Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 3, 2012 @11:59AM from the internet-gets-mad-when-you-get-grabby dept.

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."

34 of 144 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Which was always obvious. by BasilBrush · 2012-02-03 12:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hands up all those people who didn't already realise that's what it meant.
1. Re:Which was always obvious. by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-02-03 12:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Hands up all those people who didn't already realise that's what it meant.
  I thought they were laying a trap so the next time an author republished the work Apple could sue them. /sarcasm
2. Re:Which was always obvious. by DogDude · 2012-02-03 12:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ambiguity, when it comes to working with a litigious company, is not a good thing.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
3. Re:Which was always obvious. by iluvcapra · 2012-02-03 12:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What one knows it means and what one claims it means are two different things. The "Apple hates us for our freedom" crowd never really cared what was meant, it was just another club to troll with.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
4. Re:Which was always obvious. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-02-03 12:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  As opposed to all those big-name companies that never file lawsuits. For example,
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
5. Re:Which was always obvious. by bhagwad · 2012-02-03 12:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's still ridiculous. Imagine if the EULA of an IDE like Eclipse were to demand that any programs compiled using it have to give a cut to the creators of Eclipse!
  
  I'm not saying it's illegal. It's just that Apple is a jerk for doing it.
6. Re:Which was always obvious. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-02-03 12:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Apple doesn't want to provide a free tool to be used for producing ebooks on competing platforms. I fail to see how that's being a "jerk". It's called running a business.
  Don't like it? Don't use iBooks Author.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
7. Re:Which was always obvious. by snowgirl · 2012-02-03 12:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Ambiguity, when it comes to working with a litigious company, is not a good thing.
  Ambiguity, when dealing with a boilerplate contract, is always interpreted as strictly against the drafting party as possible...
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
8. Re:Which was always obvious. by BasilBrush · 2012-02-03 12:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Imagine if Microsoft said "We don't own the content of your document, but if we find any of your *.docx files being offered anywhere other than approved Microsoft partner's shop, we will sue you into the ground."
  Microsoft charges for Word. A general purpose word processing program. They sell it for all the things that WPs are expected to do. Create word processor files, print then and/or share them freely. If they didn't, no one would buy it.
  Apple doesn't charge for iBooks Author. It's a specific tool for preparing eBooks for the iBooks store from source content files. It could have been implemented as a web-app on the author section of their iBooks Store. But a native app means they can make it better and give it more features.
  You can imagine anything you like, but the two are not equivalent.
9. Re:Which was always obvious. by gnasher719 · 2012-02-03 12:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Somehow we're not supposed to still be outraged over this?
  I'll compare two products: iBooks Author and Microsoft Office, Home Edition.
  
  iBooks Author: It is free. The restriction is that documents in the native iBook format, created with iBooks Author, may not be sold for money except through Apple. Microsoft Office, Home Edition: It costs real money. The restriction is that no commercial use of the software is allowed.
  
  Let's compare the licenses: iBooks Author is free, and it disallows one specific commercial use of the software: Selling documents in iBook format, created with iBooks Author, without going through Apple. Many other commercial uses are allowed, and so are all non-commercial uses. Microsoft Office, Home Edition: The software costs money, and it disallows _all_ commercial use of the software. So it is more expensive, and more restrictive.
  
  Where were the complaints about Microsoft Office, Home Edition?
10. Re:Which was always obvious. by BasilBrush · 2012-02-03 12:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Jerk" doesn't quite cover it. I believe terms such as "evil" and "monopolistic" should also be applied.
  Please explain in what way anyone is worse off now than the day before iBooks Author was released. In the absence of a compelling answer, how on earth does the word "evil" apply? It's ignorance of the first order.
11. Re:Which was always obvious. by bhagwad · 2012-02-03 12:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Why on earth should Apple spend significant amounts of money to develop a free tool...
  Because that's what "nice" companies do. And I like doing business with "nice" companies. Google for example makes my life easier for free with great tools and so I don't mind buying from them when I have to.
  
  Since Apple isn't a "nice" company, I avoid doing business with them. Simple.
12. Re:Which was always obvious. by Karlt1 · 2012-02-03 13:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But then they make it next to impossible to get something on the iBookStore anyway
  http://www.macnews.com/2010/08/10/gregs-bite-how-publish-apple-ibook
  
  Book content requirements: ISBNs for all titles you intend to distribute. You must be able to deliver your book content in EPUB format, passing EpubCheck 1.0.5.
  Financial requirements: A US tax ID, a valid iTunes Store account, with a credit card on file. .....
  You must have an ISBN number issued for your book and you should reserve the title (see #1 and #2 below). Getting a bar code might also be a good idea. You must have a unique ISBN number for each book you post to the iBooks store. If you look at the jacket on any book, you will notice a ISBN number. It costs 25 for each ISBN number for each book. That unique number identifies your book in a giant data base along with the author's name, date of being published, title etc. You apply for a ISBN number at the following URL: http://www.isbn.org/standards/home/isbn/us/application.asp .
  You can get a book title registered to prevent confusion by having an identical title with another book by going to: http://www.bowkerlink.com/corrections/common/home.asp . This is free.
  You may also get a special bar code from the same web site at the following link: http://www.bowkerbarcode.com/barcode/ .
13. Re:Which was always obvious. by DragonWriter · 2012-02-03 13:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Google has an incredible track record so far.
  Their child company Motorola, on the other hand...
  Motorola isn't a Google child company. Motorola Mobility is a company which Google has agreed to purchase from Motorola, but the purchase has not yet been completed.
14. Re:Which was always obvious. by snowgirl · 2012-02-03 13:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Are you saying that's the way it works in practise? Not saying it isn't, and hoping that it is, but I thought your justice system was completely wack, in practise.
  Yes, this is the way it works in practice in US Common Law.
  US law might be whacked, but it's still not really any more whacked than UK law. I mean, at least here the truth is an absolute defense to defamation.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
15. Re:Which was always obvious. by BasilBrush · 2012-02-03 13:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because that's what "nice" companies do.
  No it's not. Companies act to make a profit. Not to be nice. All that differs is their business model for making money out of their activities.
  
  Google for example makes my life easier for free with great tools and so I don't mind buying from them when I have to.
  They just have a different business model. They make their money on advertising. That's why they provide those tools. Not because they are nice.
  BTW, there's no Santa Claus either. Sorry about that.
16. Re:Which was always obvious. by bhagwad · 2012-02-03 14:25 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, a person is nice by their actions in totality. I like doing business with Google and I trust Google because they're nice. So "nice" IS a viable business model if it gains the trust of your customers.
17. Re:Which was always obvious. by Grishnakh · 2012-02-03 14:41 · Score: 2
  
  Well of course, we inherited this whacked Common Law system from those morons. We should have given them the finger in yet another way back in 1776 and adopted French Civil Code (or whatever the French were using at the time, as Napoleon hadn't quite come along yet to make his revisions). The idea of a court system where the judges and the lawyers are two entirely separate professions, going to two separate schools, makes a lot of sense when you see the shenanigans going on in the US legal system.
18. Re:Which was always obvious. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 14:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That wouldn't be unprecedented. Numerous free web hosting services and some other types (youtube type things etc.) had clauses in their terms of service that using their service involved relinquishing your copyright to anything you'd put up in their service. Apple's greedy enough that they would concievably do that.
19. Re:Which was always obvious. by BasilBrush · 2012-02-03 14:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sorry, a person is nice by their actions in totality. I like doing business with Google and I trust Google because they're nice. So "nice" IS a viable business model if it gains the trust of your customers.
  You like doing business with Google. Lots of people like doing business with Apple. So what?
  "Nice" isn't a business model. It's hardly even a worthwhile adjective.
20. Re:Which was always obvious. by bhagwad · 2012-02-03 14:59 · Score: 2
  
  You like doing business with Google. Lots of people like doing business with Apple. So what?
  Apple can get even more customers by being nice. Being nice never drove anyone away. But by doing stuff like this, launching frivolous patent wars etc, Apple fails the "nice" test. So it loses a chance to get even more customers. So simple no?
21. Re:Which was always obvious. by hairyfeet · 2012-02-03 15:33 · Score: 2
  
  Actually there would be an easy way to fix it, in both criminal and civil, but it would take away power from the uberrich so it'd never fly. Simply have both side pay into a common fund which is split equally to pay for the two sides lawyers. no paying anything other than one half of the fund. this would discourage using "dream team" lawyers because by spending that outrageous amount you would also be giving the other side an equal amount. As it is now both the rich and the state can use virtually unlimited funds to SLAPP away any threat to their power by simply dragging the case out until the poorer side goes broke. Sadly this goes on all to often and I've seen it first hand when a friend with a small business was royally fucked by quite obviously illegal tactics by an ISP who said "Just try and sue us". His lawyer told him "Sure you'll win, no doubt there, but by the time they are done dragging this through the system you'll be looking at the better part of a decade and close to a million dollars in legal fees over the length of the case" so he just walked away. If both sides had to pay into a fund that was split equally then dragging it out would give no advantage since you would be increasing the opponents resources as well. But as I said that would mean the 1% would actually have to argue cases on their merits and we can't have that now can we?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
22. Re:Which was always obvious. by beelsebob · 2012-02-03 20:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Apple: Give you free tool because they want content for their store.
  Google: Give you free tool because they want your personal details and information on everything you're doing.
  You may prefer the terms of the latter free tool, but that doesn't make them being "nice", it makes them another company, with another motive for giving you a free tool.
23. Re:Which was always obvious. by torako · 2012-02-03 21:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This comparison doesn't hold. Microsoft extended HTML with their own tags and called the result HTML which was an attempt to force it into whatever direction Microsoft wanted it to go without going through standard bodies and while conveniently leaving other browsers behind.
  Apple on the other hand took the epub format and extended it but is very clear on the result not being an epub but a new proprietary format. They make this extremely clear by even defining a new MIME type and a file extension that is different.
24. Re:Which was always obvious. by Oligonicella · 2012-02-04 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  "wouldn't be unprecedented", "Numerous free...services", "Apple's greedy"
  
  You're just full of empirical type information, aren't you.
Unreal by whisper_jeff · 2012-02-03 12:12 · Score: 2

I still find it absolutely mind-boggling that anyone thought Apple was claiming rights to the content...
Wow by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-03 12:15 · Score: 2, Informative

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)
Worth noting by Superken7 · 2012-02-03 12:22 · Score: 4, 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.
1. Re:Worth noting by Nerdfest · 2012-02-03 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  It's similar to what they did with FaceTime, isn't it? For that one I'm under the impression they extended XMPP. At least they didn't claim they were going to make it an open standard this time and then advertise heavily that it's only between Apple devices.
2. Re:Worth noting by aristotle-dude · 2012-02-03 12:41 · Score: 2
  
  How is it greedy or evil if the authoring tool is "free" and that you are not required to sell the book for a price? The tool is offered "FREE" with certain terms and conditions and if you don't like it then don't use it.
  I get the distinct impression that you have never written software for money because addition features like exporting to other formats costs money to develop and to test and maintain that code over time.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
3. Re:Worth noting by frinkster · 2012-02-03 15:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  It's pretty amazing that someone can come to this conclusion based on a comparison of the output files. Really?
  The iPad 2 has outstanding graphics performance compared to other tablets despite the graphics chip having similar or less processing power. They control both the hardware and software, allowing them to optimize the hell out of it.
  In this case, Apple controls the file format, the display software, AND the display hardware. And your conclusion is that Apple deliberately redesigned and implemented features to make sure it was incompatible with industry standards? How about a performance comparison? Until proven otherwise, this is just Apple optimizing the hell out of it to get maximum performance on the iPad.
  You know, being the anti-fanboy is just as bad as being the fanboy.
4. Re:Worth noting by Sneeka2 · 2012-02-03 15:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  Please point to any material released by Apple that advertises in any way that .ibook files are epub files in any way, shape or form. I'll wait.
  Apple does not claim to be compatible with anything. This isn't a bait and switch. It's Apple releasing a proprietary tool for you to author a proprietary file format to be sold on a proprietary distribution platform to be consumed on proprietary devices. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. To the contrary, the EULA explicitly says so. What's there to complain about?
  Oh, you were hoping for a selfless deed of good and Apple to release a great, free authoring tool for the epub format that would make the world a better place and cure cancer. I guess you were also hoping for the iPhone 5 instead of the 4S. Sorry to disappoint.
  
  --
  Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
5. Re:Worth noting by Superken7 · 2012-02-04 12:25 · Score: 2
  
  When did I say that they somehow were falsely advertising or tricking customers into thinking those were actually ePub files? I didn't.
  They did, however, decide to base their file format *very heavily* on ePub3, and change it in a way that will make it incompatible, without submitting their changes to the International Digital Publishing Forum (who maintain the ePub file format on which the ibooks file format is heavily based).
  Yes, actually, I would expect from a big company such as Apple who is a member of the International Digital Publishing Forum. Especially when they are selling this as a way of reshaping education and school textbooks.
  Repeat with me: I'm not saying that they *must* contribute to standards, only that I think it is greedy of them not to do so, considering the circumstances and their competitive advantage.
Re:This doesn't address it at all. Still ridiculou by Sneeka2 · 2012-02-03 20:30 · Score: 2

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...