ie8 fix
madison

The Apple Core

Jason D. O'Grady & David Morgenstern

iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files

By | February 3, 2012, 12:27pm PST

Summary: Apple has clarified its iBooks Author EULA. You retain all rights to content created with it, however, you can’t sell an .ibooks file through anyone other than Apple. Satisfied?

iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA

Apple today pushed out an incremental (1.0.1) update to it’s controversial iBooks Author software for creating EPUB 3-based iBooks for the iPad. I say based because Apple extended the open EPUB 3 format by adding proprietary extensions (for embedding Keynote files and 3D object, for example) turning it into a proprietary format. But that’s not what got people upset.

The iBooks Author 1.0 EULA carried some hefty restrictions around distributing for-profit works created with the tool — namely that they could only be distributed through the iTunes Store, and were thus subject to Apple’s 30 percent commission.

Here’s the Important Note from 1.0 EULA:

IMPORTANT NOTE:
If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a “Work”), you may only sell or distribute such Work through Apple (e.g., through the iBookstore) and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple.

Here’s the same section from the 1.0.1 EULA (differences in bold):

IMPORTANT NOTE:
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.

That new sentence at the end says that Apple gets to participate in any revenue generated from work created with iBooks Author that is output in the .ibooks format, but that it doesn’t own the content itself.

Therefore you can use IBA to author your masterpiece then port said content to another, non-proprietary output format and retain all the profits. I had assumed this from the beginning, but many had read into the 1.0 EULA that Apple was claiming ownership to the content itself — which is clearly not the case.

Here’s the more controversial Section 2B of the EULA (”Distribute of your Work”) from IBA 1.0 that drew the most ire:

B. Distribution of your Work. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, your Work may be distributed as follows:

(i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means;
(ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and (b) Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution.

Here’s 1.0.1 Section 2B of the EULA (differences in bold):

B. Distribution of Works Generated Using the iBooks Author Software. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, works generated using iBooks Author may be distributed as follows:

(i) if the work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute it by any means;
(ii) 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. You retain all your rights in the content of your works, and you may distribute such content by any means when it does not include files in the .ibooks format generated by iBooks Author. Apple will not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, losses (including without limitation lost business opportunities or lost profits) or other liabilities you may incur as a result of your use of this Apple Software, including without limitation the fact that your work may not be selected for distribution by Apple.

Apple’s pretty clear here. You can use iBooks Author to create commercial content and you will retain all rights to it. However, you cannot sell an .ibooks file created with iBooks Author with anyone other than Apple.

Seems fair to me.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason O'Grady is a journalist and author specializing in mobile technology. He has published six books on Apple and mobile gadgets and his PowerPage blog has been publishing for over 15 years.

Disclosure

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady is the creator and editor of O'Grady's PowerPage, which has been publishing mobile technology news since 1995. He maintains an advertising relationship with the following legacy advertisers on the PowerPage:

  • Amazon Associates
  • Google Adsense
  • Tekserve
  • Advertising on the PowerPage is brokered by a third-party agency (BackBeat Media) and he recuses himself from these negotiations.

Biography

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady developed an affinity for Apple computers after using the original Lisa, and this affinity turned into a bona-fide obsession when he got the original 128 KB Macintosh in 1984.

He started writing one of the first Web sites about Apple (O'Grady's PowerPage) in 1995 and is considered to be one of the fathers of blogging. He has been a frequent speaker at the Macworld Expo conference and a member of the conference faculty. He also co-founded the first dedicated PowerBook User Group (PPUG) in the United States.

After winning a major legal battle with Apple in 2006, he set the precedent that independent journalists are entitled to the same protections under the First Amendment as members of the mainstream media.

O'Grady is the author of The Nexus One Pocket Guide, The Droid Pocket Guide, The Google Phone Pocket Guide, and The Garmin nuvi Pocket Guide (Peachpit Press), the author of Corporations That Changed the World: Apple Inc. (Greenwood Press), and a contributor to The Mac Bible (Peachpit Press). In addition, he has contributed to numerous Mac publications over the years, including MacWEEK, Macworld, and MacPower (Japan).

When he's not writing about Apple for ZDNet at The Apple Core, he enjoys spending time with his family in New Jersey.

50
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: iBooks Author 1.0.1 EULA: you own the content, we want 30% of .ibooks files
Just True Updated - 8th Feb
@Pete "athynz" Athens: "I DO however own the physical media and *can* share it with my friend"
===========================================

Oh really? Then send all of them a copy of your CD (the physical media you own) e.g. with Britney Spears songs you legally bought and tell the RIAA about it. I'd like to see what will you write here then...

Pete, I am very sorry, that you are not capable to understand what is more complicated than 2x2, such as my posts - you even have no clue what was the point of what I was writing about..
I thought this was obvious before the re-wording...
@doh123

Apparently not obvious to enough folks that Apple felt it needed to rewrite the EULA.
As was asked in Ed Bott's blog on this subject: How warm and fuzzy would you (or the Apple Core) feel if Microsoft or IBM altered their EULAs to compell all works authored using their software, that generated income, be subject to a 30% 'fee'? How about Adobe?
@whatagenda

"How warm and fuzzy would you (or the Apple Core) feel if Microsoft or IBM altered their EULAs to compell all works authored using their software, that generated income, be subject to a 30% 'fee'?"

Apple's not saying that at all!
They require 30% of .ibooks files sold. You can just copy and paste your content into another tool. Did you even read the post?

In fact, I'm pretty sure that you can simply print your iBook on paper and hawk it on the street corner if you want.

Geez.
@whatagenda as is witnessed by your "challenged" comment, Apple reworded it's EULA to get it down to a version that even the bitter and the jealous folks can comprehend...... so now you can go waste your hate at a bookstore, where the authors pay more than 60% of their earnings to publishers... geesh man....

Authors will gladly pay 30% rather than the 80% to their former publishers for the exposure to the vast storeFront and market that is the Apple App store, not your version of fantasy land where it is for the use of the software... THAT is what the agreement is really about.... GET IT?

and next time MSFT gives away Office for free let us know... any bells and whistles going off with that...MSFT took their cut upfront... nothing wrong with either version... and Authors are celebrating not having to give up more than 80% of the profit any more to their publishers.
@whatagenda
A hint: Don't use Word, use Pages. You can freely distribute the outcome (provided of course that you have the IP of the content you feed in Pages).
so Apple decided to dumb down the language accordingly.
No question it was poorly worded the first time, leaving the intent unclear. Those who tend to trust that they know Apple tended not to worry; others worried that it might be a grab or could at a later time be so construed. In legal documents clarity is always preferred. I suspect the original sloppy EULA was rushed to meet some delivery deadline. Fixed now; move along.
0 Votes
+ -
Why would you want to assume
LiquidLearner 4th Feb
@doh123

Anything more than what was absolutely written in the EULA before? The change is positive. Perhaps that's what Apple intended all along but it's not what they said originally. And Apple would never use their legal team to enforce their EULA right?

You should always believe that a company will do exactly what it states. There is no reason to think any company is out for your best interests, they aren't. They're out for their own best interests. The best you can hope for is for those two things to align.
Has anyone had any publishing experience? Get your "Great American Novel" published by any paper publisher and unless you're Stephen King you'll be lucky to see 5% of the gross. I'll take Apple's 70% any day.
@dheady@...

I have zero problem with Apple taking their cut for sales through their storefront. I did have a problem with Apple's original EULA stating that their storefront was the ONLY sales venue if you used their software ... period.
0 Votes
+ -
@whatagenda

What you are missing is that it states if you wish to sell the content you create using our tools you MUST sell it through the Apple store, ergo Apple then takes 30%.

This is truly despicable. Imagine if ANY other company MANDATED that you sell through them any work you created with their tools. Word docs, Adobe artwork or videos, etc.

Defending this policy is truly pathetic!
0 Votes
+ -
One simple suggestion
wackoae 3rd Feb
@whatagenda Don't like the license, don't use the product.

As simple as that.
you to help produce a nice book for them to publish. It's no different than any of the other number of prep tools other publishers (like Create Space) offers, except that it's not web-based and totally kicks butt on anything else out there.
0 Votes
+ -
Ed Bott gets a ton of credit
toddybottom_z 3rd Feb
While it is imossible to prove that Apple made these changes because of Bott's blog, no one can deny that Ed Bott was totally and absolutely right in what he wrote and all you Apple fanbois who insulted him should go apologize to him if you had any decency.

I expect Ed will get no such apologies. Connect the dots.
@toddybottom_z NT.
@toddybottom_z

To be fair to all that commented on Ed's blog posts, most "pro Apple Defenders" objected to Ed's Greedy and Evil adjectives. Actually, most defenders were correct in their interpretation of the original EULA's intent which was only clarrified through this revised EULA's language.

Or, another way to interprete Ed's contribution to Apple's iBook Author ELUA evolution is that thanks to Ed, insane interpretations of the original EULA language have been eliminated except by really insanely evil and greedy anti-Apple fanatics. Grin.
No, unlike Bott claimed, it was not a nefarious effort to take over the planet. The correction simply affirms what cooler heads were saying all along. To my knowledge no one with pertinent legal experience has claimed that Apple could have leveraged the EULA to claim copyright over content just because it was included in an iBooks document, but that was essentially what Bott claimed.
@toddybottom_z The thing is, it was always obvious you could do this. Ed's view was always nuts (deliberately so, he's devious not stupid). Apple's video shows content being pasted in. You NEVER use iBooks Author to create a large manuscript (well not if you had any sense anyway). You'd use something like Final Draft, or (personal preference) Scrivener (and yes, you Windows fanboys can use your preference of OS too, in fact this has to be seen as a major advantage of Scrivener - it's not tied to the Mac). Apple could never have legal claim over that content (nor did they ever WANT legal claim over it).

Think about this logically, and let's see Apple as a company that wants great content on their devices to help them sell devices (no illusions here).

If an existing book is popular - let's say it's a cookery book by a famous chef. Apple might covet this title in their format. Nobody else has a version like that, this IS exactly the kind of content that would help sway someone into buying an iPad (okay not this book alone, but it's a straw for the camel's back).

If Ed's view was Apple's view then there would be no way for the writer of that book to make a .ibooks version and comply with the EULA. Now use your cynical mind, do you believe that was EVER Apple's intention? Doesn't seem very likely does it?
@toddybottom_z

DOT 1

CBSi buys last.fm and spends about billion dollars trying to compete with itunes and fails

DOT 2

Last .fm is a now dashboard widget on xbox

DOT 3

CBS pushes and endorses lime wire


DOT 4

CBS get sued

The lawsuit claims that CNET editors performed speed tests to see how effective Limewires software was, and downloaded copyrighted material as part of that speed test. The lawsuit describes a CNET video review this way: As the viewer looks at the screen demonstrating a sample search, they see a list of copyrighted works, including those from several well-known musical artists. In the same video, Defendants admit that they downloaded files generated by these searches to test the speeds that Limewire could deliver for users. But unless the downloads by CNET editors were files actually copyrighted by the plaintiffs in this suit, its hard to see how this matters much; remember, Limewire will already have to pay record labels as a result of the damages trial going on this week.


DOT 5

ED writes last year awarding blog smashing the itunes license agreement


Should we connect the dots on the Ibook Blog too!!
@toddybottom_z so Ed should take credit for not being able to read????

what is truly despicable is someone just making up lies about someone or something that they are jealous of... here is what the former EULA actually says: "Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner" it EXPLICITLY states that Ed had zero idea of what it was he was talking about... and Apple meant what this says all along... and simply clarified for the grassy knoll folks that have zero content of their own and are too hateful to ever create something anyway...
@honkj

'here is what the former EULA actually says: "Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner" '

Hey, that sentence was on page 2 of the EULA. We cannot expect that Ed has the mental capacity to read more than one page of any document - not to mention comprehending what he reads.
@toddybottom_z While I normally agree with Ed Bott in this situation I did not and I was proven right. I said all along that Apple was not going to claim to own the content but the format. The revised EULA (aka iBooks for Apple Haters) simply confirmed this truth that you Apple Haters did not want to see in your haste to spew FUD, misinformation, and lies.
That'll be the day when I decide to foreswear beer, shave my head and get myself promptly to a monastery. Mind you, given enough attempts he might by pure blind luck get it right one day, and then I'm screwed :P

As to the rest of "Bott was right," no. next you'll be telling me California has run trillion dollar surpluses for the last 50 years and the people in charge know how to manage things properly.
This still doesn't change anything. It's just text changes.
0 Votes
+ -
EXACTLY
use_what_works_4_U 4th Feb
@Droid.Incredible
It doesn't change anything, a copyright owner owns the rights to their content.
It'll still be cheaper in the long run to buy an app to create your book, even if you spent a $1000+ on the other app. The only way to lose out if you did that was to only sell a few copies. If you end up selling 1000s of copies you'll make a lot more money and the iBook option would be the most expensive
0 Votes
+ -
Seems fair enough to me ...
johnfenjackson@... 4th Feb
... I have a calculation for J. D. O'G to determine 'fairness' ...

1. Take out Intel processors.

2. Take out disk drives.

3. Take out LCD monitor devlopemnt.

4. Take out Supply Chain exploitaion.

5. Take out that OSX is a LINUX variant.

6. Take out Thunderbolt, ..., take out almost everything hardware related.

7. Take out that Apple had no input whatsoever in all the creativity of the media flowing through its platform.

... and you are left with JDOG'S IQ in this debate and Apple's due share of revenues ...

... 0.000000 ... somewhere in there one might find a significant digit sad

But I'll bet JDOG can't find it!
@johnfenjackson@...

While I have absolutely no idea what your point is, I'd like to inform you that OSX is a certified UNIX, descended from NeXTs OS. It is not a Linux variant.
@msalzberg -

Um, it came from FreeBSD, with bits of NeXT OS.

Anybody with enough money could certify anything they wanted as well. It's all about the marketing, and money buys an awful lot... and that includes ethics.

The point is, while it contains closed-source material, the raw guts of it were leeched by Apple.
@HypnoToad72 No you can't "buy" Unix certification!

Mac OS X's Kernel is derived from CMU Mach. "NeXT OS" is a really indistinct term. You could argue that Mac OS X (the whole shooting match) IS OPENSTEP for Mach. However if you want to get technical:

XNU (the Kernel used in Mac OS X) is derived from CMU Mach(OPENSTEP used an earlier version). The "Unix" is FreeBSD (OPENSTEP used BSD, FreeBSD was far less mature - essentially this is a drop-in replacement).

Cocoa is OpenStep (the API of OPENSTEP) though in Mac OS X this sits above CoreFoundation - essentially a low latency abstraction layer. Carbon also sits above CoreFoundation, this is a reworking of the classic Mac "Toolbox API".

Quartz Extreme provides the window manager (a kind of "Display PDF") where OPENSTEP used Adobe's Display PostScript. Video is provided by QuickTime X where OPENSTEP used NeXTTIME (I know, tragic name). QuickTime X is totally new. Quartz Extreme provides for accelerated frame buffered display, so NeXT "Interceptor" is no longer required (this essentially blew a hole in the Window Manager to provide fast access to the display - if this sounds like a kludge, well you're hearing right).

Almost all of Mac OS X is either a development of OPENSTEP for Mach (itself a development of NeXTSTEP) or totally new. Some components have been swapped out for more modern equivalents (Display PostScript, and BSD Unix) but they serve the same functional roles within the OS.

Apple contribute significantly to many open source projects, the technology traffic is two way. Google Chrome and Google Android wouldn't exist (in their current form, if at all) without Apple source code.
@johnfenjackson@...

1. NO WAY - Intel CPUs are great. PPC got too hot for mobile computers. What do you want Intel to be replaced with? Puny ARM junk? Some people need power for their content creation...

2. Floppies? Hard drives? Optical drives? I'm presuming the latter, but try to be sufficiently technical. Besides, they are of use and Apple would remove it, just to charge it as a $50 extra, even though the price of the laptop would remain unchanged... profiteering is cool, since "pass the savings down to the customer" is a phrase long since extinct.

3. Why? Apple is renowned in this area.

4. All companies would have to do that in tandem. Wake me when that happens. Since most of us need to use equipment made in these factories for our own low-paying, not-keeping-up-with-inflation wage jobs, in ways we're all in the same boat. Given the downward spiral, call it "Titanic".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704530204576237081117462892.html

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/vicious-cycle-stagnant-wages

5. It's a variant of FreeBSD. Open source it is, "Linux" it really isn't.

6. Something as integral as Thunderbolt?! It's easy to see where Apple is going, and Thunderbolt is rather more robust* than USB3.

* I loathe that word "robust", given its overuse, but it works.

7. They did manage to market it very well. Marketing takes creativity. Or at least the ability to psychologically compel people to buy, but then saying how people have a choice. (People do, but a number of factors create a gray area situation... but psychological manipulation to compel others is pretty low and is not one of the definitions of "free will", "free choice", "freedom", et cetera...)
0 Votes
+ -
Only Apple would try this
Thad McIlroy, The Future of Publishing 4th Feb
Is it fair because the software is free? What if Apple charged $100 for the software? Would it be fair then?

This story somehow shifted in the re-telling. I never even considered the notion that Apple was claiming to "own the copyright" -- I was much more concerned that it was restricting my right to resell the content created with legally licensed software. Perhaps you can restrict other companies from using your format by enforcing patent restrictions -- although even Adobe failed at this with PostScript, years back. But restricting what we actually do with the content that we have created? That's just silly.

Move the discussion to the same 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 if either Microsoft or Adobe tried to pull this off?

(Yes, PDF is now an open format. All the more pernicious then if Adobe would try to restrict an open format when generated from its software [which of course it never would do].)
@Thad McIlroy, The Future of Publishing

The standard output of iBooks Author is .ibook format, which only works on the iPad. I don't know why people don't understand that. It's an authoring tool to create books for the iPad.

They don't charge for an PDF version exported from iBooks Author.
@Thad McIlroy, The Future of Publishing

I understand that you love Apple software and yearn to use it. If you have a problem with iBooks Author, please, use Pages. It is so cheap that even you can afford it and you can do what ever you want with Pages' output.
@Thad McIlroy, The Future of Publishing -

Well, given how iPhone games can only be made on Macs, the cost of getting into the biz is far more than $0.00 to the content creator...

http://wmpoweruser.com/?p=17365

Don't care for a "biased" source?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-04/tech/nintendo.apple.games_1_app-developers-nintendo-executives-game-developers-conference?_s=PM:TECH

It took the mainstream media a little longer, but they found pretty much the same conclusion too.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair?
Just True Updated - 4th Feb
Apple's deal is fair, isn't it?

If so then imagine - Microsoft charges 30% from everything made with MS Office. For example, you use PowerPoint presentations as a lecture aid - give 30% of your profit to MS. And further development of such policy - if you used on your lecture, e.g. a Cannon projector - give another 30% to Cannon...

Or - if you created an artwork on a Windows-based PC - give 30% of your profit to MS, another 30% to the maker of artwork software plus 30% to OEM and 10% for the furniture you were sitting on..

It's not even about the 30% - it's about who are you - a sheep or a human.
@Just True Sloppy analogy as most power point presentations are not sold to the general public. The 30% is to pay for the distribution costs of hosting the iBooks formatted work on Apple's servers.
@Pete "athynz" Athens: "Sloppy analogy as most power point presentations are not sold to the general public."
================================

Next time, Pete, try to pay more attention to what you criticize for.. (if you do not have ADD, of course)

Or - do you really believe that the meanings of the words: 'imagine' and 'analogy' - are the same?

The point was - the further development.. and is it normal if the consumer voluntary accepts the price of being a sheep?
@Just True I was a bit rushed in the reply so here we go... point by point.

Apple's deal is fair, isn't it?


Yes it is. Apple does not own the content just the format. And the 30% is going towards distribution of the work and storage on Apple's servers. The author is free to sell an ePub, Mobi, or whatever else formatted version to other publishers/ distributors.

If so then imagine - Microsoft charges 30% from everything made with MS Office. For example, you use PowerPoint presentations as a lecture aid - give 30% of your profit to MS. And further development of such policy - if you used on your lecture, e.g. a Cannon projector - give another 30% to Cannon...


Here's where my previous reply was relevant. Nowhere do you mention a means of distribution and storage for products created by Microsoft Office such as powerpoint presentations or word documents. Nor any sort of online storage or distribution for products viewed by Cannon products.

Or - if you created an artwork on a Windows-based PC - give 30% of your profit to MS, another 30% to the maker of artwork software plus 30% to OEM and 10% for the furniture you were sitting on..


Now you are being ridiculous. And where did you get the 10% for the furniture? Going with your own example it should be 30%...

It's not even about the 30% - it's about who are you - a sheep or a human.


So the whole time you were typing in 30% it wasn't about the 30%? And you accuse ME of ADD? Come on man. And to put the nail into this are you saying anyone who publishes using iBooks is a sheep? From what I understand of the iBooks deal - the entire ecosystem - a previously unpublished author could create a work via Apple's iBooks and already have a recognizable and very large distribution system in place to promote his or her work. And that same author could also export that work to a PDF file, convert that to an ePub or mobi format and have it sold through another distributor and pay the associated costs via that channel.

Or one could chose NOT to use Apple and iBooks to distribute their work.
@Pete "athynz" Athens: "And the 30% is going towards distribution of the work and storage on Apple's servers."

=====================================

Apple can charge whatever it wants (up to 100%) and believe, as you do, that this is fair. So what is the meaning of 'fair'? According to you - 'fair' when it's good for the corporation and too much for the consumer.

That proves your 'fair' is unfair to the consumer = is not fair at all.

According to your senseless reply - you won't understand this. Then an example for you - several years ago Walmart was selling DVD with movies for $1 (one dollar). It means that selling DVD movies for $1 is also PROFITABLE. How much is the DVD movie now? This is rip-off and it has nothing to do with the meaning of fair (same as the Apple's 30%).

The bottom line - your 'fair' is when companies aggregate in a criminal cartel or monopolize the market in order to rip-off the consumer and charge ten times more than the cost price.

What would be fair for the consumer and corporation? it's fixed reasonable limit on the profit (from the cost price) which should not exceed the average ability to buy of the average consumer.

How about Rolls-Royces and the like? They must charge not more than the average %profit for the goods. Which goods? On the market of the first necessities.
@Just True
"If so then imagine - Microsoft charges 30% from everything made with MS Office."

Apple doesn't charge anything made with Apple iWork.
@erann: "Apple doesn't charge anything made with Apple iWork."
========================================

Not yet, but as soon as the majority will be ready to buy it - THEY will..

I am curious - if right now Apple would charges 30% from every profit made thanks to iWork - would you support it or what?
@erann -

No doubt they would try.

These companies exist for their own profit, by any means necessary.

It's a dog-eat-dog situation, and the customers don't mind... (well, for now anyway... wink )
HypnoToad72: "the customers don't mind... (well, for now anyway...)
===========================================

And if the NWO will come, what will be the difference between humans and cows, which on the way to the slaughterhouse knows that it will be killed, it says "moo" and goes there on its own legs..? Only the number of legs or what?
0 Votes
+ -
That's fair.
HypnoToad72 5th Feb
As long as I own the content, Apple doesn't try to undercut me or disallow me from re-compiling to others' formats, that's just fine.

Still, the book I bought at Barnes and Noble -- did the author pay 30% of the $30 cost to their store for each copy being sold? wink


Substitute ("I" and "me" for generalized content creator-specific terms as desired)
@HypnoToad72: "As long as I own the content.."
===============================

Do you know that any content of CD/DVD you bought is not your property and you have no rights to share it with your friend? THEIR goal is total control of everything you have including your life = soon any author should expect - his content is THEIR property.

If the majority will be turned into the sheep - who will stop THEM from doing what THEY want - screwing the people because it benefits THEM? The two-legged sheep? But the sheep have no human rights..

Watch more details about the future THEY prepared to humankind (youtube):

Want your mind BLOWN? Watch this video! Illuminati going??? down! WHY? THIS VIDEO!

OPERATION TROJAN HORSE

???!!A MUST COPY SHARE!! ISRAEL WILL CRUMBLE IF EVERYONE WATCHES THIS???

Mind Control part 1 of 6

???Mind Control Out Of Control - Cathy O'Brien???
@Just True I think you missed the point.

Do you know that any content of CD/DVD you bought is not your property and you have no rights to share it with your friend?

I was - and I agree with that because I DID NOT create any of the content. I DO however own the physical media and *can* share it with my friend via my television or allow them to borrow the physical media or by selling them the physical media. What I am NOT allowed to do is to copy the content either electronically (i.e. ripping it to a audio or video file stored on my PC) or physically (ripping a copy to another CD/DVD).

In the context of this conversation however - dealing with ebooks - the *author* owns the content created. The publisher has the rights to distribution. This applies to ibook files made via the iBooks software as well as ePubs or mobi files distributed via a publisher.
@Pete "athynz" Athens: "I DO however own the physical media and *can* share it with my friend"
===========================================

Oh really? Then send all of them a copy of your CD (the physical media you own) e.g. with Britney Spears songs you legally bought and tell the RIAA about it. I'd like to see what will you write here then...

Pete, I am very sorry, that you are not capable to understand what is more complicated than 2x2, such as my posts - you even have no clue what was the point of what I was writing about..
Another middleman at work, at first it was publishers that took a percentage of sales (depending on your contract with the publisher) but now it will be Apple with iBook taking the cut. Also would like to see what cut does Amazon has and Barnes & Noble has but I don't think it is that much since they resell the majority of existing books that were published electronically.
I assume that Apple is taking the whole pie, publishers and distributor, cut from authors thus the cut from sales.
Unlike established publishers and their large group of peer reviewers which will review and criticize textbooks before it is published to general public so I don't know what method Apple have.
My personal opinion I don't like Apple or any other company for that matter having a monopoly of the etextbook or ebook market.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix