Words matter. The license agreement is a contract, and if the wording gives Apple excessive control, I would be worried, not just assume that nothing is wrong. Apple is a multi-national corporation, not your family or friend. I'm not the one who assumed Apple is incapable of any wrongdoing and therefore the language was an honest mistake.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing Situation in New Software Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you used iBooks Author to create your work it sure looks like paid distribution was exclusive to Apple's store. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the meaning this language in the Original EULA:
To me that sure does sound like that if I write a novel using iBooks Author and I want to sell said novel I can only sell it through Apple. Of course Apple also retains the right to not add my novel to their Store which would mean I'm screwed because by using their iBooks Author to write the novel I agreed to an exclusive commercial distribution deal with them for that specific IP.
Again, this all hinges on whether a Court finds the terms of the EULA legally binding or not. Thankfully that's not longer and issue since Apple decided the original language was problematic, or too potentially problematic, so they changed it. The restriction now only applies to using the .ibooks format and not just using the software itself.
This just dawned on me. I can't believe we've come to a point where saying, "Well MS does it too!" is used in defense of Apple on an Apple message board. Isn't Apple supposed to be 'better' than MS? At least when I joined this community nearly a decade ago that was the case. People loved Apple, in large part, because Apple was seen as the anti-MS.
Lethal
Yes, words matter, but sometimes the words don't always convey what was originally meant, as you have proven.
I didn't assume anything, one way or the other. I simply stated that you seemed pretty sure of yourself of Apple's intentions. It's never smart to pretend you know someone's intentions. I never stated I did.
I have no problem with asking Apple to change the language of the document, which could be construed in different ways. I just don't pretend to be in the mind of those that originally crafted it believing that I know their true intention. Talk about foolish.
That's not what happened. The position that brought the MS Office EULA into play wasn't, "Well MS does it too!".
What brought it into play was; some people created an analogy basically stating, "Had Microsoft created a EULA that insisted IP created with Word couldn't be used commercially......."
At this point many stated that Microsoft does in fact do this.
Dude, when are you going to get that the EULA is a legal document, and what it allows for one party or another, is for all intensive purpose, the intent of that document. Apple isn't just your average joe shmoe. They have a legal department that deals with this kind of stuff. I was reacting as a normal person would, believed it was intended, You reacted with the presumption that Apple was innocent all along. Who's assuming and who isn't?
Last edited:
Dude?
So not only do you pretend to know the inner workings of the minds of the Apple legal department, but also claim to speak for all "normal people"?
And as I've previously stated, I didn't assume ANYTHING. I'd like you to point to my comment where I stated whether or not I believed Apple was innocent.
I didn't assume it was an innocent mistake nor did I assume it wasn't. I didn't jump to any conclusions. I let so-called "normal people" do that. Believe it or not, I have the ability to remain objective and not take a side.
I think it's more likely that Apple would not claim to own all the creative rights for a ebook published with their software, because they would have to know the backlash of such a clause. But I don't pretend to know one way or the other. I leave that for people like you.
Then why are you arguing against me? I didn't assume anything. The language in the old licencing agreement is very strong giving Apple very broad control over the "work" created using the iBook software. If anything, those who assume Apple didn't intend having that broad control, are the ones making the assumption that it wasn't Apple's intent. When are you going to stop bowing down to a money-hungry corporation? Its not looking out for you but itself.
I'm arguing with you because you claimed to know what Apple's intentions were when you actually didn't and I thought it was an incredibly arrogant statement. I have no problem with someone who felt that there was a problem with the language of the original agreement. It was poorly/vaguely worded and needed clarification. And they've done that. End of story. But you want to start talking about their intentions, of which none of us know nothing about.
I don't see anyone bowing down to any money-hungry corporations (as opposed to another kind?). TO counter your argument, though, Apple has been in the business long enough to know that trying to control the creative rights for anything written with their software would have been a complete minefield that would have required much more than a vaguely worded sentence in a licensing agreement. For that reason, and for the fact that they quickly changed the language to what it now is, I tend to believe that Apple probably did not intend to try and own the creative rights of published works with their software. I don't know that, and I'm not going to try and persuade anyone of that, but, to me, that seems like the more logical and likely scenario.
Was listening to a recent TWiT podcast that covered author's gripes over the use of the iBooks Author. Prior to this change, if you created a book in iBooks Author, licensing terms prevented you from selling it in other formats on other platforms. This really helps clear that up, since you can export other types of eBooks with ePub, etc, but produce your enhanced version for iBooks now.