Apple changes iBooks Author EULA after criticism

[Katsunami]

This was reported on the Dutch news website www.nu.nl:

Apple changes iBooks Author EULA after criticism

I'll translate the article below:

After much criticism, Apple has changed the EULA of iBooks Author. It now states much clearer that Apple does not become the owner of the content that is made with iBooks Author.

When iBooks Author appeared last month, it caused a lot of commotion. According to bloggers and copyright experts, the EULA stated that Apple would become owner of the contents of the iBooks. According to Apple this is not the case, and therefore, the EULA has been changed.

It now clearly states that the book may be published on multiple platforms, as long as the iBook format (emphasis mine) may not be distributed anywhere else but through Apple. If the book is converted to a PDF file, then it may be sold anywhere, and Apple will not demand to be paid a part of the profits.

"You will keep all the rights to your own works", says Apple, in the new EULA.

The company released iBooks in Januari. It should be possible to use the software to easily create eBooks yourself.

I think that this rewrite is fine: Apple seems to explicitly state that you can do whatever you want with iBooks Author and the non-iBook formats it can output, as long as you don't sell the iBook format version anywhere else except for the Apple store.

I can live with that.

[KevinH]

I can't!

Imagine if Microsoft told authors that if they use Word to create their book, then can only sell it through the Microsoft bookstore, but as long as you save it as simple "text" ( ie no fancy formatting ) you are free to use that simple text version as you see fit.

I would tell Microsoft to go to hell! Just as I am tellin Apple to go to hell today.

Sad what people are willing to accept in license agreements.

KevinH

Originally Posted by Katsunami

This was reported on the Dutch news website www.nu.nl:

Apple changes iBooks Author EULA after criticism

I'll translate the article below:



I think that this rewrite is fine: Apple seems to explicitly state that you can do whatever you want with iBooks Author and the non-iBook formats it can output, as long as you don't sell the iBook format version anywhere else except for the Apple store.

I can live with that.

[heySkippy]

I can live with it, too.

[frahse]

I don't see this affecting me. I have very familiar tried and proven tools that work fine, and I don't see the necessity of moving to the Apple platform given what I know about its "authoring" capability.

That said, I might just try it out briefly sometime in the future to at least see if I am missing something I just don't know about. (I am not such an old dog that I can't try a few new tricks.)

Still from what I have read, you might "author" a book, using such capabilities that come with the process and then export it. The question in my mind is whether the exported file retains enough value besides just the text to make it worth while to work in the format to begin with. The only way to really know this is to do it.

Perhaps someone at this forum could be the canary in the Apple mine and test out the air for us?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Sad what people are willing to accept in license agreements.

KevinH

Apple only ever creates stuff that runs on other Apple stuff and it can only be bought through their store. It's their normal modus operandi. I won't buy anything from Apple because of it, but I'm not against it. I have no problem with it that they want to keep their format to themselves. Now as opposed to the previous EULA, you can use ibooks author to create books and sell them anywhere, as long as it's not in the ibooks format.

If ibooks author is still useful when doing so is for everybody to decide on their own.

Still, I an of the opinion (as stated in the "sabotaging" thread) that they should have helped to flesh out epub3 more, and use that, but it's another discussion.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by frahse

(I am not such an old dog that I can't try a few new tricks.)

Said the man who proudly fought for the Union Army.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Said the man who proudly fought for the Union Army.

My friend as time passes many things that are not strictly true become accepted "folk lore."

In this case the "blue" and the "gray" have become synonymous with the North and the South in the American Civil War, but that was not actually the case.

Here is a simple explanation:

"The uniforms of the Civil War helped distinguish between the Union soldiers of the North, and the Confederate soldiers from the south. But early in the war, uniforms were provided by states, towns and wealthy individuals. This resulted in a confusing variety of styles and colors on both sides. Over time, blue became the official color for the North and gray for the Confederate uniforms."

http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahis...r/uniforms.htm

The gallant soldier I use for my avatar is Thomas Jonathan Jackson.
History recalls him as "Stonewall Jackson."
He fought valiantly for the South, but please do not confuse my love of the history and traditions of my birthplace and stomping grounds with any politics. I also admire greatly the Northern General William Tecumseh Sherman.

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Imagine if Microsoft told authors that if they use Word to create their book, then can only sell it through the Microsoft bookstore

I'm pretty sure the Microsoft Word Home Edition EULA says you can't sell the output from the software at all. Anywhere. This because you're not allowed (by EULA) to use the software for a business.

[KevinH]

Hi,

The version of Office I have makes no such claim. You can read the Office 2010 EULA online (Google it) and see that the only thing they prohibit selling is the media elements (built-in clipart, sounds, music) IF and only IF the primary purpose of the document is to simply sell those media elements.

Here is the direct quote:

"You may copy and use the media elements in projects and documents. You may not (i) sell, license or distribute copies of the media elements by themselves or as a product if the primary value of the product is the media elements"

Originally Posted by heySkippy

I'm pretty sure the Microsoft Word Home Edition EULA says you can't sell the output from the software at all. Anywhere. This because you're not allowed (by EULA) to use the software for a business.

So the Apple iBooks EULA is still a horrible license, even after the change.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by frahse

The gallant soldier I use for my avatar is Thomas Jonathan Jackson.
History recalls him as "Stonewall Jackson."

Ahhh, it certainly looks like a blue uniform to me though, hence the mistake. Alas, who could forget the second battle at Bull Run. I believe he was killed by what in today's parlance is an oxymoron; "friendly fire".

I'm less concerned about the implications of the EULA than I was before, because it really did sound like Apple owned everything (except, perhaps, assets created outside of the program), but I still wouldn't use the product.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

This was reported on the Dutch news website www.nu.nl:

Apple changes iBooks Author EULA after criticism

I'll translate the article below:



I think that this rewrite is fine: Apple seems to explicitly state that you can do whatever you want with iBooks Author and the non-iBook formats it can output, as long as you don't sell the iBook format version anywhere else except for the Apple store.

I can live with that.

That was always my understanding (that you could give the content away, but that they retain commercial rights). I don't think the clarification really makes anyone who wasn't happy before more happy about it.

Some questions I still have are:

what if someone creates a toolchain that outputs ibooks format, but doesn't involve iBooks Author? Does iBooks (or iTunes Producer) check for some secret key that would prevent this from working? Or would they care?

What if someone creates an app for, say, Android (or Windows, Mac OS), that can open and view .ibooks files? Will Apple object?

In other words, do they explicitly claim rights for the format itself?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Ahhh, it certainly looks like a blue uniform to me though, hence the mistake. Alas, who could forget the second battle at Bull Run. I believe he was killed by what in today's parlance is an oxymoron; "friendly fire".

He was killed at Chancellorsville. Mr. Jackson made his reputation at the FIRST Bull Run, says Civil War history pedant.
As for Apple's EULA change, it shows a welcome willingness to change in the face of criticism . Those who still don't like the change were probably never going to work with Apple anyway.
I look forward to some amazing ebooks created by what most reviewers agree is a superior tool for creating enhanced ebooks.

[wannabee]

Originally Posted by KevinH

I can't!

[...] I would tell Microsoft to go to hell! Just as I am tellin Apple to go to hell today.

Sad what people are willing to accept in license agreements. [...]

KevinH

Author's iBook format is the only format Apple demands rights over and only if you are selling it. It can't be used anywhere else but Apple's iBook app. on an Apple product. So if you aren't targeting Apple's iBook demographic you're giving yourself a headache over a potential audience that doesn't exist. If you're targeting the iBook demographic you'll be paying the same price with or without AUTHOR but have a free tool (unlike other programs mentioned)that write enhanced iBook files for free. Not ePubs, not word docs, not excel spreadsheets . . . . enhanced iBook files.....for FREE.

Originally Posted by tomsem

[...] what if someone creates a toolchain that outputs ibooks format, but doesn't involve iBooks Author? Does iBooks (or iTunes Producer) check for some secret key that would prevent this from working? Or would they care?

Good question and I'm sure Apple does care.

What if someone creates an app for, say, Android (or Windows, Mac OS), that can open and view .ibooks files? Will Apple object?

In other words, do they explicitly claim rights for the format itself?

C'mon . . . this is Apple we're talking about. They'll do what they can to protect their patch. But you have to ask first, "Why would someone create an app for iBooks when you could create an app for epub3 which should be abe to do what iBooks does now with the exception of actually sticking by the code?" If Adobe isn't working on this already then we'll have a long wait for new eReaders to catch up to Apple's bells and whistles.

[RainingLemur]

What's the difference between the iBooks format and epub, anyhow?