We have moved to a new site!
This site will remain open only so you can copy anything you need, such as critques. Do so quickly because the old Forward Motion boards will soon disappear.

Are you ready for the new site? You must create a new login, but the chat login will remain the same as here for now. Click here to join us at the new

Forward Motion for Writers

See you there!

---

I am not sure if this has been posted here but I felt it was important enough to warn the populace.

I subscribe to Holly Lisle's site and Holly wrote a newsletter announcing she's taken all her books off of Apples IBookstore.

The reason, a clause in the contract writers have to agree to. This clause has been a object of debate on other sites. I'm sure Holly won't mind if I include the link here.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-and-evil-license-agreement/4360

Imagine, losing your work because you used someone's software. I think the examples the author of the article wrote speak best so I won't give my own examples.

All I can say is, what unmitigated gall and what a rotten way to make a buck.

I understand protecting your software but not at the cost of someone else's work or sacrificing someone else's opportunity to publish.

Gonna go cool off. This one had me hot under the collar all day.

Life without honor is life led in vain;


Rem tene; verba sequentur (Grasp the subject; the words will come)


Chev

You don't lose your stuff, as I see it, you lose the right to sell the Apple formatted stuff to people with other machines. If you want to format it again with different software, there's nothing to stop you. Don't use Apple's stuff, it's that simple. Apple will be making free software available for text books etc. Why would they do this so that an author could sell their book to people who use other machines? Apple want to sell their devices, that's whay they developed the free software. If they were selling the software, then I could understand the problem. There's a comparison made to Microsoft's Power Point, but a user needs to buy Power Point, and there, as I see it, lies the difference.

Holly's made her choice and there's nothing to stop all other authors from making the same choice.

If you get your work published by a large publishing company, are you free to take their layout designs down the road to another company that sells cheaper copies (analogies are difficult) to a larger market? I don't think.

Photographers mark their pics to prevent copying. (Another bad analogy, perhaps.)

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

> Holly's made her choice and there's
>nothing to stop all other authors from
>making the same choice.
>
>If you get your work published by a large
>publishing company, are you free to take
>their layout designs down the road to
>another company that sells cheaper copies
> analogies are difficult) to a larger
>market? I don't think.
>
>Photographers mark their pics to prevent
>copying. (Another bad analogy, perhaps.)

First of all, if there are authors still willing to use the software once they've been warned, that's their decision. I won't tell them what they "ought" to do. But, personally, I respect Holly's decision a great deal. She's costing herself sales, over an issue that doesn't directly affect her, since she doesn't use that software, purely as a matter of ethical principle.

However, your analogies are bad, and here's why: (to take the worst first) photographers are the "authors" of their own work. If you want to talk photography - what if a camera maker forbade photographers from selling photos taken with that particular model except through their own (the manufacturer's) service? That, although far from perfect, is a closer analogy in photography. Or, perhaps better, what if photo editing software prevented you from selling photos you'd "processed" using it, except through a certain outlet?

As for the publisher's layout, in this situation, you are the publisher. You are doing the work to create that layout. And Apple wants to keep you from using the results of that work - your own layout, except as they approve. Back when layouts were done on paper, and there were rules and T-squares that were handed out free, with ads on them, that were used to create that layout, what would you have thought if those who gave away the tools expected to own the layout? That's what Apple is doing. They're giving away a free, but cheap, tool that serves an advertising purpose for them - then expecting that if you use that tool, they own the results of the work you've done with it.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

My analogies are not that bad, they just need to be expanded. I started to do it, but using a tip from that awful (that word needs to be qualified, but I'm not going to do that) book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, I've decided not to bother.

One can either lose an argument, or annoy the opponent by winning it. Neither option is worthwhile in most cases.

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

I have never fully understood that advice. Of course, that's probably because I'm inclined to pursue most discussions to a point many people consider insane. Or maybe (probably) it is the aspie coming out in me. But if you lose an argument, it usually means you've learned something. Since the whole point of discussion is to learn something, that's a plus. (Okay, caveat time: those situations where someone "wins" by creating a distraction or otherwise avoids making any valid point do annoy me no end. If they can't at least attempt to state their own position clearly, and resort to trickery instead, it isn't likely to be worth discussing anything with them.) And if you win, well, the other person has learned something (with the same caveat applied).

I don't mean to say every discussion is worth pursuing. Feeding the trolls is a pointless pastime. But I really don't understand why people get annoyed just because they lose an argument. How else is anyone supposed to learn?

The more I pursue this thought, the more certain I become that this is the aspie in me, and everyone else reading this will be highly amused that I don't "get it". Which is fair enough, since most people who aren't 'on the spectrum' can't figure out things that seem obvious to me.

Edited to add: I just did a quick check, to verify something I thought I remembered. Yes, that is one of those books more than one of us have found as incomprehensible as if it were written in Sanskrit.

Which set a plot bunny racing off inside my head. I wonder what sort of story might arise from two characters, one of whom considers it essential reading, and one of whom can't make any sense of it at all.

Second edit: Yes, the more I think on this, the more I realise it is one of the ways I'm profoundly different. Without pushing the boundaries of the TOS, I think I can say, first that I take my personal religion quite seriously (without naming it or otherwise trying to shove it down anyone else's throat) - and yet, I have actually been thrilled the few times I've gotten into the type of exchange that left me questioning the basics of my own faith. I might spend months struggling with the questions that were raised, but in the end, I understood far more than I did before. And, yes, I do know this isn't usual, and understand that's why the TOS prohibit that type of exchange here. I mention it merely to illustrate my own, "alien", point of view. With luck, someone will read this thread and get a great idea for some character conflict out of it.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

That's interesting. I am pretty sure I'm not an aspie, but my reaction was pretty similar. I tend to follow discussions to their conclusion, and my favorite conclusion is one where both me and the other party come to an understanding that is somehow created by our discussion, that we wouldn't have come to without having discussed it (i.e. where we BOTH learn something). I tend to "beat dead horses" without meaning to: I'm never really trying to "win" an argument, but I do like to reach the conclusion rather than just stopping prematurely. I've also had some extremely wonderful religious discussions that made me question things.

On the other hand, I've had some terrible religious discussions that resulted in me getting very upset (yet not showing it). Even online, where I have time to construct responses, I can get very flustered if I cannot seem to respond coherently or logically. I've learned that there are certain ... attacks (for lack of a better word) ... that I can't seem to meet, no matter what the medium, and no matter what decision I come to on my own. People make personal jibes that are hidden behind honest criticism, and I take them too much to heart. For this reason, I'm very grateful for the TOS on politics and religion. I've learned to avoid all such conversations on forums because typically someone enters who gets their nose bent out of joint and takes it out on someone else in the discussion. It seems the more people that get involved, the likelier it is that someone will use the controversy to beat other people down. I much prefer having those sorts of discussions privately, whether through e-mail or PMs or in person. It's also better that way because as I'm learning more about the issue, I'm also learning more about the other person: that part also tends to get lost in full-forum type discussions.

But yeah, I totally get you on the discussion leading to better understanding thing.

And back on topic: I still haven't figured out where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, it seems pretty harmless as it is right now: there's lots of different software, and I think a writer's best option is to use all the software and sell it on all formats. At the same time, I have a cynical bone and dislike anything that moves in the direction of trying to turn people into more of consumers than we already are or that try to limit expression. As it is, I don't have a Facebook and will not have one. I'm just too worried that one day, it will actually be mandatory, rather than strongly suggested.

Part of the problem is that I don't really understand the issue entirely. I know it's been explained in several different ways with several different analogies, but I just don't quite understand it. It sounds like it's saying that if a person creates something on the Apple software they have to publish it through Apple or not at all. What I'm confused on is whether that refers to the specific Apple-software's-formatted version (in which case, you could recreate it in a different software and sell it) or if it refers to the actual creation (in which case, it would be illegal due to the TOS to recreate it in different software and sell it). If the former, it seems harmless, but a step in the wrong direction. If the latter, I would never use that software, but I'm not sure I'd stop using any Apple services altogether (such as Holly is doing). I think if enough people stopped or avoided using the software, it would be enough. But I'll admit that I have very limited understanding of the issue and it could be something else altogether. Looks like I'm going to need to increase my legal knowledge*. I knew that anyway, but I'm still not sure where I'll find the time. I'm having a hard enough time just finding time for writing. (*And I say that because if I can't understand those two paragraphs, how in the heck am I going to understand author/publisher contracts?)

So, WeirdJim - I'd be really happy if you expanded your analogies, whether or not you "win" the argument. It might at least help me understand the issue better, as I'm someone kind of stuck in the middle.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Mostly I see argument as more hostile than discussion, but that, too, becomes mired when people say things such as "...I'll argue that..." when they're having a discussion.

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

That's what my mom says, too. To an extent, I agree, but I think that when there's any hostility at all, it's really fighting. I think whenever people are proposing and defending opinions it becomes an argument, whereas a discussion is when no one has a specific point of view and they're trying to talk it through (i.e. even if you tried, you can't "win" a discussion). But that's my view, and certainly the argument=fight view is prevalent.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

"You don't lose your stuff, as I see it, you lose the right to sell the Apple formatted stuff to people with other machines. If you want to format it again with different software, there's nothing to stop you."

That's probably what they intended to say, but as far as I understand the problem, due to sloppy wording (perhaps a copy and past job with some modifications from general appstore terms of use?) it may be interpreted that you are giving up your publication rights. Who is really going to take the chance?

The way I see it, Apple needs to clarify their terms of use or risk losing out on a lot of sales.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

I will expand a little on photography. I'll do it as if digital photography had not been invented.

Let's say I produce a piece of artwork, a sculpture, and I hire a photographer to photograph it. Who then owns the rights to the reproduction of the picture of the art? Who owns the negatives? By traditon the negatives stayed with the photographer, but did the photographer have the right to use the image to adverise his business. Photographers did use their work for advertising purposes, but I'm sure they could have been challenged.

If the picture was a portrait, then it gets even more diffficult.

However, if the photographer had made no charge for the taking of the pictures, but only intended to charge for prints, then the person who asked to have the picture taken might have no claim on on the results depending on any agreement that may have been made.

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

I have to second Weird Jim here. You do NOT lose your work. As the article you linked to says, in part,

By “it,” I am referring to the book, not the content. The program allows you to export your work as plain text, with all formatting stripped. So you do have the option to take the formatting work you did in iBooks Author, throw it away, and start over. -- Ed Bott

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

There's an extension to the article linked to. An added link. I got lost, but much of it seems to be a sort of objection to the fact that Apple has deviated from the basic epub format. However, my argument holds firm: if you don't like Apple, don't use their software or equipment.

What I don't know is, will other epub stuff open on Apple equipment. I'd beware of Apple stuff, but it's still Apple's right to do whatever they want unless they entered into a legal agreement that bars this.

Apple is going heavily into textbooks, and I may have an objection there if students are forced to buy Apple equipment, but this is no different to students taking a course being required to buy the instructors textbook, which always seemed wrong to me partly because almost any subject is open to different opinon. My brain is getting too old to wrap around all the ramifications.

The greed is of Apple mentioned, but greed locking a user into certain products is common.

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

An UPDATE:

Holly Lisle wrote in her newsletter that she was advised on the software issue and was wrong in her initial reaction.

Holly, wrong! I guess it's time for me to break the news to my inner child that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Anyway, Holly was still right in principle. She's put her books back at IBooks and she's printed an explanation which, if you're interested, you can read here:

http://hollylisle.com/how-to-say-i-was-wrong/?awt_l=9RNKR&awt_m=JmUU.wrWPE_XgP

I still have a problem with this "not software/software" issue.

Sure, you're right, Jim, if I have a work and submit it, a publisher of that work has rights to their formatting protocol.

They do not, however, have a right to my work unless they paid me. IBook is not a publisher in the traditional sense. In a way, you are paying them to post your work. Legally speaking they have not right to your work but do have a right to their formatting protocol (in this case the non-software/Software).

Does this mean they do not have the obligation to, say, delete your work from this protocol at you request?

Property is property in the U.S. and I feel this violates copyright. Some would argue this is extreme but when it comes to respecting someone's work, well I'm an extremest.

It's the notion that, once you have created the work in this whatever-y0u-want-to-call-it, it's the property of Apple. So they can publish it all they want, even free, to anyone they want on their network (which is pretty big and getting bigger) at anytime they wish?

IMHO: I think that's a blatant violation of copyright in this case sine the contract you sign with Apple is not to publish but to "park" on their site.

What if (and this is part of some authors plans) you decide to publish with a traditional publisher (or a traditional publisher sees your work and wants to publish it)? Sure, Apple can cheerfully "allow" you to take your work and publish it, as long as the whatever-you-want-to-call-it formats aren't used. Okay, big of them. However does this mean they can no longer post, share, cut up and distribute your work once you're published traditionally?

This seems like a legal morass which an author could get pulled into if he or she is not careful.

Well, this is the sticky issues we're going to have to face now in this electronic age.


Life without honor is life led in vain;


Rem tene; verba sequentur (Grasp the subject; the words will come)


Chev

Folks can (and will) do what they wish in regards to this situation. I, however, liken it to a digital artist using Photoshop.

I draw a picture. I bought the program. I use it to create a piece of artwork. But I'm not allowed to sell it anywhere but on Adobe's site.

I write the novel. I bought the program. I use it to create a book. But I'm not allowed to sell it anywhere but on Apple's site.

My two cents.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Okay, valid point. However, isn't it akin to, say, using a Nikon camera but only being able to post your pictures on a Nikon site?

Or, looking at it in a writing viewpoint, using a Royal typewriter (boy, am I dating myself) and only being able to publish with a publisher who has a license from Royal to use their typeface?

I think Apple is acting a bit too big for itself IMHO.


Life without honor is life led in vain;


Rem tene; verba sequentur (Grasp the subject; the words will come)


Chev

Most of this new publishing folk are trying to take advantage of writers. Apple had awful rules for publishing apps at first too. Now they're more relaxed and polite (they actually tell you why they've rejected you). Do you know why this changed? Android.

So just give it time until the competition to own this market becomes more aggressive. For now I wouldn't even bother with the iBooks store since its reach is very very limited. I don't think anybody is making much money out of it.

I would only consider the big guys: Amazon, BN, and Kobo Books (add to this list if you know any others). Maybe there's some small niche markets which work well too.

Of course, just make sure you research the web about their terms. All this electronic publishing companies are constantly changing them. I come across lots of posts on "Writers beware" from SFWA warning writers about Amazon doing this, or BN trying to get us with that, etc...