Fair’s fair. If we get upset over something Apple’s done, we should also mention when they fix it. So, remember the kerfuffle over Apple apparently claiming rights in the user agreement over commercial sale of any e-book created in iBooks Author? Well, Ars Technica reports that Apple has just released a patch to the app, and iBooks Author v1.01 includes a clarification in the EULA: it specifically covers only e-books generated in the interactive .ibooks format. (Emphasis mine.)

If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author, you may only sell or distribute such work through Apple, and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple. This restriction does not apply to the content of such works when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format.

Couldn’t be much plainer than that. Apple is only claiming rights over books released in its own format, that only iBooks 2.0 can even read. If you’re going to use iBooks Author to crank out an EPUB to slap on Amazon or Barnes & Noble, you’re safe.

Did Apple intend this all along and just slip up on writing the EULA, or did Apple change its mind after an outcry? It seems pretty obvious to me that Apple only has an interest in books in its own proprietary format, but whether you agree will probably depend on how much of an Apple conspiracy theorist you are. Either way, it’s good that Apple has clarified the matter so we can stop worrying about the tempest in our teacups, and just drink our tea.

6 COMMENTS

  1. I went through the EULA with a highlighter and my educated lay woman’s understanding of legalese (daughter of a lawyer; niece of a lawyer, clerked in law offices on summer vacays when younger).

    It was clear to me that apple did not intend to own anyone’s content outright, as there were quite a few clauses about intellectual property, copyright, and the assignment of rights and permissions.

    Based on this, I believe Apple is making another attempt to “spell it out” in plain lay person’s language. Which might be a response to the backlash over the original EULA. Or not. Why they did it is not as important as the fact that they just made many people’s jobs a little easier, as we won’t have to continually translate the legalese to statements that the majority of people will understand.

  2. I don’t think that Apple has “fixed it”. Let’s move the discussion to a scenario with some other well-known companies:

    – If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the .docx format generated using Microsoft Word, you may only sell or distribute such work through Microsoft, and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Microsoft.
    – If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in PDF generated using Adobe Acrobat, you may only sell or distribute such work through Adobe, and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Adobe.

    How would authors and publishers react?

  3. @Thad – Both Adobe Acrobat and Word charge a large sum up front. Apple has decided to only go after money at the end of the creation/distribution cycle, not at the beginning.

    All three companies have a business model. For the moment, I am OK with Apple doing it this way since it allows everyone free access to the software today.

  4. I don’t know that $200 is a “large sum” but I do understand what you’re getting at. Of course there’s plenty of free 3rd-party software that do an excellent job of generating PDF files or .doc or .docx files. I just don’t recall a major software company trying to impose these soft of restrictions. Ah yes, I remember one:

    Back in 1991 “the cost of the licensing Type 1 fonts was considered very high and Adobe stonewalled on offering more attractive rates. It was this issue that led Apple to design their own system, TrueType, around 1991. Immediately following the announcement of TrueType, Adobe published “Adobe type 1 font format”, a detailed specification for the format.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript_fonts

  5. My reading of the EULA is that Apple only aims to control *.ibooks files created by iBooks Author. Both conditions have to be met. I don’t think that they are laying claim to the .ibooks format itself.

    If that reading is correct, there is nothing to stop you from hand coding an *.ibooks file using your favorite text editor. Moreover, there is nothing to stop one from creating an eReader capable of displaying an *.ibooks file just as well as iBooks 2 does. It’s just not a big deal.

    It will be interesting to see if Apple is willing and able to 1) detect violations and 2) successfully prosecute violators. Apple doesn’t have much of a reputation for hounding customers with legal threats so this would be something new.

The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail newteleread@gmail.com.