Audiobooks Purchased From Apple Can Now Be Re-Downloaded Through iCloud

Apple recently updated its policy on audiobooks, allowing customers who have purchased audiobooks directly from Apple to re-download them using iTunes in the Cloud through iBooks on iOS devices or through iTunes on a Mac or PC. Audiobooks are now listed in a customer’s iBooks purchase history and can be re-downloaded just like standard e-books.

According to a support document on downloading past purchases, the change was made on March 3. Prior to that date, audiobooks could not be re-downloaded through iCloud and were only available if they were included in a backup made on a Mac or PC.

A second support document outlining which iTunes purchases can be downloaded again by country has also been updated to reflect the change. In 22 countries, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and much of Europe, purchased audiobooks can be accessed at any time through a user’s Purchased history.

In iOS 9.3, audiobooks are also available to be automatically downloaded to all iOS devices when purchased. In the Settings app under iTunes & App Store, “Books & Audiobooks” is now an option under Automatic Downloads. Previously, this section listed only books, leaving out audiobooks.

iOS 9.3 will also streamline the iBooks “Purchased” tab with deeper organizational options that sort books by category and it enables Family Sharing for audiobooks.

Apple has been gradually improving support for its selection of audiobooks. In iOS 8.4, audiobooks became available to purchase and listen to through the iBooks app, making them much more accessible. Prior to that date, audiobooks had to be purchased through the iTunes store and listened to using the Music app.

Audiobooks can be re-downloaded on all iOS devices immediately. Automatic Downloads of audiobooks will be enabled with iOS 9.3, set to be released to the public in the near future.

(Thanks, William!)

Related Roundup: iOS 9
Tag: iBooks
Discuss this article in our forums

U.S. Government Files Motion Asking Court to Deny Apple’s Opposition to iPhone Unlocking Request

Prosecutors representing the United States government today filed another document (via The Verge) to support the motion to compel Apple to unlock the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, calling the original order a “modest” request that would not result in a universal “master key” and dismissing many of Apple’s legal arguments.

The document says Apple’s rhetoric is false and “corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights.” Apple’s efforts, and those of its supporters, to highlight the wider issues the order could have on encryption, are a “diversion,” says the government.

Apple and its amici try to alarm this Court with issues of network security, encryption, back doors, and privacy, invoking larger debates before Congress and in the news media. That is a diversion. Apple desperately wants–desperately needs–this case not to be “about one isolated iPhone.” But there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of a terrorist attack on that phone, and our legal system gives this Court the authority to see that it can be searched pursuant to a lawful warrant. And under the compelling circumstances here, the Court should exercise that authority, even if Apple would rather its products be warrant-proof.

Unsurprisingly, the government argues that the All Writs Act does, in fact, give the courts the power to compel Apple to unlock the iPhone, disagreeing with Apple’s argument that Congress’ choice not to expand on the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act serves as evidence Congress has limited the assistance companies must provide to law enforcement.

It also walks through several prior court cases in an effort to challenge many of Apple’s claims, including that no company has been conscripted to produce code for the government and that it would be an undue burden for Apple to create new software for the FBI.

Apple is accused of “deliberately” raising technological barriers preventing the government from obtaining the data on the iPhone through a lawful warrant. “Apple alone can remove those barriers so the FBI can search the phone,” reads the document, “and it can do so without undue burden.” Apple is “one of the richest and most tech-savvy companies in the world,” and is “more than able to comply with the AWA order.” The government goes on to suggest that there’s no evidence a narrow order could apply to additional devices in the future, but if it does, Apple is “more than able to comply with a large volume of law-enforcement requests.”

Next, contrary to Apple’s stated fears, there is no reason to think that the code Apple writes in compliance with the Order will ever leave Apple’s possession. Nothing in the Order requires Apple to provide that code to the government or to explain to the government how it works. And Apple has shown it is amply capable of protecting code that could compromise its security. […]

Far from being a master key, the software simply disarms a booby trap affixed to one door: Farook’s.

Several sections in the motion also disagree with the notion that the software could be used on other devices and could fall into the hands of hackers or lead to Apple being forced to comply with data requests from foreign governments.

Apple speculates that if it submits to a lawful order to assist with a constitutional, warranted search of a consenting customer’s phone in America, Apple will have no choice but to help totalitarian regimes suppress dissidents around the globe, and “hackers, criminals, and foreign agents” will have access to the data on millions of iPhones. This putative public burden, Apple argues, is a basis to relieve it from the Order. Apple’s fears are overblown for reasons both factual and legal.

Apple and the U.S. government have been engaged in a fierce public battle over the order that would require Apple to help the FBI break into the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook by creating new software to circumvent passcode restrictions on the device. Apple believes complying with the demand would set a dangerous precedent that could lead to the overall weakening of encryption on smartphones and other electronic devices.

Apple executives, including Tim Cook, Eddy Cue, and Craig Federighi have all given public interviews in recent weeks explaining Apple’s stance, positioning the government’s request as an overreach of power that could snowball into a continual stream of invasive demands impacting the privacy rights of its customers across the world.

Apple is scheduled to appear in court to fight the order on March 22, the day after its planned March 21 event that will see the debut of the iPhone SE and the new 9.7-inch iPad.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Tag: Apple-FBI
Discuss this article in our forums