12 ms·

The Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA

281 points by pooriaazimi 15y ago

rshm 15y ago
More of a precursor to apple centered DRM for books i would say. And as always apple using its market advantage on everything it touches.
- gurkendoktor 15y ago
  The iBookstore has always used DRM. I can easily see how DRM is the most economic options for eBooks right now - eBooks are more than $.99, so they needed a barrier between the internet's vast reservoir of PDFs and owning a pretty ePub file. (I still wouldn't buy DRM-ed books) But the article is about the authoring tool, and Apple was going to produce it. So they had two primary options to protect their interests: * Write an EULA and trust the law * Use DRM in all output or otherwise proprietary formats (and implicitly trust the law as a backup) I'm not saying we should be thankful for the EULA's wording, but for people who hate DRM for practical reasons, this is probably the best realistic outcome. If you hate DRM for ethical reasons and think that all content should be free, then be happy about a free tool and write content. Only if you wish you could use Apple's tool to make money on another platform, well you are out of luck. > And as always apple using its market advantage That must be a very limited 'always' :) I don't see how they abused the iPod's market domination much. The iPad is the only other product where they have an advantage in numbers, but I am not sure if that extends to the iBookstore at all.
  - gurkendoktor 15y ago
    > * Use DRM in all output or otherwise proprietary formats Oh well, I just discovered iBooks Author does use a proprietary format, not ePub. Then of course it is not as useful for authors of free content.
fleitz 15y ago
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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wazoox 15y ago
Hardly surprising coming from Apple. Gosh, that stinks nonetheless. On the other hand, this probably would be nullified by any reasonable court, wouldn't it?
nirvana 15y ago
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. Edit to add: This means everything under the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. There is a huge amount of content distributed this way. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ The iBooks Author Software is an Apple provided development tool specifically for the purpose of creating iBooks for the iBookstore. You can give your books away free in the iBookstore, and you can also, as you note, output the results in a variety of formats not suitable for the iBookstore. Those are a nice bonus. Sometimes I get the impression that people think that everything should be free, for any use, and that the people who create these free things should have no right (or that its "audacious" to exercise some right) over what terms on which they distribute these free tools they create. (Or maybe only the "right" to distribute them on terms you agree with.) Apple is providing a free tool, and the restrictions that come with it are the cost. Either the value of that tool to me exceeds the cost, or it doesn't. (and the "glovebox" example is nonsense, the EULA is part of the Mac AppStore sales process, you could read t before downloading the app.) It is the same way with the Free Software Foundation. If they made a tool called "ePub Author" and that tool-- especially if it included templates and copyrighted imagery and other work, as iBooks Author does-- required you to license any works created with the tool under the GPL, then I'd make the same evaluation- is that restriction a cost that exceeds the value of the tool or not? If you don't like the EULA, feel free not to use iBooks Author and use whatever tool you like that's value proposition is one you prefer. To rail against Apple for providing this tool seems to imply that you feel they owe you something. Very often today we've seen Apple offer all kinds of new and innovative things, and I've seen a content stream of comments along the lines of "these are bad because apple profits from them". Of course Apple profits. We all profit, though, because they changed the economics of the education situation. If you want something different, create it. We're not entitled to demand people to produce things for our benefit in ways we dictate, at no possible benefit to themselves. UPDATE: Further points: 1. iBooks produced by the iBook Author software contain with in them Apple copyrighted code, both javascript and HTML, and thus are derivative works. It is not just images and layout. Since every open source or GPL project imposes restrictions on derivative software, it seems reasonable for Apple to do so as well. 2. Imagine if this product had been released to ONLY support iBooks in a proprietary format. Apple released a tool last year called iAd producer. This produced ads but only for the iAd network. It is completely proprietary. Nobody complained. Would those who think these terms are unreasonable have complained if Apple hadn't included the ability to output in a standard ePub format, and the ability to distribute derivative works for free? Is it really the case that making this tool more restrictive by limiting its interoperability would have removed these complaints? If not, how can you complain about Apple producing a tool to support their proprietary book format? Is Apple required to make all software capable of supporting whatever you want to do with it ? Should Xcode be require to produce Android apps?
Locke1689 15y ago
You can certainly put anything you want in a EULA. Whether or not this is enforceable is another matter. Has any court ever upheld this kind of contract?
- unavoidable 15y ago
  It would likely be enforceable unless the term is "unreasonable" or "unconscionable"... although we certainly may not like it, I don't think it would necessarily meet those thresholds in a court of law because there are other alternatives to publishing using iBook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_...
Hov 15y ago
The tepid responses to both here and in the comments section of the authors blog are pretty shocking to me. Or maybe not actually. Apple seems to be defended almost as a reflex action these days.
shaggyfrog 15y ago
Apple would be smart to change this ASAP. It's bad PR to have this kind of problem present on your launch day. Not to mention a really bad clause to have in the first place.
tstegart 15y ago
I 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 Word file. You can sell anything really. But if you want to sell the nice design Apple lets you make, you have to give them money. I believe you can simultaneously sell an e-book in the iBookstore and sell a non-Apple created e-book with the exact same content somewhere else. For example, a word document turned into an e-book on Amazon. Just don't try and sell your Apple created e-book on Amazon, that's all.
- troymc 15y ago
  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-opportunity-headache/ http://www.vook.com/blog/2012/01/ibooks-2-another-opportunit...
  - halostatue 15y ago
    iBooks 2 format is more or less ePub3, as I understand it. I could understand it incorrectly. I can also speak fairly highly of the leanpub team's process. My wife and I are finding it less than perfect for our needs in producing a fiction book with both ebook and print-ready book needs, but appreciate the directness and promptness with which both Scott & Peter have been responding to us when we are raising issues with what we're seeing. Better yet, their conversion is free with no commitment to sell your book on leanpub required. I'd happily pay for what they're providing for free because it's so damned easy.
- deleted 15y ago
ryanwhitney 15y ago
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 iBook outside the iBookstore. Since licensing every person who wanted to create an iBook would be a pain in the ass for Apple and a barrier to creation, this seems to be the next good option. It prevents anyone from creating their own iBook marketplace (reasonable) and profiting off of a software that Apple is giving away for free, under the agreement that products of it are sold though their marketplace. No?
- phillmv 15y ago
  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 freedom to read. My biggest concern with iBooks is whether they have remote wipe and whether you can launch books sans DRM. It's going to be awkward when the PATRIOTSOPA Act of 2022 remote deletes all of my chemistry textbooks because terrorists can learn about exothermic reactions or revises all of the biology textbooks because evolution has been deemed illegal.
  - ryanwhitney 15y ago
    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?
drivebyacct2 15y ago
For better or worse, why do people continue to be surprised when Apple does these things? They make good stuff, their users don't care and developers still flock to them. It's like raging at Adobe because Reader sucks, even though plenty of decent, light-weight PDF readers exist. If you don't like the EULA, don't agree to it and use something else.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  Yes, you should not use it. However, given that this is an odious practice, you should also attempt to raise awareness: the more people know, the fewer will run into it. This is exactly what this post is doing, and it is a good thing.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Sorry, it wasn't so much a reaction to the content of the post as much as the pseudo-"outrage" expressed by some here.
aidenn0 15y ago
I don't see how this is substantially different from EULAs that restrict usage to non-commercial. It's basically "non-commercial, except" so you have strictly more rights than with e.g. the non-commercial version of CadSoft eagle.
petrovg 15y ago
Don't use it then... Simple. Write your thing in what you like and sell it as you like. Write it on paper even. And sell it. Or don't sell it, just give it away for free and see how many people get your superior thinking and go downloading you on a scale that will bring the Internet down... You can get the payment, thats easy, you only take cash, there an ATM round the corner. Distribution is easy too isn't it. If someone is unhappy about it, you can handle the returns. Or, no, sorry, of course you don't do returns. This is YOUR intellectual property - once they've got it, they may have photocopied it, you don't want your work to go around for free, do you. In all fairness, you really don't need this - your website is already drawing an enormous attention and everyone wants a cut of it....
drcube 15y ago
When is Microsoft going to get the bright idea to incorporate everything anybody writes in Word or Visual Studio into their own IP portfolio? Or Adobe appropriates the copyright of any image edited with Photoshop? Here's to the crazy ones.
- jasomill 15y ago
  Presumably when Microsoft starts giving away Word and makes Visual Studio a compelling platform for cross-platform development? In all honesty, given the iPad's share of the tablet market, making unrestricted, high-quality, cross-platform interactive content development tools available to iOS developers at no cost might provoke antitrust claims from the likes of Adobe. But Adobe isn't likely to sell expensive digital publishing software to authors of free books, and mainstream publishers are unlikely to commit to "iPad exclusive" titles to avoid a few thousand dollars in software licenses.
pmr_ 15y ago
I 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 what point would it be justified to consider the program (or the creator thereof) to have some implied copyright on the produced output. Do we need to consider the smartness of the applied algorithms? Is it necessary for a program to be considered a true AI to hold the copyright to something? Anyway, I don't see how that applies to a pretty printer for books. A mere tool is only that. I don't see why it should restrict my ability to commercialize my product. If someone were to suggest that the producers of pens, paper or canvas should have a say in how artists are to sell their works people would just laugh at him.
- wvenable 15y ago
  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.
manmal 15y ago
I say, let the consumers (=authors) decide - evolution happens through disruption, and this surely is a disruption. If the authors fall for it, well, they are ok with the consequences. If the thing really takes off and public really cares and puts pressure on them, they will loosen the EULA, I'm sure.
lelele 15y ago
It's reasonable to ask for a cut on your software output, if the author is giving it out for free. While should they give out their work for free to people who are going to make money out of it? Actually, asking for a cut could become a standard option for selling software where you would offer at customer's choice: - GPL; - commercial license, paid upfront; - commercial license, paid by royalties. That way, people who don't agree to the GPL, but still think your commercial license is too expensive compared to their expected earnings would have a further option: no gain, no pain. As a side note, one of the reasons I prefer software which comes with standard licenses (GPL, BSD, etc.) is that I know what those licenses say, and I can click on "I agree" without worrying about the fine print. If the license text differs in some way from its template, authors are explicit about that.
cjensen 15y ago
In the Good Old Days, you had to pay a royalty to your compiler vendor when you sold a copy of your own program. So what Apple is doing is legal and has precedent. But it's stupid so I hope and expect that they will fix this.
mkr-hn 15y ago
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.
- unavoidable 15y ago
  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).
Firebrand 15y ago
Isn't this sort of the same thing Amazon requires for their Kindle Direct Publishing program?
jinushaun 15y ago
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.
__david__ 15y ago
Initially 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...
- pm90 15y ago
  from nchuhoai (somewhere in the comment threads): The author is not saying that apple does not deserve a cut. He is noting that it is questionable whether Apple should be allowed to restrict the distribution channel
- arien 15y ago
  You are giving them a cut partly because your application will contain parts of their source code. I think it's not a good/exact comparison. I think the ownership is about the output format, not the contents itself, so it could be better compared to InstallShield, for example. It is used to package and easily distribute/install your Windows programs. If it was free but they'd requested similar conditions to those in the iBooks EULA (that you can only distribute it in their own channels, that they might reject your program if they don't like it, etc.), would you still consider them for distribution?
alexqgb 15y ago
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.
nchuhoai 15y ago
I think the important thing to note is that the author is not complaining that Apple wants a cut. The author is complaining that you have to do it through the App Store. And in that regard, I do agree that this case is unprecedented, that a EULA restricts the distribution channel.
cjoh 15y ago
Can someone explain this a bit better to me? Let's say I write a book called "My Awesome Comments from HackerNews, Unabridged" (MACFHU) using Microsoft Word. And I send that to my publisher, retaining all rights to publish the book still. Then I adapt MACFHU for iBooks using the iBook Author tool. Would I then be prohibited from selling my book in the iBookstore because it's already available in hardcover? If I published it first in iBookstore, would my publisher be prohibited from publishing it in hardcover? Or does the iBooks EULA basically say: "This is a specialized tool that you should use to publish books on the iPad." You can certainly publish your content on other platforms as well, but you'll need to format it using other tools. Check out InDesign, for instance. I need some clarification.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  It is the latter. Only the output is restricted. The material belongs to you.
  - cjoh 15y ago
    So then what's the problem?
    - bradleyland 15y ago
      There appear to be two complaints: 1) Apple hasn't made clear enough that by using "iBooks Author", the only distribution channel you can use is Apple (de facto in that you must pay them, regardless of how you distribute). 2) There is disagreement that this is a good direction at all. Point #1 is the one made by the author of the submission. With regard to point #2, I feel that Apple should be free to do what they want with their platform. I also feel that people should be free to openly disagree with them.
xaxa2000 15y ago
why not just use vi, nano, writemonkey or even word for writing your book and leave apple behind?
- ryanwhitney 15y ago
  why not use dogpile to search the internet?
ekianjo 15y ago
Get an Apple typewriter. Write your Book. Once it's done Apple knocks on your door, tells you that you have to sell their book in their store, and they will take a cut from it. And if you are against that, you can't sell it at all. So much for the 21st century progress and freedom to own what you create.
- pieter 15y ago
  I like the similarity, but you have to make it more honest: You're a writer, but don't have a good typewriter. Apple is willing to lend you one for free. The only issue is that if you then want to sell your book, you have to sell it through Apple's store. If you don't sell a single copy, Apple won't charge you for the use of the typewriter. If you sell a lot of copies, Apple gets a cut, both for the book being in their store (publicity) and the use of their typewriter. You're still allowed to use different typewriters, and you can even sell books written on a different typewriter in Apple's store, though they'll still take a cut. Doesn't sound terribly unreasonable to me
  - ekianjo 15y ago
    I did not see your comment until now. The only part where i have a problem is the exclusivity. Apple may own the typewriter but you own the words that you write. I think Apple may have a ground to charge you for using their typewriter somehow, but restricting where you decide to publish your work goes far, very far. In the end, it's a matter of being in agreement with the contract. I doubt anyone reasonable would accept such terms willingly - an author wants to spread their works as much as possible, and not limit them to a single marketplace.
eob 15y ago
There's another bit that nobody has brought up: no author ever ends up owning the entirety of his or her work. If I write a book for Harper Collins, I am not allowed to reproduce or distribute that content via any channel not approved by them, and they give much worse than a 70/30 cut. As hackers, we are debating these books as if they are software, but remember that they are products at the intersection of two industries, and publishers have had authors in restrictive and less-than-lucrative contracts for a long time.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
extension 15y ago
Is Apple claiming this restriction applies to the content of the book, or just the output of their app? Can I transcribe my book into another program and then sell it independently? What if the book is already written and published and I'm transcribing it into an iBook? And of course, if transcribing bypasses the restriction, then simply converting the file to a different format must do the same, right?
delackner 15y ago
What lead us to this point in history where people whine and go on tantrums about the injustice of being given powerful free tools produced at great expense? I think the root cause is the anti-piracy war, going on ever since the dawn of the computer age. The endgame may be an angry backlash of anti-copyright extremism gaining mainstream support. We may see a day soon when the voters demand an end to all copyright. Who knows what the end result of that would be.
unsigner 15y ago
How is this different than Microsoft giving away a version of their C++ compiler as part of the Xbox development kit which can only produce executables that can be sold via Microsoft to people having Xboxes? The comparison is favorable to Apple, as they allow free books, unlike the console vendors. In both cases, the platform vendor is giving away nice dev tools in order to get more content to sale on his platform. (read Microsoft as "Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo")
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  > How is this different than Microsoft giving away a version of their C++ compiler as part of the Xbox development kit which can only produce executables that can be sold via Microsoft to people having Xboxes? You mean like this[1]? Applies to both Xbox and WinPhone. Apple also gives away Xcode, but you can't make iOS apps outside of their dev program. [1] http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/getting_started http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/getting_started
Nick_C 15y ago
I think it stinks. But... Give it to your wife/husband for free. Wife sells it for whatever and however she wants. Apple have no comeback.

281 points by pooriaazimi 15y ago

rshm 15y ago

More of a precursor to apple centered DRM for books i would say. And as always apple using its market advantage on everything it touches.

gurkendoktor 15y ago
The iBookstore has always used DRM. I can easily see how DRM is the most economic options for eBooks right now - eBooks are more than $.99, so they needed a barrier between the internet's vast reservoir of PDFs and owning a pretty ePub file. (I still wouldn't buy DRM-ed books) But the article is about the authoring tool, and Apple was going to produce it. So they had two primary options to protect their interests: * Write an EULA and trust the law * Use DRM in all output or otherwise proprietary formats (and implicitly trust the law as a backup) I'm not saying we should be thankful for the EULA's wording, but for people who hate DRM for practical reasons, this is probably the best realistic outcome. If you hate DRM for ethical reasons and think that all content should be free, then be happy about a free tool and write content. Only if you wish you could use Apple's tool to make money on another platform, well you are out of luck. > And as always apple using its market advantage That must be a very limited 'always' :) I don't see how they abused the iPod's market domination much. The iPad is the only other product where they have an advantage in numbers, but I am not sure if that extends to the iBookstore at all.
- gurkendoktor 15y ago
  > * Use DRM in all output or otherwise proprietary formats Oh well, I just discovered iBooks Author does use a proprietary format, not ePub. Then of course it is not as useful for authors of free content.

fleitz 15y ago

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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

wazoox 15y ago

Hardly surprising coming from Apple. Gosh, that stinks nonetheless. On the other hand, this probably would be nullified by any reasonable court, wouldn't it?

nirvana 15y ago

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. Edit to add: This means everything under the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. There is a huge amount of content distributed this way. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ The iBooks Author Software is an Apple provided development tool specifically for the purpose of creating iBooks for the iBookstore. You can give your books away free in the iBookstore, and you can also, as you note, output the results in a variety of formats not suitable for the iBookstore. Those are a nice bonus. Sometimes I get the impression that people think that everything should be free, for any use, and that the people who create these free things should have no right (or that its "audacious" to exercise some right) over what terms on which they distribute these free tools they create. (Or maybe only the "right" to distribute them on terms you agree with.) Apple is providing a free tool, and the restrictions that come with it are the cost. Either the value of that tool to me exceeds the cost, or it doesn't. (and the "glovebox" example is nonsense, the EULA is part of the Mac AppStore sales process, you could read t before downloading the app.) It is the same way with the Free Software Foundation. If they made a tool called "ePub Author" and that tool-- especially if it included templates and copyrighted imagery and other work, as iBooks Author does-- required you to license any works created with the tool under the GPL, then I'd make the same evaluation- is that restriction a cost that exceeds the value of the tool or not? If you don't like the EULA, feel free not to use iBooks Author and use whatever tool you like that's value proposition is one you prefer. To rail against Apple for providing this tool seems to imply that you feel they owe you something. Very often today we've seen Apple offer all kinds of new and innovative things, and I've seen a content stream of comments along the lines of "these are bad because apple profits from them". Of course Apple profits. We all profit, though, because they changed the economics of the education situation. If you want something different, create it. We're not entitled to demand people to produce things for our benefit in ways we dictate, at no possible benefit to themselves. UPDATE: Further points: 1. iBooks produced by the iBook Author software contain with in them Apple copyrighted code, both javascript and HTML, and thus are derivative works. It is not just images and layout. Since every open source or GPL project imposes restrictions on derivative software, it seems reasonable for Apple to do so as well. 2. Imagine if this product had been released to ONLY support iBooks in a proprietary format. Apple released a tool last year called iAd producer. This produced ads but only for the iAd network. It is completely proprietary. Nobody complained. Would those who think these terms are unreasonable have complained if Apple hadn't included the ability to output in a standard ePub format, and the ability to distribute derivative works for free? Is it really the case that making this tool more restrictive by limiting its interoperability would have removed these complaints? If not, how can you complain about Apple producing a tool to support their proprietary book format? Is Apple required to make all software capable of supporting whatever you want to do with it ? Should Xcode be require to produce Android apps?

Locke1689 15y ago

You can certainly put anything you want in a EULA. Whether or not this is enforceable is another matter. Has any court ever upheld this kind of contract?

unavoidable 15y ago
It would likely be enforceable unless the term is "unreasonable" or "unconscionable"... although we certainly may not like it, I don't think it would necessarily meet those thresholds in a court of law because there are other alternatives to publishing using iBook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_...

Hov 15y ago

The tepid responses to both here and in the comments section of the authors blog are pretty shocking to me. Or maybe not actually. Apple seems to be defended almost as a reflex action these days.

shaggyfrog 15y ago

Apple would be smart to change this ASAP. It's bad PR to have this kind of problem present on your launch day. Not to mention a really bad clause to have in the first place.

tstegart 15y ago

I 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 Word file. You can sell anything really. But if you want to sell the nice design Apple lets you make, you have to give them money. I believe you can simultaneously sell an e-book in the iBookstore and sell a non-Apple created e-book with the exact same content somewhere else. For example, a word document turned into an e-book on Amazon. Just don't try and sell your Apple created e-book on Amazon, that's all.

troymc 15y ago
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-opportunity-headache/ http://www.vook.com/blog/2012/01/ibooks-2-another-opportunit...
- halostatue 15y ago
  iBooks 2 format is more or less ePub3, as I understand it. I could understand it incorrectly. I can also speak fairly highly of the leanpub team's process. My wife and I are finding it less than perfect for our needs in producing a fiction book with both ebook and print-ready book needs, but appreciate the directness and promptness with which both Scott & Peter have been responding to us when we are raising issues with what we're seeing. Better yet, their conversion is free with no commitment to sell your book on leanpub required. I'd happily pay for what they're providing for free because it's so damned easy.
deleted 15y ago

ryanwhitney 15y ago

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 iBook outside the iBookstore. Since licensing every person who wanted to create an iBook would be a pain in the ass for Apple and a barrier to creation, this seems to be the next good option. It prevents anyone from creating their own iBook marketplace (reasonable) and profiting off of a software that Apple is giving away for free, under the agreement that products of it are sold though their marketplace. No?

phillmv 15y ago
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 freedom to read. My biggest concern with iBooks is whether they have remote wipe and whether you can launch books sans DRM. It's going to be awkward when the PATRIOTSOPA Act of 2022 remote deletes all of my chemistry textbooks because terrorists can learn about exothermic reactions or revises all of the biology textbooks because evolution has been deemed illegal.
- ryanwhitney 15y ago
  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?

drivebyacct2 15y ago

For better or worse, why do people continue to be surprised when Apple does these things? They make good stuff, their users don't care and developers still flock to them. It's like raging at Adobe because Reader sucks, even though plenty of decent, light-weight PDF readers exist. If you don't like the EULA, don't agree to it and use something else.

tikhonj 15y ago
Yes, you should not use it. However, given that this is an odious practice, you should also attempt to raise awareness: the more people know, the fewer will run into it. This is exactly what this post is doing, and it is a good thing.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Sorry, it wasn't so much a reaction to the content of the post as much as the pseudo-"outrage" expressed by some here.

aidenn0 15y ago

I don't see how this is substantially different from EULAs that restrict usage to non-commercial. It's basically "non-commercial, except" so you have strictly more rights than with e.g. the non-commercial version of CadSoft eagle.

petrovg 15y ago

Don't use it then... Simple. Write your thing in what you like and sell it as you like. Write it on paper even. And sell it. Or don't sell it, just give it away for free and see how many people get your superior thinking and go downloading you on a scale that will bring the Internet down... You can get the payment, thats easy, you only take cash, there an ATM round the corner. Distribution is easy too isn't it. If someone is unhappy about it, you can handle the returns. Or, no, sorry, of course you don't do returns. This is YOUR intellectual property - once they've got it, they may have photocopied it, you don't want your work to go around for free, do you. In all fairness, you really don't need this - your website is already drawing an enormous attention and everyone wants a cut of it....

drcube 15y ago

When is Microsoft going to get the bright idea to incorporate everything anybody writes in Word or Visual Studio into their own IP portfolio? Or Adobe appropriates the copyright of any image edited with Photoshop? Here's to the crazy ones.

jasomill 15y ago
Presumably when Microsoft starts giving away Word and makes Visual Studio a compelling platform for cross-platform development? In all honesty, given the iPad's share of the tablet market, making unrestricted, high-quality, cross-platform interactive content development tools available to iOS developers at no cost might provoke antitrust claims from the likes of Adobe. But Adobe isn't likely to sell expensive digital publishing software to authors of free books, and mainstream publishers are unlikely to commit to "iPad exclusive" titles to avoid a few thousand dollars in software licenses.

pmr_ 15y ago

I 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 what point would it be justified to consider the program (or the creator thereof) to have some implied copyright on the produced output. Do we need to consider the smartness of the applied algorithms? Is it necessary for a program to be considered a true AI to hold the copyright to something? Anyway, I don't see how that applies to a pretty printer for books. A mere tool is only that. I don't see why it should restrict my ability to commercialize my product. If someone were to suggest that the producers of pens, paper or canvas should have a say in how artists are to sell their works people would just laugh at him.

wvenable 15y ago
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.

manmal 15y ago

I say, let the consumers (=authors) decide - evolution happens through disruption, and this surely is a disruption. If the authors fall for it, well, they are ok with the consequences. If the thing really takes off and public really cares and puts pressure on them, they will loosen the EULA, I'm sure.

lelele 15y ago

It's reasonable to ask for a cut on your software output, if the author is giving it out for free. While should they give out their work for free to people who are going to make money out of it? Actually, asking for a cut could become a standard option for selling software where you would offer at customer's choice: - GPL; - commercial license, paid upfront; - commercial license, paid by royalties. That way, people who don't agree to the GPL, but still think your commercial license is too expensive compared to their expected earnings would have a further option: no gain, no pain. As a side note, one of the reasons I prefer software which comes with standard licenses (GPL, BSD, etc.) is that I know what those licenses say, and I can click on "I agree" without worrying about the fine print. If the license text differs in some way from its template, authors are explicit about that.

cjensen 15y ago

In the Good Old Days, you had to pay a royalty to your compiler vendor when you sold a copy of your own program. So what Apple is doing is legal and has precedent. But it's stupid so I hope and expect that they will fix this.

mkr-hn 15y ago

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.

unavoidable 15y ago
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).

Firebrand 15y ago

Isn't this sort of the same thing Amazon requires for their Kindle Direct Publishing program?

jinushaun 15y ago

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.

__david__ 15y ago

Initially 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...

pm90 15y ago
from nchuhoai (somewhere in the comment threads): The author is not saying that apple does not deserve a cut. He is noting that it is questionable whether Apple should be allowed to restrict the distribution channel
arien 15y ago
You are giving them a cut partly because your application will contain parts of their source code. I think it's not a good/exact comparison. I think the ownership is about the output format, not the contents itself, so it could be better compared to InstallShield, for example. It is used to package and easily distribute/install your Windows programs. If it was free but they'd requested similar conditions to those in the iBooks EULA (that you can only distribute it in their own channels, that they might reject your program if they don't like it, etc.), would you still consider them for distribution?

alexqgb 15y ago

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.

nchuhoai 15y ago

I think the important thing to note is that the author is not complaining that Apple wants a cut. The author is complaining that you have to do it through the App Store. And in that regard, I do agree that this case is unprecedented, that a EULA restricts the distribution channel.

cjoh 15y ago

Can someone explain this a bit better to me? Let's say I write a book called "My Awesome Comments from HackerNews, Unabridged" (MACFHU) using Microsoft Word. And I send that to my publisher, retaining all rights to publish the book still. Then I adapt MACFHU for iBooks using the iBook Author tool. Would I then be prohibited from selling my book in the iBookstore because it's already available in hardcover? If I published it first in iBookstore, would my publisher be prohibited from publishing it in hardcover? Or does the iBooks EULA basically say: "This is a specialized tool that you should use to publish books on the iPad." You can certainly publish your content on other platforms as well, but you'll need to format it using other tools. Check out InDesign, for instance. I need some clarification.

bradleyland 15y ago
It is the latter. Only the output is restricted. The material belongs to you.
- cjoh 15y ago
  So then what's the problem?
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    There appear to be two complaints: 1) Apple hasn't made clear enough that by using "iBooks Author", the only distribution channel you can use is Apple (de facto in that you must pay them, regardless of how you distribute). 2) There is disagreement that this is a good direction at all. Point #1 is the one made by the author of the submission. With regard to point #2, I feel that Apple should be free to do what they want with their platform. I also feel that people should be free to openly disagree with them.

xaxa2000 15y ago

why not just use vi, nano, writemonkey or even word for writing your book and leave apple behind?

ryanwhitney 15y ago
why not use dogpile to search the internet?

ekianjo 15y ago

Get an Apple typewriter. Write your Book. Once it's done Apple knocks on your door, tells you that you have to sell their book in their store, and they will take a cut from it. And if you are against that, you can't sell it at all. So much for the 21st century progress and freedom to own what you create.

pieter 15y ago
I like the similarity, but you have to make it more honest: You're a writer, but don't have a good typewriter. Apple is willing to lend you one for free. The only issue is that if you then want to sell your book, you have to sell it through Apple's store. If you don't sell a single copy, Apple won't charge you for the use of the typewriter. If you sell a lot of copies, Apple gets a cut, both for the book being in their store (publicity) and the use of their typewriter. You're still allowed to use different typewriters, and you can even sell books written on a different typewriter in Apple's store, though they'll still take a cut. Doesn't sound terribly unreasonable to me
- ekianjo 15y ago
  I did not see your comment until now. The only part where i have a problem is the exclusivity. Apple may own the typewriter but you own the words that you write. I think Apple may have a ground to charge you for using their typewriter somehow, but restricting where you decide to publish your work goes far, very far. In the end, it's a matter of being in agreement with the contract. I doubt anyone reasonable would accept such terms willingly - an author wants to spread their works as much as possible, and not limit them to a single marketplace.

eob 15y ago

There's another bit that nobody has brought up: no author ever ends up owning the entirety of his or her work. If I write a book for Harper Collins, I am not allowed to reproduce or distribute that content via any channel not approved by them, and they give much worse than a 70/30 cut. As hackers, we are debating these books as if they are software, but remember that they are products at the intersection of two industries, and publishers have had authors in restrictive and less-than-lucrative contracts for a long time.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

extension 15y ago

Is Apple claiming this restriction applies to the content of the book, or just the output of their app? Can I transcribe my book into another program and then sell it independently? What if the book is already written and published and I'm transcribing it into an iBook? And of course, if transcribing bypasses the restriction, then simply converting the file to a different format must do the same, right?

delackner 15y ago

What lead us to this point in history where people whine and go on tantrums about the injustice of being given powerful free tools produced at great expense? I think the root cause is the anti-piracy war, going on ever since the dawn of the computer age. The endgame may be an angry backlash of anti-copyright extremism gaining mainstream support. We may see a day soon when the voters demand an end to all copyright. Who knows what the end result of that would be.

unsigner 15y ago

How is this different than Microsoft giving away a version of their C++ compiler as part of the Xbox development kit which can only produce executables that can be sold via Microsoft to people having Xboxes? The comparison is favorable to Apple, as they allow free books, unlike the console vendors. In both cases, the platform vendor is giving away nice dev tools in order to get more content to sale on his platform. (read Microsoft as "Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo")

ConstantineXVI 15y ago
> How is this different than Microsoft giving away a version of their C++ compiler as part of the Xbox development kit which can only produce executables that can be sold via Microsoft to people having Xboxes? You mean like this[1]? Applies to both Xbox and WinPhone. Apple also gives away Xcode, but you can't make iOS apps outside of their dev program. [1] http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/getting_started http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/getting_started

Nick_C 15y ago

I think it stinks. But... Give it to your wife/husband for free. Wife sells it for whatever and however she wants. Apple have no comeback.