Apple drops claim to content created in iBooks Author

Why risk it?

There's a program called Sigil that you can use to create and edit epub files. The guy who's writing it is going to bring in epub3 support soon. Why not just use (and support) that?

By JamesD29 on 6 Feb 2012

They didn't change the actual meaning..

They just clarified what they meant. Plenty of people understood that all they were claiming, is that if you use their tool to create something, that specific something (ie the .ibooks file) must only be distributed through them.

They didn't claim any rights over your actual work (the words, your images, etc), it was just a case of clumsy wording.

I still don't understand the controversy with this. It's essentially a development kit, we don't cry when the iOS SDK cannot produce iPhone applications, or the Windows Phone 7 SDK cannot produce Android applications, do we?

It's a specific tool created for a specific service. I thought that was pretty obvious from the moment they announced it.

By QassimF on 6 Feb 2012

Correction:

"don't cry when the iOS SDK cannot produce WP7 applications"

By QassimF on 6 Feb 2012

'just a case of clumsy wording'?

@QassimF We're talking about a legal contract. You can be sure as feck Apple's legal team would pounce on any rival that used 'clumsy wording' in a defence to one of Apple's endless lawsuits.

By Noghar on 6 Feb 2012

QassimF

You are completely right. It seemed obvious what they meant at the time and I didnt see any reason to question it. I think it was round the term 'work' which some people believed meant 'content'
It's ridiculous, they bring out a bit of software to make iBooks easier to create and they get lynched

By TimoGunt on 6 Feb 2012

"It's a specific tool created for a specific service"

You mean the creation of ePUB files, an open standard based on xhtml?

I hate to burst your bubble but "iBooks" is just a way of reading ePUB files. The same ePUB files that the Kobi, Sony and any Android smartphone can read.

This would be like Microsoft laying claim to every book written using MS Word or Adobe to every web site designed in Dreamweaver.

Apple's greed really is out of control now.

By Lacrobat on 6 Feb 2012

My Jury's still out

It appears they haven't actually changed the precise wording of the contract, merely issued 'clarification'. I rather doubt the clarification has any legal status, but the contract still does....

It is completely legitimate for Apple to promote its prprietary formats and closed ecosystem. Its also legitimate to criticise them for doing it.

The WHOLE POINT of their proprietary 'improvements' to EPUB's standard is to secure:
a) 'Monetization' - i.e. they get a 30 %cut of a potentially gargantuan market, for virtually no effort.

b) Lock-in - if they can pull the iTunes \ MP3 stunt with e-textbooks.

As with the rest of the i-universe that Apppe is creating you pays yer money....,
But I do have a gripe with the so-called 'tech' press which seems always uncritically to faun over everything Cupertino does or says.

By wittgenfrog on 6 Feb 2012

Few English majors here then

QassimF is dead right. Like I said at the time, it was all in the definition of the word 'work' and those with prejudices hung them out for the world to see.

Oh, and the licence agreement HAS been changed. Jeez. Some people. I love their brain reading powers too. lol!

By SwissMac on 6 Feb 2012

Nope

No lacrobat. iBooks author creates an iba format which is not the ePub format. Yes the iPad can read ePub and PDF but it can also read iba which no other device can because it is proprietary. Similar to the ePub format but has custom widget code

By TimoGunt on 6 Feb 2012

Im going to defend apple on this because I had to write my windows phone code in visual studio for windows phone and the resulting code could only be used on the. Windows phone. What is the difference?

By TimoGunt on 6 Feb 2012

Extract from the EULA

"if the work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service) and includes files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author, the work may only be distributed through Apple, and such distribution will be subject to a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary); provided, however, that this restriction will not apply to the content of the work when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author."

Ergo bugger all to do with ePUB.

By QPW2012 on 6 Feb 2012

@TimoGunt

You really expect Lacrobat to read that? - he just comes into a thread, trolls and moves onto the next one

Please can we have an ignore user function on these comments?

By CSprout on 6 Feb 2012

What, and miss all the fun with me? I'd miss you guys!

By SwissMac on 6 Feb 2012

Missing the point

all this Visual studio for WP7 or iBook format for iOS is not the issue - Apple release an application that makes files which work only on their devises - Fine, no problem. It may be another lock-in, but that's a minor concern.

The problem is for Apple to be the sole distributor and the arbitrator way they decide IF you may sell it.
Fair enough for them to have the right to choose what goes into the iTunes store, again, no problem.

It's the fact that you may not sell it in any other way, such as on another website or even if you want to sell a few copies yourself.
That is just too far.

How long before - or is it already in place - that you can buy anything for your iProducts ONLY through the iTunes store with Apple taking a 30% cut too?

By greemble on 7 Feb 2012

Who has done Contract law then?

The issue is not what you THINK the contract implies but what it says, so in this case the wording “includes files in the .ibooks format” means that if you want to release it in ibook format, amongst other format’s you will need their permission to do such.

I have noticed that this sort of wording is happening a lot lately, not just with Apple but Google and Facebook.

By daron09 on 8 Feb 2012