. I'd be less concerned but they don't support iPhone or Portrait mode. If I could get the files open in InDesign I could potentially add that support so long as it didn't break the structure of the .ibook file. Unfortunately even Sigil doesn't support it so there's zero tweaking of the files. I'm guessing we are a year away from Author doing all the basics like iPhone and Portrait support. The rest is getting close.
is legally restricted to not be used for commercial purposes--in nearly exactly the same way that iBook Author is. I assume you are going to start protesting that now?
Isn't this the same as the complaints about the GPL being too restrictive? You're offered a tool that is free as long as you abide by the license (no option for a paid version with fewer restrictions for this tool). If you don't like the restrictions, don't use the tool. Big deal.
There are a lot of differences between a piece of software licensed under the GPL and under this license from Apple. Things like who can create or distribute derivative works, restrictions on what you can produce using the tool, what you can do with the tool (e.g. share it, copy it), and where you distribute the output.
But let's make this really simple. Here's the big difference:
The license from Apple was designed to retain control over both the software and the content created with the software, and to place that control in the hands of Apple. I mean, that's what it's saying, right?
The license from Apple wasn't designed to empower the content creator. It wasn't designed to empower the content consumer. It was designed by a profit-driven corporation (Apple) to create and establish a locked-in market of creators and users that would be tied to Apple's software and Apple's market.
And oh wait, did I mention that Apple wants to do this with our education system? With our textbooks? Who in their right mind would think it was a good idea to put more restrictions on that?
The GPL was designed as a clever hack on copyright to empower people to create and share software and to empower the recipients of GPL-licensed software to share the original software and derivative works thereof in a "share-alike" commons. It was specifically designed to pass along to end users (who might also be creators/modifiers) the rights necessary for them to share and distribute their work, and making sure that they retain those rights, even if the upstream authors "change their minds" and wish later to rescind distribution rights based on use purpose, distribution mechanism, etc...
I mean, look: Apple might be a powerful and well-staffed company. And it might make amazing tools in both hardware and software, but the question I think that we all need to be asking ourselves is whether it's ethical to support a company that is encouraging people to create their own content in a manner that prevents them from distributing that content without a permission slip from Apple. And it doesn't just stop there -- is the IBA file format even open at all? Is Apple going to sue us if we try to write/read the file format without using their software under their terms?
How about this: If any big company wants to create a new file format, they publish a spec of the file format, along with a copyright/patent license, somewhere easy-to-find on their website. Someplace like www.big-company.com/fileformats/newformat/v1/{format_v1.blah, format_v1_license.blah, ..} would be nice, but I'd settle for just a few docs that could be (1) indexed by google, (2) slurped up by archive.org.
coding is life
It's equivalent to saying that if you want to sell an iBook on the Apple iBook store to be consumed on Apple iDevices, you may use this tool. That's the purpose of this file format and authoring tool. The purpose is not to create a new interoperable format. It's equivalent to saying that if you want to program a widget for the HyperFridge 3000, you have to learn and write it in VisiFoo++ 3.4 and compile it to ProprietyARMBinaryCode 25E, which will only run on HyperFridge compatible devices. The EULA is limiting because the purpose of the tool is limited.
Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
> What's there to complain about?
When Microsoft does it, It's A Trap. When Apple does it, "It's a Walled Garden" which sounds positive in the sense of perhaps being more secure or promoting higher quality.
And it's true. Apple looking at the source code of apps sold on its store make me feel safer. I wouldn't be looking for a firewall for my iPhone as quickly as I am now for my HTC. And Apple makes good products; I love my MacBook Pro. An iPad is a useful device.
But look at what happens with iTunes and music. How do you share iTunes purchases made by two family members in a family with more than five PCs, iPhones and iPads? I'm not sure I solved that question on winter vacation for my own family.
I am not aware if Apple does this, but I am sure I don't want the same thing to happen for books or for it even to be possible.
Do you want books to be redefined as proprietary bits of code? How do you make libraries?
The scheme is designed to make another Walled Garden. It is not "just a proprietary platform, they are honest about it." It is in fact a spearhead aimed at students under the guise of "lower priced textbooks" while requiring the use of expensive technology and purchase through them alone. So it is the opposite of Open Courseware a la MIT.
In other words, Apple could pay professors to write books for their Walled Garden but they are not contributing to general education due to artificial limitations on ability to sell and distribute them. Apple is making most of their money now not by making tools but by controlling sales and distribution. I feel it is highly inappropriate for the manufacturer of my computer to attempt to tell me where and how I can sell products I make with it.
Yes, Apple will use this to draw authors and publishers to their Walled Garden. The combination of a proprietary format, a closed storefront, and a closed platform will still be enticing based on simple economics - it may be easiest to sell there. As titles accumulate at lower prices than for printed books, it will look better and better regardless of content quality or accessibility in terms of academic freedom. It might have a good effect in terms of lightening the economic burden on students and making it easier to carry books around.
But No, it is not acceptable to paint this as being altruistic or as supporting scholarship. It is not just a proprietary format and free tool. It also includes poisonous restrictions on what you do with the creations. It is very clearly an attempt to corner the publishing market and to poison publications from the point of authorship by making it difficult or illegal to stray from their store. In particular there are many schools that are spending huge amounts of money to introduce iPads. That books could be produced for these devices and not be available to students who do not have iPads is neither ethical nor to be allowed. I believe there is a huge danger that a company which is making billions upon billions of dollars through sales of music copyright could destroy open scholarship by attempting to roll over the next closest market it has not yet occupied, which is academic publishing: an industry which has a strong impact on how the next generation thinks.