Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

venomousporridge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#61

Post by unavoidable »

mkr-hn wrote: post #46

Someone with legal expertise should go over this looking for something that's less obviously harmful. I can't imagine Apple's legal team not realizing this would come out.

That's the thing - they probably did look over it. The EULA clause may or may not be bad business, but that doesn't make it unenforceable. There doesn't look to be anything that is legally out of place here. By agreeing to use the iBooks Author software you are agreeing to those terms - it's a contract. That's been settled law for a while now.

The only reason it would be unenforceable is if the terms are unreasonable. Unreasonable is pretty specifically defined in the common law, and it doesn't just mean that you and I don't like it.

In this particular context you would probably have to prove that there is economic duress, which might be a valid argument if Apple owned a monopoly on all textbook producing software and electronic textbook sales - which as of right now, they don't.

So barring something else more monstrous lurking in the EULA I'm not convinced that anything can be done about it (in court).

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#62

Post by ootachi »

nirvana wrote: post #34
thetrendycyborg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can charge for the software. What he's talking about is if you produce a thing, no matter how you produce it, you have the right to determine what you want to do with that product. No one can say this tool must be used in this way so we make money. If they need to make money off the tool, they should be charging for it in some way.

>What he's talking about is if you produce a thing, no matter how you produce it, you have the right to determine what you want to do with that product. The thing produced here is a derivative work that contains Apple created code and content. Taking your words and changing the context produces this: "if you produce a [some software], no matter how you produce it, [or who elses code you include with it.] you have the…

So Microsoft should own the rights to distribute Harry Potter because it was composed with Word? After all, J.K. Rowling surely benefited from Word's spell checker.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#63

Post by Erwin »

dman wrote: post #5
nirvana wrote: post #4

Over 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…

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.

gcc uses a special library (outside of the C library) called libgcc with some builtin functions (I don't recall what's left there these days -- floating point stuff, 64-bit long long support on non-64 bit platforms?)

That library -- per definition part of GCC -- had to be explicitly made exempt from gcc's GPL license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html otherwise yes, all your compiled code would have to be distributed using GPL.

For a long while RMS blocked adding plugins to gcc because he though that would allow proprietary vendors to violate the spirit of GPL.

I'd expect other languages that compile to binary code to fare even worse here -- gcc is better at separating its helper library -- but I'm not sure what other compilers than gcc are GPL'ed.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#64

Post by ryanwhitney »

phillmv wrote: post #37
ryanwhitney wrote: post #16

I'm not seeing why this is so unreasonable, if someone could fill me in. The program is for creating iBooks, not eBooks, to be sold through their iBookstore. I'm seeing these more as apps than something like .ePub files or .PDFs. Unlike apps though, which require an developer license to load yourself, Author gives anyone the ability to run these books on your iPad. It also gives anyone the ability to distribute an iB…

The icky feeling comes from the hypothetical transitivity of such an agreement. It seems like a great way to bootstrap a pseudo-feudal obligation system. What if everything you made with the OS was similarly hindered? Launch an auto update that effectively bricks your device unless you agree to the new EULA, blah blah nightmare scenario here. Less hyperbolically, it's like the first concrete step into killing the fre…

I'm just guessing here, but if you write a textbook and get published by a traditional publisher (McGraw-Hill, etc.), they probably disallow you from creating a copy of that same book and selling it for $5 from your own marketplace. They check it for quality, help create the physical book, and put their name on it. They even have some ownership. I'm simply seeing Apple as a publishing partner here. They're helping you create the book and distribute it, and with that agreement you're bound to certain limitations, such as a percentage they'll take for distribution (surely less than what a traditional publisher would take).

You can play the slippery slope card all you want, and try to apply what we're seeing to all other applications, but I don't see anything to back it up.

Regarding remote wipe. I have no idea if that's in the iBookstore EULA, and haven't found a thing about it. My guess is like apps, you'll have to confirm and download the update yourself. In fact, when apps are taken off the app store, you still get to keep them, whereas Android apps have a kill switch. Have you seen anything that implies remote wipe capabilities?

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#65

Post by makomk »

eridius wrote: post #35
dman wrote: post #5

Earlier 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…

As far as I recall, the GPLv3 has two different anti-DRM restrictions, neither of which does what you say it does. The first restriction is that if you include GPLv3 code in certain kinds of consumer hardware and it accepts firmware updates, you must give the end users any keys that are required to install and run their own modified version of that code. The second restriction is intended to exempt any DRM system based around GPLv3 code from anti-circumvention laws. There's no restriction on compiler output that I'm aware of.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#66

Post by Turing_Machine »

timwiseman wrote: post #52
Turing_Machine wrote: post #31

Earlier 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…

Many of the people who have created GPL (not LGPL) libraries would disagree. Strongly.

These files don't just contain "formatting information". They contain actual executable code created by Apple. Apple's claim lies on the distribution of their code, not your content per se. They can put any restrictions on the distribution of their code that they want, whether we like it or not (and I don't particularly like it myself). They're not claiming ownership of your essay. They're claiming ownership over the code they wrote, which their system uses to display it. Not the same thing.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#67

Post by fleitz »

Use iBooks Author to generate works for iBooks use another tool to generate works for other media.

IANAL but I don't think they're saying that if you use iBooks Author to make your work available for iBooks and use amazon's tools to make your work available for Kindle that you'd owe Apple a cut of your Kindle revenue.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#68

Post by alexqgb »

If the cost of using the software is giving up clear title to your work, then it's a very high cost indeed. A deal that big needs to be advertised - boldly - up front, not buried in the ELUA, then popping up after you've committed time and effort to a work.

I can understand them saying that wanting to use the Apple store means giving them the same 30% cut that they charge for in-app subscriptions, and demanding that you adjust your prices on all other platforms to remain competitive. That's hardball, to be sure, but it respects the integrity of ownership.

This, on the other hand, is the same pattern that gets people hauled in on anti-trust charges. They're not a monopoly (yet), but I have a hard time seeing how this extraordinary claim of ownership in the work of others is anything less than the type of platform-abuse the anti-trust law specifically bans.

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#69

Post by Turing_Machine »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #66
timwiseman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Many of the people who have created GPL (not LGPL) libraries would disagree. Strongly. These files don't just contain "formatting information". They contain actual executable code created by Apple. Apple's claim lies on the distribution of their code, not your content per se. They can put any restrictions on the distribution of their code that they want, whether we like it or not (and I don't particularly like it mys…

Suppose I create a Javascript library. I own the copyright, yes? No one can use it without my permission, yes? Now suppose I say in the license "Anyone can use this for free, but you have to include a link to my website". There are tons of libraries and code snippets with this restriction.

What you, and others, are claiming is that this type of license has no legal effect. That's clearly wrong.

Let's not confuse the two issues of whether it's a good idea for Apple to do this (it isn't) and whether they're legally allowed to do it (they clearly are).

Re: The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

#70

Post by Natsu »

nirvana wrote: post #32
naner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being upset at this restriction is perfectly reasonable. It is intended to keep authors/editors artificially locked into Apple's products and distribution system. Imagine how you would feel about similar restrictions on other production tools (Photoshop, Visual Studio, Word, Garage Band, etc.) and you would immediately see this is shitty behavior. Though I do agree with what you are saying: people have a choice not t…

>It is intended to keep authors/editors artificially locked into Apple's products and distribution system. There is no artificial lock in. They are providing a tool to produce content for their distribution system. That's its point. The comparison to general purpose tools isn't relevant. Consider if this tool, like iAd Producer, had no ability to export in a format outside of Apple's proprietary one. Would you still…

> As for "unfair", it seems that you're the one who is being unfair. You are taking the position that they should provide you tools for free to do what you want in any way you want.

I don't read it that way at all. I think they want to be properly informed (fine print not counting as "properly"), because they intend to avoid any platform that does this entirely.

Post reply on HN