Don't see the problem here. The app makes iBooks—not eBooks. The iBookstore sells both iBooks and eBooks. Publishers can sell their book in iBook or eBook format. If you want to sell iBooks which only works on iOS, you have to go through the iBookstore. Nothing prevents them from selling eBooks instead.
The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
51–60 of 143 posts
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah I see where our difference in opinion originates from - you look at the book outputted by the tool as a derived work. I must admit I never conceived of this possibility, and I am still trying to digest it. I wonder how many authors who use Apple's product will realise that after two years of hard work to create a manuscript, just by hitting publish the outputted object will not wholly belong to them.
The generated book contains Apple's code. It's definitely a derivative work. That said, a person would be foolish to write the entire book using this. Write your text and create your graphics in your editors of choice, import them into this tool to create a nice layout for the iBookstore, then import them into another tool to create a nice layout for Kindle or whatever. You might have to do that anyway -- I've yet to…
No, I do not think it would be a derivative work, at least not in the way the term is normally used.
For an anology, consider MS Word. When I create a document using MS Word and save it in one of Words native formats, this file includes all sorts of information generated by MS code and includes MS specific formatting information. That does not, in any traditional meaning of the word, mean that my essay is a derivative work of MS Word.
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#53Over the years I've seen a large volume of creative software, often free, that is used to produce output, that requires, as part of its license, that you give the creator of the software a cut if you sell any of the things you make with it. This includes everything that is "free for non-commercial use", such as, if I recall correctly, Blender (in the past), most of the Free Fonts out there, and a lot of free software…
You make some excellent points. However, there is room to critize Apple for not making that particular clause absolutely crystal clear instead of merely including it in a EULA which the vast majority of users will never look at.
Also, while your anology to the FSF is technically correct, I think it is safe to say that the FSF as currently governed would not do that. So, while your point is valid, it is a bit misleading to identify them by name.
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#54I think this guy is wrong. He's mixing apples and oranges when it comes to who owns what. Apple is requiring people who use its software to create an e-book to give Apple a cut of the proceeds of the Apple created e-book . The author still owns his or her content. If you want to sell your book, just don't sell the form of the book made by Apple's software. You can still sell a PDF, for example. Or you can sell your W…
Indeed, there's a new ebook-production service (still in beta) named Vook which aims to give authors the ability to produce ebooks in all the major ebook formats, including EPUB, Amazon's formats, and now whatever Apple calls their new iBooks 2 format. An author would use Vook's software, not Apple's, so the iBooks Author EULA wouldn't apply. Smashwords offers a conversion service similar to Vook's, and is much older. (Disclosure: I have no association with Vook or Smashwords. I've just been researching the ebook industry recently.)
Ref: http://www.vook.com/blog/2012/01/ibooks-2-another-opportunit...
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#55I recently thought a lot about the relationship between user input and program output and what implications the transformations performed by the program have on the copyright. Consider a heavy optimizing compiler: The program you feed into it will often be entirely different in terms of execution, but not result, from the user input. Some optimizations might even hide bugs that the original program might have had. At…
Actually, there is already precedent for these ideas in the copyright laws. The creative work is the input and mechanical transformation is not something that can be copyrighted in of itself. A compiler itself is a creative work. But the mechanical process of compiling a file is not a creative work. It seems pretty clear cut.
I imagine only true AI could hold the copyright to something -- and even than, the laws may currently be limited to human creativity.
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#56I think this guy is wrong. He's mixing apples and oranges when it comes to who owns what. Apple is requiring people who use its software to create an e-book to give Apple a cut of the proceeds of the Apple created e-book . The author still owns his or her content. If you want to sell your book, just don't sell the form of the book made by Apple's software. You can still sell a PDF, for example. Or you can sell your W…
[deleted]
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exact analogy in FSF terms which you were careful to avoid is - An executable created by a GPL compiler will have to be GPL licensed. This is where your analogy breaks down because this is explicitly not the case.
If I remember correctly, the GPLv3 license prohibits creating DRM'd content. Or more insidiously, a GPLv3-licensed compiler (e.g. recent GCC) cannot be used to produce an executable that contains DRM code without being in violation of the license, despite the fact that the executable itself is not covered under the GPL. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not willing to wade into the sea of legalese that is t…
From my understanding, you can create as much "DRM" code as you want, but you must provide the cryptographic key along with the source. This extends to the platform that the code runs on; for example, "Tivo" can't distribute a GPL3 binary in their set-top boxes, lock it down using a cryptographic signature, and fail to distribute the signing key.
It would be impractical for the GPL to determine what counts as DRM and what does not; so they merely require "free modification of the Software".
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the legal side. It’s still possible to be disgusted by this for purely moral reasons. Apple is pulling some vile bullshit here and they shouldn’t.
I was actually arguing the moral point. There's nothing immoral about setting the terms upon which you will trade your labor. Its the same as an employee deciding they want a higher salary or a lower one. The people who made this software give it away for free, under the understanding that it could be used by others who also give their work away fro free. What's wrong with that? But if people want to profit form it,…
You are being obtuse. It is immoral if you bury onerous terms (such as "you will give us the sole right to distribute your works") in an EULA that you know ordinary people have no hope of comprehending (such as this one).
For all the other examples you give, society generally knows the implied contract. These terms are not part of the contract that society expects from a free tool used to compose documents, and you know it.
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#59Initially I had an unfavorable opinion on this. But I started thinking about game engines: When you use the Unreal or Unity game engine authoring tools, you don't expect to be able to sell your game without giving the game engine company a cut. It might be a flat rate, but that's basically the same thing.
Apple are providing authoring tools for their "iBooks 2" engine and are not out of line expecting a cut of the profits...
Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The generated book contains Apple's code. It's definitely a derivative work. That said, a person would be foolish to write the entire book using this. Write your text and create your graphics in your editors of choice, import them into this tool to create a nice layout for the iBookstore, then import them into another tool to create a nice layout for Kindle or whatever. You might have to do that anyway -- I've yet to…
No, I do not think it would be a derivative work, at least not in the way the term is normally used. For an anology, consider MS Word. When I create a document using MS Word and save it in one of Words native formats, this file includes all sorts of information generated by MS code and includes MS specific formatting information. That does not, in any traditional meaning of the word, mean that my essay is a derivativ…
However, these textbooks are more than just formatted text. They're interactive; they are essentially a specialized website of sorts. You can include your own HTML and JS based 'widgets' and presumably use Apple's HTML/JS based widgets. The inclusion of Apple source code embedded in the book I believe would technically make the book a derivative in the way the term is normally used.
Whether I personally believe in my gut if it is right that these books be deemed derivatives is a separate issue.. ;)