m / April 29, 2005 @ 3:16 pm

Man…. I’ve always wanted to “acquire” a copy of Sauna from Underwear, but I respect them too much for that.

On the subject, I’m sure that I have some pirated fonts on my computer (from links, emails, etc.) but I’ve never actively searched for them.

forrest / April 29, 2005 @ 3:58 pm

I’ve been known to trawl the font newsgroups and I had a cache of warezed fonts that I acquired from various designer friends, although I haven’t ever used (and won’t ever use) pirated fonts in a project, and I’ve since gotten rid of all of the ones I had. I found that you generally get what you pay for, with corrupt and incomplete fonts, “OpenType” versions that were made with TransType (pirated copies, natch), brokenly renamed fonts, and reams and reams of SSi clones.

In an ideal world, I think fonts would be freely downloadable, and you’d pay royalties when you use them. It’s really hard to get a feel for how a type family is going to look on paper unless you play with it in context. Unfortunately, most people are lazy and won’t pay for fonts (or software) they already hold in their hands, so allowing people to try before they buy is impractical if you expect them to actually pay for your products. It’s all too common in the print world for people to use unlicensed type; prepress shops in particular play fast and loose with font licensing.

As a result, there’s no question that piracy hurts font sales, and therefore has a negative effect on type designers, because type designers mostly get paid in the form of royalties (unless they’re one of the talented and lucky few, like Jean François Porchez, who gets commissioned to design fonts for specific clients).

They’re coming from where you’d expect: warezheads who tend to collect licensed fonts just to have the biggest collection of warezed fonts. Every so often you come across somebody with some kind of agenda, like the strange case of Apostrophe (Apostrophic Labs, the freewheeling type collective he started, published a fair number of interesting free fonts, too), but for the most part it’s just young designers at big companies with slack ethics feeding a stream of fresh warez to kids who keep the same old fonts in perpetual circulation. And every two days somebody comes around looking for a copy of Adobe Font Folio or Neutraface or Mrs Eaves, which they do not find.

On the other hand, I think most designers observe the spirit of the law more closely than the letter. I cleaned up the fonts on my machine recently, and it turned out to be really tough to figure out the origins of some of them. Almost all of the real stumpers seemed to get onto my Mac via Microsoft, either via Office or Internet Explorer. I doubt many people have the patience or time to vet their fonts as closely as I did.

anne / April 29, 2005 @ 6:39 pm

I wouldn’t want to, and I haven’t. I see a lot of beautiful fonts and I’m itching to search for free downloads but whenever I would think of what would happen if I use them, I would feel a bit embarrassed. What if my design would become big and someone discovers my fonts were pirated? Something like that. Teehee.

Anne Onney-Musse / April 29, 2005 @ 7:13 pm

To be honest, I think that under some very limited circumstances, piracy is not a huge problem.

When something is done like Starbucks did it last year — P22 Cezanne everywhere all over their stores and campaigns, and not a cent paid — there’s no question that’s wrong. In any situation where someone uses X commercial font in a design, and makes any kind of money or fame or anything from that design as a result, I think that’s wrong.

But what if you have the case of a student? Not even necessarily a graphic-design student, but someone who’s just gotten freaking bored of turning in homework in TNR yet again. I think that if that student finds, oh who knows, an old copy of Perpetua or Palatino knocking around, it is not as big a problem. They’re getting absolutely zero from it. If they print out a research paper in, who knows, Baskerville SSi, I don’t see why that’s a reason to be super-ultra concerned. If a teacher says “I’ll give you $5 for every paper in a different font,” or “an A for every paper in a different font,” and the student then uses a pirated font to cash in on that, I think that’s wrong also.

But working with a font purely for enjoyment, and getting nothing out of it — I really don’t think it’s a problem. When the person doing the design gets money or fame or grades for it, while using a commercial font without compensating, that’s a big problem.

Have I made any sense at all?

Fred Blasdel / April 29, 2005 @ 8:11 pm

Yes, and I don’t use them commercially.

I love good type. I don’t have the reams of cash lying around to be able to afford it. The only decent stuff you find kicking around is mostly just collections from Adobe. I wish I could find the legendary new stuff from Frere-Jones.

I only wonder why nobody’s started a typetorrent.com so people can get their hands on quality OpenType stuff. I’d do it myself if I had the facilities.

Nick Findley / April 29, 2005 @ 9:56 pm

yes. but nothing spectacular — just the standards from adobe and linotype. if it’s any consolation, (a) i kinda feel bad about it and (b) i wasn’t actively pursuing them on filesharing networks nor putting them out there. most of them came off school computers or friends’ computers.

i have used them in “commercial” work, but i use that term loosely because most projects i’ve done pay about half of what it would cost to buy a lot of complete fonts.

i can’t wait until the day when i can afford to buy fonts for my own pleasure, or when i get a budget from a client that’s got more than three digits so i can wing something unique in there. but that day’s probably a ways off.

ColD. / April 30, 2005 @ 1:22 am

yes

c / April 30, 2005 @ 4:03 am

You can *buy* fonts?! How about that.

anonymous :) / April 30, 2005 @ 4:20 am

Yes, once.

I was doing a spoof on the iPod ads, and I wanted the same font they use (Myriad), so after an hour of searching for a look-alike and realizing how much time I was wasting on a silly little joke, I just fired up the P2P and found a copy in a minute.

Other than for a very specific use like that, there’s always another font available that will work, so why even bother pirating.

Justin Callaghan / April 30, 2005 @ 10:10 am

The situation with Starbucks using Cezanne was not that Starbucks didn’t purchase a license, but that they did not purchase a “large scale” license, with P22 claiming that Starbucks was using the font “in a manner that goes beyond the standard fair use clause in all versions of the P22 EULA.” The case was apparently resolved; there was some discussion at Typophile, here’s a link that may or may not survive their current redesign:

http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/27524.html

Anne Onney-Musse / April 30, 2005 @ 10:50 am

Argh, thank you about that. I saw part of the discussion, but didn’t stick around for the whole thing. Can’t get to the link, though, because Typophile’s down now, and will be until May 5 — and after that, who knows if the discussion will still be there. Thanks very much.

(And for the record, I still think it’s wrong. :p)

Saint Claude of Garamond / April 30, 2005 @ 8:55 pm

I use exclusively fonts I’ve either purchased or been given by those with the right to give them to me, such as vendor samples, bundles with software, freeware foundries, etc. I cannot remember a single instance, ever, when I have installed and used an unlicensed commercial typeface for so much as a memo, much less income-producing work. However, as a hobbyist, I have downloaded commercial fonts to examine or print samples with font previewers, uninstalled, in exactly the same way I examine the pictures of commercial fonts in books, catalogs, online WEB sites, PDF samples, etc. Which things nobody claims is wrong. I do not believe this is in the slightest way morally wrong, but certain industry spokesfolk routinely label me and any like me as thieves, members of an international crime ring, amoral, etc.

The problem with trying to get a genuine discussion of this matter is that there is almost always some entrenched dishonesty of opinion on both sides, with neither desire nor willingness to move towards any reasonable and more truthful middle ground — plus there is normally no safe forum in which to advocate counter-opinions. Thank you for attempting to provide one.

There have been at times some intelligent discussion on the usenet groups, also some unfortunate name calling on both sides. I have never seen an industry spokesperson admit to their errors, even when they were patiently and correctly explained. Following are a few of the dishonest arguments the type industry pundits repeat like a mantra of faith, believing in their rightness with all the certainty of the pathetic Inspector Javert in Les Miserables. (He was so sure the noble Valjean was irredeemable trash that he killed himself rather than admit the facts when confronted with them in a way he could not deny. The problem with Javert was that he was a law enforcement official; and even though he was quite wrong, he could make life miserable for all around him in his wrong-headed zeal. The so-called anti-piracy advocates are very much like Javert.)

First, they argue that possession or sharing of an unlicensed commercial typeface consititutes economic loss to the commercial vendors, even if, which is far the most common case, the holder who could not get an unlicensed copy would do without. They have lost nothing to so-called pirates who would not otherwise buy. Those who would not buy are not taking a dime out of their pockets, or a crumb off their children’s plates, as they frequently and floridly argue. They deny the harmlessness of so-called pirates who “try out” unlicensed faces and don’t use them. They further deny the benefits their industry derives from so-called pirates who “try out” unlicensed faces and then buy them, or who “try out” unlicensed faces and then influence others to buy (free advertising).

Second, they value this often non-existent claimed loss at the current full retail list price of fonts they themselves frequently sell for a fraction of those prices. Bitstream once sold me their “500 Fonts CD” for less than $40. Adobe once sold their “Illustrator” fonts collection with a PageMaker upgrade for less than $100. At one time you could buy all three Monotype “FunFonts” collections for less than $50 (not each set, all three), and I did. Each of these examples represets sale at a discount of greater than 90% off the claimed retail prices of the individual fonts. Yet if the font police came to me and I couldn’t produce the factory disc or, better yet, a receipt, they could claim “damages” of greater than $15,000 on the three examples here. Absurd. Dishonest.

The annual American font purchase “pie” is X thousands or millions of dollars. It is not a figure ten or twenty times that, 90 to 95% of which are stolen goods. The industry would have you believe the latter number is the true “pie,” and they’d all be enjoying it if font sampling could be eliminated. The vastly larger “pie” is a total fiction which will never be realized, never could be realized, because it is all vapor and imagination. The typeface industry is free to compete in the real world for shares of the actual pie, or to daydream bitterly about nonexistent losses.

Third, on the fraudulent assumption of loss, inflated loss at that, they threaten fines, prison, and every other dissuasor known to man against any who would dare to sample the ware. Especially as long as they will not even admit that many of their most fundamental arguments are bogus, and falsely accuse sampling defenders of twisting the facts, I think it is very wise for paragons of virtue sampling fonts to avoid the Inspectors Javert.

I oppose the actual use of unlicensed commercial fonts for other than preview, study, or try out. However, I am not about to help solve the typeface industry’s real problem as long as, in their delusions, they consider harmless hobbyist samplers part of it. The typeface industry is one of many which does not even know who its friends are. They demonize and attack their only fan base. It would not surprise me if in 100 years many of the whiny foundries are gone and forgotten, but some of the usenet denizens they’ve demonized are recorded as heroes in the history of typography.

A final comparison: The book industry could whine and cry because books purchased by libraries are read by dozens or hundreds of people, supposedly depriving them of profits. Rubbish. When a significant percentage of libraries buy a book, sales numbers get a huge boost. Library reader comments may urge others to buy the recommended book. And most books library patrons could not check out for free they simply would not read. Reading library books promotes literacy and additional book-buying. Libraries add to book publisher profits, not entirely unlike the way type hobbyists sampling commercial faces add to commercial font profits. The difference is the book industry recognizes libraries are valuable to them; the font industry does not value its fan base.

People who follow the newsgroups, visit font blogs, visit foundry WEB sites, and sample fonts like typefaces. Most people don’t give a fart about typefaces; or, if they have any feelings about them at all, can meet all their needs with what comes bundled with their operating system and one or two application bundles. By attacking samplers who like and admire their products, the fanatic foundries and their lawyers are shooting themselves in the foot, or perhaps better, shitting in their own soup. I believe they are threatening their few friends and whining petulantly about non-existent losses — even if they could find a judge stupid enough to put a harmless font-collecting grandma in jail and take her house away. It is they who cannot take responsibility for their own actions.

Many foundries may fail as fonts fall in price due to fair market forces; but it is not the so-called pirates who will be to blame, it will be fair market forces and the dinosaur managements who can’t figure out how to adapt any better than canal operators using horse-drawn barge towpaths or buggy whip manufacturers.

I will only mention a few side issues: The major font pirates are the foundries themselves. They steal each others’ work to sell it in quantity, which hobbyists do not, all while whining their fans want a better look by means of font sampling. The foundries are again actual pirates when they will not accept the return of a font which did not work or proves unsuitable. Many samplers began sampling after losing real dollars to pirate foundries this way.

I am glad to see “freeware only” font interest groups and WEB sites springing up, so that issues may be discussed and freeware exchanged without harrassment or police action by the Javerts of Type.

Edwin / May 1, 2005 @ 10:26 pm

Well, yes, regularly. I want to try before I buy. But whenever I use a font in a project, I buy it.

Name (required) / May 2, 2005 @ 12:12 am

I collect all kind of fonts. Commercial ones, bootlegged betas, quality freebies. But it’s only for the compulsive aspect of my interests. Commercially speaking, I stick with fonts that are bundled with various software, like Creative Suite, OSX, acrobat reader… and there are a whole bunch of highly-valuable fonts in there…

Name (required) / May 2, 2005 @ 9:47 am

I too have found myself picking up fonts from all over in the past … legitimate and not. However, if I had a paying opportunity come up, I wouldn’t use something unless it was licensed.

This brings up an issue… piracy for the sake of collecting and at-home play, versus commercial use and making a profit. As I write this, the question strikes me: isn’t it theft, either way? Perhaps there are not two different sides to the argument: If I take a hammer home from the hardware store, even though I don’t use it, have I not still stolen it? Then, why don’t people see “Internet font collecting” this way?

That said, I have a hard time coming up with a solution. If I had designed Cezanne and gotten $50 for it, then seen a firm like Starbucks splash it everywhere and make $50 million using it, it’d be hard telling the children we couldn’t afford to take a 1 week vacation visiting friends and relatives who live just a few states away.

Life isn’t fair, no matter how you look at it. It’d be nice to be able to both compensate the developers *and* have the font available for tryout somehow… but how?

joey / May 2, 2005 @ 10:05 am

isn’t it theft, either way?

just for the sake of argument, this analogy doesn’t really hold up. if i steal a hammer from home depot, they can’t sell THAT hammer (that they paid money for). if i download a copy of an emigre font, they can still sell as many copies as they want.

the real question is, ethical issues aside: if i download a copy of that font from emigre, what effect if any will that have on their bottom line? and more interestingly, are foundries actually profiting from font piracy in the long term?

forrest / May 2, 2005 @ 11:16 am

Well, this becomes one of those economic questions, like musical filesharing, that’s difficult to answer. With music, you can watch music sales over time, because we have a well-instrumented system for collecting that information. With fonts, it’s a lot more sketchy: Veer’s top 10 looks a lot different from Linotype’s or MyFonts, and without knowing absolute sales figures, it’s hard to say what the biggest sellers really are, and how many fonts have sold over time.

Also, most font developers these days have nowhere near the reach (in terms of distribution) or the sales support (in terms of marketing) as even small software developers. You have to have a burning urge to want new type to even know how to find independent foundries like Mac Rhino or Feliciano Type Foundry, both of whom sell beautiful work.

I want to take a step back, though, and say that’s not the real question: I’d say that “Name (required)’s” question is a valid one: why don’t people take font theft seriously? As an aspiring type designer, I can tell you that designing fonts is really hard work, and it demands a specialized knowledge that rivals software engineering and illustration combined (which is more or less what it is). Even though developers like Robert Slimbach and Jean François Porchez crank out high-quality fonts on a regular basis, it’s far from effortless work.

This question is relevant to the one you pose because type designers aren’t sitting in their lofty ateliers sipping chablis: they’re using the internet just like you and me, reading threads like this one. They know how rampant font piracy is, and that’s got to be discouraging (it’s already made me realize that as much as I love type and type design, it’s highly unlikely to ever be my sole source of income). Founding type has always been (at least in part) a labor of love, but you gotta have a lot of love to release a new font these days, knowing it’s going to be pirated with no guilt almost instantly, and that you’re going to be competing with high-value software bundles like Adobe’s.

Anne Onney-Musse / May 2, 2005 @ 12:13 pm

To be honest, though, I think you’re way over-dramatizing it. Almost all the pirated stuff is old — the old Bitstream stuff, SSi stuff, Zapfino, Optima. The new stuff is not pirated, or if it is, it takes so long that it’s old before it’s available.

Go ahead and look for something like Mrs Eaves — three years old, may I remind you, as well as extremely popular offline — and you won’t find it on any fly-by-night websites. Even if you were a member, you wouldn’t find it in any mailing groups. Even if you had all my connections, and knew the right people to kind of hint around to, you simply wouldn’t find it. It is just not being pirated. This goes for most Storm stuff, for all Veer stuff. No matter the foundry, even relatively new stuff is just not available.

There are exceptions, notably with P22’s scripts. But even then, I’ve seen exactly three pirated versions (and one was a copy, and the owner was claiming it was legal).

But it’s not like the second a poor timid trusting designer puts a font on the market, it’s snatched away from him in a vicious game of keep-away in which everyone else gets their hands on it. That’s a nice and touching picture to paint, but it’s just not what’s happening.

I feel like you need this explanation from someone who genuinely knows what’s out there. The new nice fonts are not.

(Even if they were, I personally would not “pirate” or download work by small foundries. I don’t think it’s wrong when used only as I detailed above, but hey, I know it would make the makers unhappy, and I want them to be happy because I like them a lot.)

housepig / May 2, 2005 @ 1:18 pm

“The new stuff is not pirated, or if it is, it takes so long that it’s old before it’s available.”

I don’t know who you’ve hinted around to, but in the case of Storm & P22 at least, you’re wrong. I’ve seen Storm’s entire line up for grabs, as well as at least a dozen P22 fonts… and I’m not that big a font junkie, or a boot hound.

I’m going to take a look in some hidey holes and see if I can find Mrs Eaves, and I’ll report back - I know nothing about it, but I’ll be surprised if I can’t find a copy within a week.

forrest / May 2, 2005 @ 1:42 pm

All apologies, Ann, but you’re just plain wrong. I see House Industries (I’ve scored complete versions of Comprimé and Neutraface / Neutraface Condensed before) and Underware fonts on alt.binaries.fonts.mac all the time, the Lanston Type Company’s first OpenType collection was available there practically before it was released, and I grabbed a copy of the *complete* FontFont collection ca. 1999 or so in January. Huge swathes of Linotype’s premiere library (Univers Platinum, Neue Helvetica, Avenir Next, etc) show up there all the time, too. Quite often the fonts have been carved up with something like TypeTool so they’re pretty ganky, but they’re there. I have a DVD somewhere with the warez to prove it.

I have seen plain ol’ Mrs. Eaves, too, but you’re right, I haven’t seen the fancy new OpenType implementation of Mrs. Eaves that John Butler sweated so hard over. Which is good, because it’s easily worth the $299 Emigré wants for it.

Just because it’s not out there on the public intramawebs doesn’t mean it’s not being pirated, and pirated widely. I know that Hotline still has a pretty avid following among Mac warezheads, and I also have a friend who put together a pretty remarkable collection of licensed type using LimeWire. He didn’t even really have to try that hard.

forrest / May 2, 2005 @ 1:56 pm

I apologize to all and sundry if my tone seems sanctimonious or self-righteous. That isn’t my intent at all. I made a conscious decision for myself that if I wanted to be a software engineer and a type designer, I needed to respect the other people designing software and type by paying them what they were due. While I’ve never used pirated fonts in client work for print, there are certainly graphic elements that have popped up in my web sites over the years that use fonts of dubious provenance (where the heck did I get my first copy of Futura, anyway?). So obviously, I’m not as pure as the driven snow, nor am I trying to splash my zeal of the converted all over the place. I just want everyone to be clear on the fact that there’s nothing technical about the fact that we’re breaking the law when we get our hands on fonts we haven’t legitimately licensed. Could you write House Industries and say, “Dudes, I just downloaded Neutraface and it’s AWESOME! Way to go!” without feeling guilty or worried about getting busted? Then more power to you! And why not do just that?

But if the idea of doing that makes you uneasy, think about why. It’s not just The Man unleashing vicious attack lawyers on (more or less) innocent you. There’s a reason this intellectual property dogfight we’re all stuck in is so endless and intractable: it’s really hard to figure out how to properly value something that isn’t tangible. Joey makes the point succinctly: if you “steal” a font, no material loss has occurred. The vendor has the same “number” of fonts to sell. But at the same time, if you use that font without paying for it, you’ve deprived the designers of making money for their work, and that makes it less likely they’re going to keep creating new material. It’s easy to see under what terms the maker of the font is comfortable allowing you to make use of their work: that’s what the EULA is for, and pretty much every foundry out there is right up front with their licensing terms. Most of the time when we “try before we buy” we’re explicitly violating that agreement. Who are we as users to decide unilaterally that their desires are bogus?

Isn’t that a legitimate question?

Saint Claude of Garamond / May 2, 2005 @ 9:54 pm

Question posed: Why don’t people take (so-called) font theft seriously? And: Who are we to unilaterally decide foundry desires are bogus?

Answer: A free people concerned about overreaching. Proper rights laws have always and still provide for some kind of free fair use. Rights holders have consistently sought to defeat fair law. For example, the law provides consumers can make personal back-ups of entertainment or software media. Vendors have done everything technologically possible to circumvent such law and proper user rights: Software dongles. Copy protection. Self-destructing recordings which play once. Music-only CD-Rs. Crippled copy software and hardware. I read an article today which said broadcasters are planning to encode digital TV when it’s all converted over so it cannot be recorded on home machines like analog TV may be now. Rights holders are doing everything possible to defeat reaonable consumer rights, including attacks on the law itself. Can you say “Digital Millennium Copyright Act?”

The Boston Tea Party was, in fact, in many ways criminal — and a waste of good tea — but history has decided the sacrifice was worth it to show the people are ultimately in charge. They’re called patriots, even though they harmed some legitimate commercial interests. By contrast, sampling fonts (without making use of them in documents or other work) harms no one. Calling it criminal is lunacy, even if the industry could get a judge to do so.

Many reasonable, decent, honorworthy people do not feel bound by unjust law. Nor by EULAs — After all, End User License Agreements are contracts into which purchasers have entered but samplers have not!

My argument, which most seem to have missed, is that there has been no loss and no theft when buyers merely sample or tryout copies of typeface. Collectors with copies of faces they don’t use have not stolen anything, and vendors, designers, et al have suffered zero loss. I do agree that those who prepare documents with unlicensed typeface are stealing fonts. I don’t do that. I don’t support or defend that. I have proper licenses, sometimes many redundant licenses, for every last font I use.

Some compared font downloading with downloading of music or films. I don’t think the categories are comparable. To view a film or listen to music is to use it as intended. There is nothing you can do with downloaded music or movies which is proper. But if you are not creating documents with a font on an ongoing basis, you can possess, view, and study a font — in numerous ways which are moral and proper. You are an innocent hobbyist, collector, student, or whatever.

The vendors may object, on the fraudulent objection they have been robbed, or that the hobbyists or collectors will surely either misuse the font or pass it to others who will, but they are wrong. A free people can and do decide; they have already decided. Designers and vendors should be paid by those who are actually using their fonts fonts in documents, ongoing. They are not being robbed by font samplers who collect or preview but don’t use them. When the industry spokesfolk begin to harrass and terrorize innocent, they have stepped from victim to villain category. To claim a loss where there is none, to artificailly inflate the value of the so-called loss beyond reason and reality, and to terrorize the innocent — that is dishonest and evil.

Besides evil, it is stupid. The font fan base is the industry’s best hope for survival, maybe even a propsperous future, in consumer sales. They’d help themselves by courting these people. (Actually, I have seen a few commercial designers post their own new work on some hobbyist groups for just that reason. Smart. But most are too stubborn and self-destructively bent. Pity.)

Dan Reynolds / May 2, 2005 @ 10:05 pm

Hello everyone!

I’d like to point out (even though this will make me a target) that downloading somebody else’s font improperly is just as “wrong” as using it for commercial work without having a proper license.

As we know, fonts are licensed pieces of software, not goods that we buy. Using a font which is unlicensed is a violation of the license agreement, i.e., illegal. But so is downloading it, and even more important, so is posting it on the web where others can download it.

I honestly don’t mind people downloading fonts to try them out so much. What really gets my blood boiling though is the people who post other peoples’ work online for others to steal. The people who make the fonts do get to decide what the terms of use are. The fonts are their products. Without those people, we wouldn’t have such great fonts to choose from. Imagine how the world would look if there were only 10 fonts instead of 10,000 (or even 100,000… probably a number closer to reality).

I read a great little interview with Jonathan Hoefler last year, I think it was in Stephen Heller’s The Education of a Graphic Designer (it was a Stephen Heller book, sorry for not remembering the title exactly). Anyway, in the interview, Heller said something like, “would you advise young people to go into a field like typeface design? Even when there are so many people [relatively] practicing the field?” Hoefler was enthusiastic that there was always more room for type designers. He then said that, after someone decided to enter the field, the first thing they should do is resolve never to use pirated fonts in their work again. How can you enter a field that you don’t respect?

Most graphic designers who are “formally trained” study at colleges or universities. In these places, piracy is often approved of and encouraged, even by the professors and administrators. Some people in these programs will want to go on and focus type design. That they have this desire is good for the whole industry. But if they don’t “come clean,” there may not be as good of an industry for them to enter into when they are ready.

Forrest’s model is a good one to follow, and I applaud him for it.

Dan Reynolds / May 2, 2005 @ 10:21 pm

Ahh, the font fan base.

You don’t have to have every font on your computer to be a font fan. I am a Rolling Stones fan, but I don’t have all of their albums. I am also a big Underware fan, but I don’t have any of their fonts. I love their website and their lectures, and I pause to thoroughly read any article I come across about them in various magazines. What more do I need to be an Underware fan?

Another example: for years, I subscribed to Emigre magazine, and I still do, even after they reintroduced subscription fees. I love the content, and am sad that they will be discontinuing it soon. Through their magazine, I’ve come to be a big fan of their fonts. But I don’t have any of them. I think I still qualify as an Emigre fan, though.

Illegally downloading their fonts just so that I could have them on my computer to drool over more would not make a fan. Quite the contrary.

talia / May 3, 2005 @ 12:20 am

I might,I’m sure I have more than a few faces that are the font equivilant to “desginer-inspired -handbags” as I tend to go on binges of free font site downloads (also follwed a few months later with purging as I realise that half the fonts I thought looked interesting are actually shite and I don’t know what I was thinking) I have never, however, sought out a knock-off or a pirate specifically because I didn’t want to pay for a face.

I’m not overly concerned with my “inspired” font collection, but then I also don’t use fonts for purposes anymore professional than gig posters for diyesque venues.

LicenseTransferRightFighter / May 3, 2005 @ 3:15 am

Hello everybody, a lot of thoughts to read here. Thank you!

What makes me unsatisfied with most commercial font EULAs, is that they forbid to resell a license totally.

I would understand, that the foundries need to be informed about such a license transfer, with full names and addresses. And that they charge a fee of about 5–20 bucks for the administrative work. But especially smaller foundries seem to not respect license transfer interests. I even would understand that they the limit the number of transfers for one license, and that they issue a special form for doing that. Of course.

But that most foundries seem to forbid it at all. This doesn’t make them more sympathic. Standard software license transfers are not seldom, and a right most software developers give their customers. Why not the same right for commercial fonts?

Many tasks don’t earn enough money for buying fonts worth often several hundred dollars, just for one project. Often it would be okay to pay the loss of value that reselling a used license means for a job. But eBaying for commercial fonts is a very, very hard and mostly illegal job (at least in Germany).

Hope that this is read by some foundries. Maybe I get an explanation for those usual policies.

e / May 3, 2005 @ 4:55 am

I think that part of the problem is that individual fonts are “small” and not seen as software by anyone outside the design world, and perhaps quite a few inside it. Perhaps they are regarded as just tiny components of the OS, or something that comes free with applications like Office.

In the same way that you’d email someone a copy of the driver for that old Zip drive you lent them, you’d email them the font for that Word newsletter you did that they want to base theirs on.

Perhaps PDFs with their embedded fonts have made this rather more confusing for those without in depth knowledge.

My experience is working in-house in corporates where we generally only use our own proprietary font families, but have on occasion bought the odd font for special purposes, that clients seem to be surprised that fonts have any value at all. Same goes for individual images.

Also, I have not yet met a printer who worried about owning licences for the work they print - has anyone else?

forrest / May 3, 2005 @ 12:31 pm

I have never met a print shop or prepress worker who has even a shred of conscience about font licensing. I’m sure people like that exist, but I’ve never met any of them. It seems like a simple survival skill to me: that work is hectic enough that it would be hugely onerous to have to play license mommy for all incoming jobs.

kaptain kidd / May 3, 2005 @ 12:42 pm

yes.

forrest / May 3, 2005 @ 1:16 pm

As soon as you start throwing around terms like “fraudulent”, which imply bad faith on the part of one or more parties in a discussion, you demolish whatever aspirations you might have had for an impartial debate of the issues. I strongly doubt anyone who is willing to debate these issues on the internet is being disingenuous; many (if not most) professional type designers sincerely believe font piracy affects their income. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t make them liars.

When you start framing arguments in terms of American history, it behooves you to actually know some history. Constitutional democracy, even in its revolutionary American form, does not mean “the people” are entitled to ignore the rule of law when they feel oppressed by those laws. In fact, the point of our republican democracy is that we have many mechanisms to work towards changing laws that we as a society decide are unjust or unwieldy. To argue otherwise is to assign some kind of heroic defiance to mostly unthinking lawbreakers that they really don’t deserve. The people, through their duly constituted representatives, have spoken: font piracy, inasmuch as it is a violation of American intellectual property laws, is wrong. You can argue that IP law is flawed or even fundamentally bogus (which it certainly is, especially with regards to fonts, typefaces, and the copyrightability of alphabets), but don’t try to enlist We The People on your side.

I don’t think it makes sense to argue that downloading fonts is somehow different from downloading music, movies, or other software, either. Collecting things for the sake of merely having them is a peculiar neurosis, but also one I think is rare. People collect fonts because they work well in designs, or do weird things, or are just plain pretty. They’re a unique blend of culture and technology. While you’re doing your previewing and studying and trying out, you’re deriving some pleasure from the process. They’re not inert, opaque chunks that do nothing for you until you see a finished, printed page. They’re an aesthetic end in themselves. If you think there are numerous ways to use downloaded fonts morally and properly, please enumerate some of the ways. I never thought it was moral, even when I was doing it. I thought it was fun.

I think everyone would like to grant the ability for people to evaluate fonts before purchase, but the problem is that there’s no meaningful way to enforce “evaluation” versus “use”. Any effort to make fonts rights-managed is going to be so cumbrous and annoying that it will either be cracked or shouted down soon after its introduction (like the OpenType embedding bit). I’ve dealt with copy-protected (Japanese) fonts before, and they’re a huge pain in the ass that hugely complicates workflows. The problem is that for every fundamentally honest person who will try out a font (or any other piece of software) and then pay to use it, there’s at least one (and probably quite a few more) person who can’t be bothered and will use it anyway without paying for it.

I’m not arguing for absolute creators’ rights. The legal (and ethical) framework governing intellectual property clearly needs to change to fit the times. The current system benefits neither creators nor users, being hugely tilted in favor of distributors and other middlemen. But the situation is not so bad that revolutionary / vigilante behavior is justified. If you don’t like the laws, fine, work to change them. But you get no moral or ethical credit by ignoring them or claiming they’re moot simply because you disagree with them. A culture’s laws form its lowest form of arbitration; to ignore the law is to tell the people who disagree with you that you don’t respect them.

I find it strange to be arguing on the side of the law or copyright holders, so I’m going to reiterate: I don’t feel I have a right to judge people for how they deal with copyright and intellectual property law. I have the luxury of a decent income and my own weird ethical code, which I understand very clearly pertains only to me. What bugs me is the language that font pirates / warez lords / filesharers use to rationalize their behavior or (in the case of the person whose comment I’m replying to) ideological stance. I have seen all sorts of rhetorical and moral contortions used to justify something that it’s obvious a large number of people see as wrong, to avoid telling someone who wants a say over how their creation is used, “you don’t have that right” or “you don’t deserve to have that right.” Especially with something like fonts, which are fundamentally a creative tool. It really bothers me to see creators screwing other creators.

Saint Claude of Garamond / May 3, 2005 @ 9:58 pm

Glad to have had a forum for the views I’ve expressed here; hope that responding to some literate and considered replies to them by Dan Reynolds and Forrest will not wear out my welcome.

Forrest’s reply to my May 2 is correct that I chose the term fraudulent (perhaps others like it) poorly. I meant only that various views are invalid, incorrect. Even the fictional Javert to whom I originally compared font vendors (by behavior) was a “true believer” in the errors he espoused, lived by, and harrassed others because of. The following may be a fine distinction, but it’s a very important one: I believe many industry arguments are dishonest, but I do not believe everyone reciting them is doing so dishonestly. English, maybe other languages, is poorer for lack of a single, widely understood word which means “those who spread lies in which they sincerely believe,” as opposed to “those who deliberately falsify for wrong motives.” Probably the majority of those who spread lies are “true believers,” not deliberately, knowingly creating lies. Of course, if we did not know before, we do know from 9/11 how dangerous “true believers” can be. At any rate, I freely apologize to anyone who sincerely advocates industry viewpoints for contributing to any misunderstanding about your sincerity. I believe what you’re saying is wrong, but I believe you believe it.

His comments about American law may be largely true today, but the Tea Party patriots were certainly breaking applicable law at the time. Those who ignore bad laws now may not be heroic, but it is a far more practical, immediate solution than trying to battled well-funded lobbyists. (Curious how many of those who claim samplers are starving their children can always afford expensive attorneys.) There may be a technical sense in which a motorist who controls her car safely at 62 mph on a deserted road engineered for 70 mph but now limited to 55 is a criminal; but I do not consider her an amoral person — nor do I believe “we the people” do, either.

He challenged me to enumerate some moral and proper ways downloaded fonts could be used, which I had already done: previews, study, and tryout. Categorically, they are identical to what can be done with books, catalogs, sample PDFs, etc. All of which are fully legal. However, these can all be better done with a real font — even if it’s crippled by missing glyphs.

On a related remark, Dan Reynolds said in his second May 2 post he could be a fan of the Rolling Stones without having all their albums, and a fan of fonts he does not possess. This is true, but it is a matter of degree. Such a fan of “Star Trek” may have seen and liked a few episodes, but would never dream of going to a convention dressed as a Klingon. Would you want a surgeon in your chest who had never dissected a cadaver or assisted another surgeon during real operations, who had only done really well on written anatomy tests? How credible would you consider a butterfly collector who had no genuine specimens, only a really nice bookshelf of nature books with black-and-white pen-and-ink drawings about them? A real font student wants to see glyphs (not necessarily prepare documents), maybe even get one of the good free font editors and find out how many control points different artists place on their Bezier curves, and where.

Forrest’s post labels filesharing arguments “rationalizations” and “moral contortions” when I provided the facts which proved my statements. You may be correct that a large number of people see it as wrong. You omit saying a large number of poeple see it as right, also — possibly a large majority of those who’ve considered it, if you count those who’ve voted with their feet and those educators over whom you sorrow. I am still waiting to see anyone explain where the designer, the foundry, or the middlemen have suffered any loss by hobbyist sampling that does not extend into using the font to prepare personal or for-hire documents, which an honorable hobbyist does not do.

In a related remark, Dan Reynolds said in his first May 2 post that “downloading somebody else’s font improperly is just as “wrong” as using it for commercial work without having a proper license.” Having demonstrated conclusively that there is no economic loss to designers, foundry, or middlemen from sampling, I can only say, “Huh?” That seems like saying the kid who jaywalks on a deserted street has done as much harm and is just as guilty as a mass-murdering rapist. Yet I’m supposed to be the rationalizing moral contortionist?

Actually, both Forrest and Dan said things I wish were chiseled on the walls of every foundry and design studio in America:
Dan: “I honestly don’t mind people downloading fonts to try them out so much.” (This I applaud although it seems to contradict the “just as wrong” quote which occurred just before it.)
Forrest: “I think everyone would like to grant the ability for people to evaluate fonts before purchase, but the problem is that there’s no meaningful way to enforce “evaluation” versus “use”.
Wow! It is not my impression “everyone would like to grant the ability for people to evaluate fonts before purchase.” It’s my impression the commercials would like to eliminate competition from freeware and from some of their own, then achieve monopoly status and profits. If it really were policy to permit sampling, it’d be “problem solved.” Hallelujah! But don’t call those “test drive” windows at vendor sites which permit the preview of less than a full sentence, sometimes with stripes through the letters or in light gray, and 36 or 48 point maximum size a solution. Actually, to be fair, some few of them are better than nothing; the more restrictive ones less than nothing.

Forrest calls collecting a neurosis and speculated there were few actual collectors. Maybe I’m neurotic? I have never counted all the fonts I’ve bought, because many were in bundles like Corel’s or those mentioned previously, with 500 or more faces each. I’ll estimate I own more than 10,000 licensed fonts. Fewer than 500 have ever been installed; and fewer than half of those have ever been used in a document. Yet I buy more new fonts every year, as well as seeking out the legitimate free ones like Fontleech leads me to. Now, my impression in every font list or group I’ve followed is that the “regulars” who post and download fonts are also avid collectors, some with many tens of thousands of fonts. Now, I cannot even regularly use a meaningful percentage of my purchased fonts; and I have never used an unlicensed font. How much use of unlicensed fonts can a collector with tens of thousands of them make? Use, never mind excessive use, is a practical impossibility. If the collector comments are indicative (I, for one, believe they are) most of them remain in unopened compressed files, never used, not even viewed, not yet classified. Neurotic, maybe. An economic loss to designers and vendors, no. I have been impressed with these people, how they help newcomers by answering questions, directing them to buy faces they intend to use, and generally promote the health and well-being of the font community: the fan base and even the vendors who despise them. They also apologize when mistaken more than vendors do!

I think Forrest got closest to correct when made the last portion of that quote, “there’s no meaningful way to enforce “evaluation” versus “use.” I question if honest previewers should be deprived because some previewers will go ahead and use the face in documents; but even if so, it would be far better if the industry honestly stated THAT is the problem instead of demonizing, harrassing, and vilifying innocent hobbyists as thieves and the borderline insane.

Dan Reynolds / May 4, 2005 @ 2:42 am

You are overlooking my point. I don’t mind the “idea” of downloading to review. However, this is against just about every font’s EULA. Therefore, I would never do it. If you do it, you are breaking the law, and must somehow live with yourself for that.

If there could be a system where users could download demo fonts, which would never ever be “usable” for anything other than evaluation, I would support that. But there is not such a system, because current font technology does not allow for “temporary” fonts. Therefore, an ersatz system, where real working fonts would be downloaded, would be abused, and the designers/producers/resellers would lose money.

People who create illegal systems, like those who post commercial fonts to newsgroups or sites, must be stopped, and occasionally do end up in court for illegally posting other peoples’ work for download.

Just because the market isn’t the way one wishes it would be does not authorize civil disobedience. The designers and producers of fonts DO get to decide how they should be sold or distributed. If you don’t like the way a specific foundry does business, then buy your fonts from a different foundry (or even a different reseller). But don’t steal fonts as a form of protest. That is just wrong.

Lastly, you made a remark about “font students.” As a real, bona fide type design student, I must point out that prowling through old specimen books teaches one more about design than opening up someone else’s font in FontLab (or any other editor) ever will. While FontLab is a beautiful tool that I delight in using almost every day, fonts are made for specific uses. While they now exist as outlines on a hard-drive, a font doesn’t really “exist” until it has been output on paper (or in the case of some fonts, in flash or in a graphic onscreen). When you see how the fonts works in print at its intended size , then you can evaluate it. This can’t really be done within a font editor. Therefore, one actually learns more by analyzing old fonts in use. Looking at old books will teach you more about type and how it works than downloading fonts ever will. Trust me here, this IS how most professional designers learned their trade. Want to be a font fan? Go to the library.

Name (required) / May 4, 2005 @ 9:37 am

It’s an interesting proposition.. what might happen if a foundry opened up its library (or a portion thereof… or maybe just one font) to a fully-functional try before you buy scenario?

More or fewer registrations? More or less abuse?

Trouble is, it’d be hard to track such a font “in the wild” in the real world, reliably. A relevant data sampling that reflected reality might not be possible.

But it’s an interesting thought. How about this, then.

What if I register with p22 or Emigre or Hoefler as a designer, and I can download some agreed-upon number of their fonts on a sort of eval basis? If I use it, then I pay for it. If I violate that and use it anyway, and they catch on, they’ve got me.

Obviously, the “if they catch on” part is a hassle to enforce, and the record-keeping of designer names, contact info, and fonts a designer has downloaded/used is an administrative task that costs them $$$ to setup and maintain.

But just maybe … might more people will fess up (and pay up) when they use one?

I think we’ve established that some people will be on the level with this, and some will not. Much as it is today.

So would a means of making fonts available for tryout, based on a “spec contract” that stipulates “use it or delete it, please,” result in more legal use of a foundry’s works?

I could be way off here. But I figured I’d voice the thought.

Anon / May 4, 2005 @ 9:54 am

I downloaded the whole of Adobe Font Folio. Give the students better options.

The Student Licensing Option is only available to institutions of higher education in North America that have signed CLP agreements with Adobe. The institutions must sign a Student Licensing Option enrollment schedule to be eligible for ordering under the Student Licensing Option.

not europe then?

Plus they dont even offer student discount on FontFolio. Nice move.

Dan Reynolds / May 4, 2005 @ 9:57 am

Hello Name (required),

since many foundries operate on such slim margins, what you are proposing is a real risk. It could sink some businesses. I know that most font fans want to think long term. But when you are a small business owner, with kids to feed, the short term is often more important. And there are some risks you just can’t afford to take.

FontShop San Francisco (www.fontshop.com), does give away one font weight of a big family every month or so. This way, people can get a feeling for the family, and maybe later buy more weights or the whole thing. Most of these links are posted here on FontLeech.

If FS SF wants to do business that way—and it works—good for them. But one shouldn’t automatically expect all of their competitors to follow suite.

Dan Reynolds / May 4, 2005 @ 10:07 am

Linotype and T-26 both offer student discounts. Linotype’s is 30%, and is good students anywhere in the world. I don’t know the detail’s of T-26’s. I can’t recall what page it was on, and couldn’t find it is a quick 2 minute search on their site. You probably need to create a shopping cart account first.

Saint Claude of Garamond / May 5, 2005 @ 9:45 am

Discussion still churning. Must be significant to two or three of us.

I wonder what I’ve said that makes Dan think I don’t also already have a collection of print reference books, old catalogs, and scholarly analyses of hot metal type? My collection is better than what’s in any local public or university library (I’ve checked); and I have a standing order with my used book dealer for old printer’s sample books. I would never restrict my learning to a single source of input. And believe it or don’t, I pay my way.

Anyway, back to topic, to round out my contribution (?), I want to make some observations about the law. The official and unofficial spokesfolk seem to think the law is “open and shut” on their side. Izzit?

First, a bit about the EULA. This is a private contract into which purchasers voluntarily (or semi-voluntarily) enter with their supplier. Non-buying font downloaders have not entered into the contract, so it doesn’t govern their behavior! Which may tick off the vendors, but doesn’t bring downloaders under its terms. Font downloaders are subject only to generic law, not these private contracts. Have you ever purchased a single bottle of ketchup or shampoo bearing the imprint “not for retail sale,” “not labeled for retail sale,” or “part of a multi-pak, not to be sold separately?” This language has no effect on the purchaser; they have done nothing wrong in ignoring it. They may’ve found a bargain. However, if the seller is a dealer under contract to honor it, they could lose their dealer status. If the seller is gray market, they’re in the clear, too. Only a supplier subject to that language is at risk for violating it. You can’t clobber somebody with a contract to which they are not a party.

So, is the law of the land firmly against font sampling? In what an earlier poster described as the “curious case” of Apostrophe, several foundries hired a legal team to stop one man from posting commercial font collections on Usenet. He may’ve wanted to take it to trial to establish a precendent in favor of font sharing. The facts were not in dispute: he had done exactly that. Yet the lawyers settled out of court without collecting a single penny of damages or fines, on the strength of his promise not to do it any more! Yes, they bellowed and trumpeted “malefactor brought to justice!” and such like, but the fact remains no money changed hands (except to the lawyers, of course). (Aside: Read a fascinating paper attributing a good part of the success of Japanese economy to the fact they have fewer than 10% of the attorneys per capita we do.) My best guess is that the attorneys warned the foundries that they were likely to lose their case, that a legal precedent permitting sampling would be created under American law, just as I’ve advocated it should be, and for the reasons I’ve given — no economic loss occurs. Apostrophe kept his promise, and went on with his friends to create one of the most-varied, best-quality font libraries available anywhere in the world — as freeware. He may’ve “burned out” under the stress; his own site no longer provides these faces — but they remain available for download and enjoyment from at least two sites. It is because of this lovely library of high-quality freeware he, for one, may be remembered as a typographical hero when his irrelevant critics are justifiably forgotten. He has done more for the art, if not the business, of type than the overwhelming majority of his enemies. I deeply respect those positive achievements.

I would certainly rather sit by Apostrophe at a type banquet than the highly-esteemed Michael Carter, who, with his fellow conspirators, stole hundreds of face outlines from his employer Linotype, digitized them not only without permission but over protest, and sold them essentially unchanged by the tens of thousands. The company he co-founded still sells them. Bitstream is probably the biggest organized digitized font piracy crime ring in the history of type, but they’re welcome to participate in the attack against grandmas and teen-age typeface hobbyists. (Note: nothing in my jab at Mr. Carter’s ethics, though spot-on accurate, denies his ability as a genius type designer. But he ought to wear an eye-patch and skull hat to show that even a man of his consummate artistic skill could never have succeeded in type to the degree he has without stealing on a massive scale. Perhaps it may be technically “legal” because of the re-digitization and renaming. And I’m supposed to be a moral contortionist? Still, in some ways, I regret needing this example; I’ve worked to make this a discussion of issues rather than become “personal.” Yet how else to make the important factual point without it: Almost every foundry is guilty of far greater true moral crimes than those they are pursuing for font sharing. No, that does not make whatever is wrong right — though hobbyist sharing is legitimate — but it puts perspective on the dispute. Actual criminals are chasing innocent so-called criminals. Was it font sharing who screwed Zapf out of his royalties for Palatino, or so-called legitimate foundries who sold copies? Hmmm? Who’s ready to pull their look-alike and give the man back pay? Don’t everybody jump at once.)

A statement appeared on Usenet years back that “no one in America had ever been fined or jailed for posting or downloading fonts on the Internet.” I suspect that it was and remains true, despite all the angry speeches, else the gloating Javerts would have repeatedly posted the details as a warning to others.

Do I sleep well? You bet! I use licensed fonts exclusively. I do not believe any study I’ve done is a moral crime; and it probably isn’t a legal crime under applicable statutes, either. I don’t believe the hobbyists have hurt anyone. Recently saw two posts on an all-freeware (no commercial faces traded) board. The hobbyists agreed they “could not stop downloading free stuff, might never use it, just had to have it.” Mock if you will, tell them to “get a life;” but don’t blame them for all the industry’s ills.

Ther’ve been remarks about not taking law into one’s hands. Yet Americans by the millions do so daily, proudly. Some deliberately violate what they consider unconscionable law. Some take violent action against others obeying what the vigilantes consider unconscionable law. And some drive 62 in a 55-mph zone. I do not agree with all their issues. And I certainly do not agree with volence against life to protest law. But don’t tell me the majority don’t evaluate obedience to law against personal ethics, possibly a higher standard. While half their law-makers are taking bribes to sell out their constituents.

There’s a further practical consideration that makes this whole discussion so futile — there is no economic gain possible from totally eliminating all font sharing, if it were possible. No profit stopping even those who are actually using fonts for income-producing work (which I do not approve nor practice). Even these would simply do without if they could not steal. They are doing wrong, but the size of the pie is not going to grow by hundreds of percent, no matter what. It might grow by a few per cent, if the superstars create some new work of rare beauty that font consumers want to buy.

The marketplace has spoken, and perhaps crushed the hopes of many existing and would-be full-time font designers. All but a handful of prestige, botique fonts are now worth pennies, dimes, or at the most a few dollars. Just as most artists and most musicians have never been able to make a living by their skill, only a few superstars, the same will be true in future for font artisans, if it isn’t already. Not even a world legislature can overturn supply and demand. It’s the real law, like gravity. Crime has not made this happen; irresistable, immutable economic law has made this happen. And fighting the most ardent admirers of your work isn’t going to make it better. The foundries are struggling to alienate the only tiny minority who cares about a quality product. How intelligent.

Treating customers with respect, even when a few do not deserve it, is not going to “sink small foundries.” Trying to charge predatory monopolist prices which the marketplace has ruled excessive is going to sink small foundries, all but a few superstars. Trying to make a full-time living creating one font family per year is going to sink small foundries. Treating customers like scum, even if a few are, retards satisfaction, sales, and growth. Most aspiring type designers should plan on doing either some other kind of graphic design work in addition to font design, or some other kind of work altogether in addition to font design. Applause to any exceptions.

A big part even of existing consumer font sales might dry up if the consumers were not ignorant of all the quality freeware available to them. Well, that’s true, but I’s straying off topic. The real issue is plenty big enough without discursi.

That should give the true believers plenty of opportunities to take pot shots at my ethics or intelligence. But if just one person becomes enlightened, just one more person realizes, “Hey, the whacko is right about that!” it will all be worthwhile.

Anne Onney-Musse / May 5, 2005 @ 9:45 am

Hi, forrest. It seems that our experiences have been drastically different. I’m really familiar only with the PC side of things — TrueType and some OpenType. I’m not sure what’s out there for Macs only (and haven’t checked out alt.binaries.fonts.mac, since it’s Mac-only), so perhaps this accounts for the discrepancy in our experiences.

Speaking as a PC user involved in a lot of small design circles, with a lot of people looking for the omgkewl new font for their latest avatar or header, I have seen hardly any new serifs or new scripts pirated in either TrueType or OpenType formats.

I certainly don’t disagree that a lot of work was put into Mrs Eaves. I never meant to hint otherwise, and I don’t think I did imply that the work was at all negligible.

When I refer to my experience, I’m referring to the groups that I’m a part of: a member of several small circles of young designers working for one specific purpose; a visitor of several fly-by-night sites; a member of some mailing groups; and a member of some font identifying sites that can quickly turn into “Well, now that I know what it is, how can I get X font?” All of these circles are PC-based, and that’s all I have experience with. I stand by my prior statement that in these circles, which are the only extant PC-based pirating circles that I know of, new serif or script fonts are not available.

If you are a member of any of these groups and think that these fonts are available there, or if you are a member of any other PC-based groups with similar aims and think the fonts are available there, please let me know that I’m mistaken. If you’re only familiar with the Mac side of things, then we’ll have to agree that there’s a significant discrepancy between the Mac and PC sides of pirating.

Anne Onney-Musse / May 5, 2005 @ 9:50 am

This has been my experience, which, as I noted above, is only PC-based. If you research or work with only Mac fonts, or travel in Mac-exclusive circles, this would explain the discrepancy in what we’ve seen.

I have seen some Storm stuff available, but nowhere near all of it. P22 is a little more popular, and while I’ve seen a few in separate places, the only ones I’ve seen at all widely-spread are P22 Cezanne and P22 Monet. P22 has since cracked down in a surprising amount, trying to stamp out even the clone “Hannibal Lecter.”

If you are able to find Mrs Eaves, I’d be impressed. Short of finding a friend who has it and is willing to share, I don’t think you’ll be able to get it.

joey / May 5, 2005 @ 10:04 am

we’ll have to agree that there’s a significant discrepancy between the Mac and PC sides of pirating.

i don’t doubt this. mac-based designers are some of the most ruthless pirates i’ve encountered.

forrest / May 5, 2005 @ 3:43 pm

I lack a saint’s stamina, so I can’t respond to St. Claude’s most recent comment in full, although I will flog a bit of pedantry: I’m not sure who this shadowy Michael Carter he mentions is. I’m pretty sure he means Matthew Carter, who while participating in the repetition of an odious industry practice is also an incredibly talented type designer and, from all reports, a very nice guy.

The facts of the matter are that due to issues in American copyright law pertaining to typefaces (with long legal histories of their own), the letterforms that collectively represent a typeface or font cannot by themselves be copyrighted (under a specific and explicit law). Foundries wishing to protect their designs can only trademark the names of the fonts and copyright the font programs themselves. This is clearly a messed up situation (speaking as a type designer here), but when I put on my copyright-law hat I see that the issues involved are pretty intractable and murky. When I put on a third hat (not sure which this one is), I do think it’s ridiculous that biotech companies are allowed to patent genomes but type foundries can’t copyright alphabets. In any case, what Bitstream did was clearly unethical, by the standards of TypeRight among other organzations, but it was also clearly legal, at least in the US.

I’m the person who mentioned Apostrophe above, and his case is an interesting one. The outcome of the case against him is open to interpretation, though. If he was really trying to test the law of the matter, he could have refused to settle. The fact that he settled doesn’t say anything definite one way or the other, just as the foundries’ willingness to settle doesn’t necessarily imply that their case was weak. He talked a good fight, was (and presumably is) a hellaciously smart type aficionado, and raised a lot of issues that needed to be raised, but his action was akin to sticking his figure in a meathead’s eye and then apologizing profusely when said meathead threatened to pulverize him in response. I don’t think what happened did credit to either side.

Additionally, I’d dispute your assertion that the Apostrophic Labs collection is “one of the most-varied, best-quality font libraries available anywhere in the world”. While the Apostrophic Labs collection is certainly worthy of Fontleech’s attention (and I think I’ve said that before), most of the type there is not of professional quality, even to my relatively inexperienced eye. It’s an admirable effort but they still haven’t produced a technically successful typeface (with the kind of spacing, kerning, and harmony of design I expect from professional foundries, be they large or small, pay or otherwise).

If there’s anyone out there still reading, they ought to at least skim http://jeff.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/legal.html. Luc’s position, if it can be descried from that page, is closer to St. Claude than me, but he provides enough information to make up your own mind. There’s also a lot more there on Apostrophe.

forrest / May 5, 2005 @ 6:03 pm

Oh, and just in case anybody thinks I have anything against free type designers, let me reiterate that Dieter Steffman is one of my favorite one-man foundries. Few of his designs are original in terms of having been drawn by him before digitization (most of his designs appear to be digitized from printed specimens), and they have technical faults (his huge array of blackletter fonts almost universally suffer from defects that appear to derive from digitizing printed versions of old faces too faithfully, as ink spread is a feature of most of his designs), but he and Gerhard Helzel are two of the few type founders left who work to keep the blackletter flame alive.

Also, I probably need to spend more time with Apostrophic Labs’ designs, as it seems that a number of people I respect have nice things to say about them. So far, the designs I’ve seen haven’t impressed me overly.

Saint Claude of Garamond / May 5, 2005 @ 6:11 pm

Whoops. Got me. In my earlier post today, Michael Carter is my illegal clone of the name Matthew Carter. Just slipped it into GlyphLabrapher and changed a few control points. Sorry, just wasn’t paying equal attention to everything. (And I’m not talented enough to use GlyphLabrapher that way, anyhow.) Mea culpa. When they make the movie, he can be played by Jimmy Depp. (Yeah, that one was deliberate.)

Good link. I had forgotten the suit they settled for zero originally sought $20 million.

On the quality of the Apostrophic Lab work. There are several hundred faces; and yes, among them there are some casual fun faces, less exacting — but still eminently useful. But the good stuff stands on its own, such as Day Roman or Scriptina. In its own way, Komika is also a classic of first rank.

But imagine if the font god appeared before me and said, “Tomorrow the body of work from two among T-26, Emigre, or Apostrophic Lab will disappear — you must choose the two.” Well, too bad for the foundries in the middle and end of the alphabet.

Stephen / May 5, 2005 @ 7:01 pm

Oh my, Claude. I’m afraid you’ve lost your sight in your old age.

Dan Reynolds / May 5, 2005 @ 8:31 pm

Once again, Stepehen Coles sums up in just one sentence what I couldn’t manage to get across in a dozen posts!

Fubarisan Augereau / May 6, 2005 @ 1:52 am

I’d just like to applaude St. Claude and Forrest as voices that show, rather than tell, the kind of intellect and heart that need to work in tandem (in each of us) in matters far beyond type, though type is what we’re here to talk on. I also wish to call out Dan Reynolds as the most unthinking, uncritical voice in this column, the sort who would let violence be done if it meant staying quiet and “obeying” all “manners” (no matter their smatter). That he thinks what Stephen Coles added—in respect to Claude’s sweaty choice of AL over T26 or Emigre—is a “seconding” of “what [Dan] couldn’t manage to get across in a dozen posts!”: sad. This post is meant to laud Claude and Forrest, not ban Dan, although his kind have been around for as long as power structures have used pawns and tools of his type. Dan, I disrecommend you use so many exclamation points in a future forum where people of their own intellect and heart speak candidly, and generously, to one another.

With respect to these very people, I’ll champion Forrest’s sobriety and breadth of factor-allowance (by bringing in Luc—to whom all of us are grateful). But I am somewhat in awe of Claude’s “stamina”, especially when considering his measure on differences ipso- and de- facto. Odd is that he speaks as much for those of us who truly “love” type as he does those who merely “abuse” authority for a quick buck. How uglified the situation of fine letters soon became when money moved its makers to fear, greed or other work. But I probably don’t need to remind this forum that these are matters of “fine art” at this point (no longer necessity, as ugly arial, or even TNR, will make a thing “readable” in a pinch, sadly, the word over).

Blessed are those whose business is fine art and not that of toxic refuse and war—businesses which are upon us, Ladies and Gentlemen, serifs be damned.

For a brief span here it feels like techonology gives the slightly-above average citizen carte blanche to a slew of art (currently). I like very much the fact that some of my poorer students, from Ghettos, show up to class with papers typed in Stempel Garamond, simply because I mentioned how much better I thought it looked than ITC, and no—OBVIOUSLY—they do not get a better grade for that. (Though they may think so, or let’s allow they’re budding æsthetes, please.)

I am merely an artist who must teach and even do dirt to not sink, to support my “habit” of “art”—I’m grateful that at the end of the Day I can choose 2 use a Roman, or one that costs moeny I do not have. I love my “nice” fonts, almost none of them could I afford to buy, nor will I ever, ever make any money from them (I am not in graphic arts—will never be in fact, because of folks like Dan, honestly), but mine are fonts which, believe it or don’t, I enjoy with the sort of dorky vigor that staves off, from time to time, my sadness and annoying invites to suicide. But I am admittedly a madman who thinks of sanity and others oftener than myself.

I raise my glass (Hawaiian Punch) to Claude, to Forrest, to Joey for the genius anon invite and forum, to Stephen for his work at Typophile.

& this message for the Saint: Antoine says, “What up, Dude. Stay course. Steady hand. In time. Etc.”

forrest / May 6, 2005 @ 4:36 am

I’ve tried to muddle through and explain some of the issues related to font licensing over at my own blog. It’s really just a digest of a lot of the stuff on Luc’s page, with some of my own editorializing over the top, but as this is consistently new information to a lot of people, I thought it worthwhile to write down.

Thanks, Fubarisan, I guess, although I personally think that Dan has been a smart and enthusiastic contributor to this thread who’s engaged in the debate constructively and in good faith. I think you do him discredit by dismissing him the way you have. And thanks to anyone else who’s taken the time to read all of this. It’s a surprisingly hard topic, and one that I’m still working over in my own mind.

Fubarisan Augereau / May 6, 2005 @ 5:14 am

Thanks for the link, Forrest. (Don’t forget to call your local mycologist on Sunday), and though your critique of my take on Dan carries weight—as I could revise my comment to refigure his “good faith” into the picture (admitting you make yourself a target removes no crosshairs)—I will somehow “live with myself”. But no doubt he was enthusiastic in this thread. I too am still working a lot over in my mind, about my own craft, which is that of story-telling. Sometimes I forget peripheral particulars, i.e., Stephen does Typographica, not phile, or, e.g., Dan Reynold’s typographical work is beautiful.

I could also add that my sadness is merely average, but the joy that fonts deliver to me in its place is something extraordinary. I suppose that’s why I have an instinct to protect those who protect those. My bark IS my bite.

joey / May 6, 2005 @ 6:40 am

It’s a surprisingly hard topic, and one that I’m still working over in my own mind.

agreed. and frankly i’m a little suspcious of anyone who thinks they can answer any of these questions absolutely.

nothanks / May 7, 2005 @ 12:30 pm

To answer the question, yes I have downloaded or received commercial fonts without paying for them. I believe anyone who says otherwise is being extremely forgetful or dishonest.

To speculate on the impact of such activity is useless. The seller, lobbyist or groupie will always tell you the impact is tremendously negative, and the hobbyist, downloader or pirate will always tell you he is of benefit to the seller by exposure. This has been the case with all software since before the internet was born, and it will not change unless some intentionally unbalanced and draconian laws are dictated and executed.

The “strange case of Apostrophe” is not really strange at all. He uploaded fonts to a newsgroup. Some sellers allied to sue him. He offered a nominal settlement and the sellers accepted it. What is so strange about that? It happens every other day in the software business. What is strange is how ignorant people are about the “case” when there’s a million places to read the details of what happened.

Here’s more “strange” stuff. The person who provided Apostrophe with the fonts for his overrated newsgroup post is actually working for Fontshop now. He and some other pirates are prominent “personalities” in conference organising committees and daily active members of private pirate circles at the same time. Don’t get me started on the other personalities of those conferences and blogs.

One way to beat piracy is for the major sellers to hire the needy pirates on the condition they reveal their sources, then fire them. A good percentage of font designers belong to some private pirate clubs. Hire them, exploit them, then fire them and go about your business. This is what many software vendors do, and it works.

Saint Claude of Garamond / May 7, 2005 @ 10:29 pm

Thanks, Joey, so much for this forum. There are so many places you can go hear Javert clones parrot the “party line,” unchallenged by either fact or logic. I’ve felt for years the counterpoint ought at least be available, whether or not the Javerts can be reached by fact or logic. In Hugo’s novel, he could not.

Thanks, too, Mr. Augureau — I hope you are not truly FUBAR, for it is evident from the clues of your post the world is better with you in it. Be well.

It is interesting none of the party line advocates attempted to rebut a number of my key points, even from the earliest posts, most likely because they are unassailably correct:

(1) No one tried to explain how anyone suffers an economic loss from sampling faces for preview, study, or tryout — or when samplers would not otherwise buy, doing without. The industry either assumes a loss has occurred by possession of an unused font, or they assume the sampled font will inevitably be used or shared with someone who will use it. Unproven, unprovable — and in all cases I know anything about, incorrect.

(2) No one challenged the logic which says the EULA is a private contract between buyer and seller, thus irrelevant to samplers. Must know it’s true but not want to confirm.

(3) No one denied that even if there were damages, they are being knowingly overstated by reference to vastly inflated single font retail prices sometimes ten times or more greater than actual market sale prices, especially for quantity orders.

(4) No one denied the industry knows fonts are not programs but disingenuously persists in claiming they are, grasping for protection under inapplicable law they have been denied by the unambiguous language of the copyright office. All while chiding hobbyists for behaving “as they wish the law were” — and (in the hobbyists’ case) actually is. (Note: this is actually a new item in this thread, but has been a frequent factor in other discussions on this topic. It belongs in a summary of rationale though it wasn’t vivisected in the thread.)

(5) No one denied or defended industry misbehaviors vastly more impactful than hobbyist behaviors the industry is attacking. Of course “two wrongs don’t make a right,” but it does show perspective when actual million-dollar criminals are pursuing so-called nickel and dime crime, which isn’t crime at all.

I think we all overlooked the fact that the case of Apostrophe vs. the Empire would’ve been heard in a Canadian court, which is a (North) American court, but not a United States court. Perhaps its disposition does resemble some other common cases, but it is still huge in the history of type ethics if only for the notoriety.

I read at another blog this thread has “become unpleasant.” Apparently because it raises unanswerable questions for the Javerts. I had the temerity to honestly raise them; and the courtiers become nauseous when daylight reveals the emperor has no clothes.

I wish for and would fully support reasonable ground rules which would protect creative professionals, whose work I admire, as well as the harmless hobbyists who have borne so much unwarranted vitriol. (We might not agree on what constitutes protection.) One proposal has been to make fonts free for personal use, with a tiered scheme of license fees for commercial use. Personally, I don’t think it should go quite that far, for some few designers and foundries do exist who sell primarily into a consumer-only market, such as the scrapbooking fonts category. Maybe free trial, $1 for single font unlimited home use in perpetuity, less in collections, conveniently payable online. Sadly, it seems the industry is still petulantly determined to have its predatory way, not a fair way. And the best laws money can buy. Little people just have to stay clear while we find out which big boys are going to eat the others. Maybe industry will devour itself or collapse of its own weight and the legacy will be free fonts for all uses. Stranger things have happened. I believe the greater good would be better served if the supply respected and cooperated reasonably with the demand.

OK, welcome officially worn out now. If you read this far, bless you for considering counterpoint to the party line.

Bye

Matthew Gotth-Olsen / May 7, 2005 @ 10:41 pm

I’m a little late to this discussion but I’d like to point out this posting on Boing Boing, Can you copyright a typeface?

A bit OT, but somewhat relevant I think.

joey / May 8, 2005 @ 9:51 am

re: 1) This was my biggest question, and it was disappointing that nobody even attempted to answer it. True, any answer would’ve been anecdotal and purely biased estimation, but a definitive answer to this question could make most of our other questions irrelevant.

nothanks / May 8, 2005 @ 4:47 pm

Following the enumeration of StCofG :

(1) Nobody can prove or disprove this supposition, so it’s a moot point. In the commercial software industry this same supposition has been granted credibility in many courts and has been thrown out of just as many.

(2a) EULA’s do not come in play when software is pirated, but software sellers will contend that an EULA is the way the seller dictates how he wants to control the distribution of his software, therefore it is the only plausible means of measuring the criminal extent of the pirate behavior for the purposes of a lawsuit. When software companies take pirates to court they push their own EULA as a prosecution device, but judges usually give little attention, order mediation or cut the baby in half. As relates to fonts, even patent claims were thrown out of court, and patents are normally more powerful staples of ownership than EULA’s.

(2b) This argument is a waste of time these days. EULA’s have been taking much beating lately. In some European jurisdictions it has been contended that more and more software EULA’s are constituting infringement on business ethics, trade laws and consumer protection measures. This may be true of font EULA’s as well. Some of the ones I’ve seen sound like Stalin in new legal jargon. In some jurisdictions, both American and European, it has also been argued that an EULA is not a valid contract between between buyer and seller. In off-the-shelf packaged software because the license agreement is not clearly visible until after the product is opened, and stores do not offer refunds for open software packages. And in online transactions because a mouse click should not be considered a full and proper agreement because, unlike a signed paper contract, it is subject to technological deficiencies, network errors and possible server-side manipulation and fabrication.

(3) When you say “overstated” and “inflated” you are referring to the party line and legal threats, I should think. In the real courts there must be a basis for any copyright damage claim, and damage claims are normalized or capped by copyright laws. Usually software sellers claim the maximum they are allowed by law per “damaged” item. I don’t see a problem with a seller overstating his hurt in his own press releases or in trade fora. What else do you expect them to do? They’re serving their own interests. The internet is little more than a medium to drum up support for a commercial cause. The people surprised or hurt by this are newbies who will eventually learn how to read the signals properly. Internet newbies are victims of their own ignorance, which makes them ideal goats for software sellers. This must be what happened to your beloved Apostrophe, thousands of people before him and thousands of people after him. People like that, entertaining and happy-go-lucky as they are, eventually learn to snap out of their stupid Utopia and back the hell away from people who are trying to make a buck on the internet.

(4) I find the argument that fonts are not software very silly. Everything you use on a computer is software. The simplest font is a collection of the most basic building blocks of an operating system, alphabet bitmaps that are used to build interactive dialogue. If you deny that fonts are software, you are denying that an operating system is software, and that the interface of Access or Photoshop is software. People who believe that fonts are not software are people who believe that software is only something hammered on the keyboard, line by line of code, by a programmer, in a programming language. A font is constructed visually on the screen, therefore doesn’t qualify under such a limited definition of software. You can argue that it is not written anywhere that fonts are software. But also it is not written anywhere that hot water can burn human skin.

(5) Why do you want anyone to defend industry misbehaviors? The “misbehaviors” are not exclusive to fonts. They are the norm in software. Everyone knows that the commercial software industry overall was built, and is flourishing, on theft. Theft of ideas, theft of functionality, theft of interfaces, even theft of overall visions. Million dollar criminals have always pursued nickel and dime pirates. This is nothing new. Are you familiar with the Halloween Documents? Google them and read. C’est la vie.

Re: Apostrophe’s case. It is my belief that if the case went to trial, the baby would have been split in half as usually happens. But I also think that a Canadian sued by foreign entities in a Canadian court must have had home field advantage. Probably this is why the sellers agreed to the nominal settlement only when the trial was in close sight.

My interest in this thread stems from being an OSS software developer. Some years ago, Apostrophe promised to convert his fonts to an OSS license, then he disappeared and his domains expired. If he’s still out there and anyone can get in touch with him to ask him if his promise will ever be fulfilled, please do. I tried myself but all my E-mails bounced and the only phone number I found was disconnected.

Saint Claude of Garamond / May 8, 2005 @ 7:54 pm

I thought interest in the thread had waned. But thanks, “Nothanks,” for your sobering, but provocative observations. They paint a reality, though, more bleak than I had (but I’m not saying your picture is wrong) — a situation where customers are like mice appealing to cats, or sheep appealing to wolves and lions. If discussion fails, you may have already explained why! Your analysis furnishes practical, challenging, real-world food for thought. Each reader will benefit by considering them in forming their own conclusions and plans.

It is very easy to prove a real loss, and almost as easy to value it. What’s complicated is trying to “make a case” for a fictional loss, as the typeface industry does. Somebody else explained how the theft of a hammer deprives a merchant of wholesale cost and possible income or a user of replacement cost and tool utility. If Jack backs into my parked car, the loss is the repair cost and the rent for a substitute vehicle while it’s being repaired. And so forth. A sampled font used only for preview, study, or brief tryout has cost the original vendor zero expense, and deprived them of no income. Zero loss, proven — this is not a situation where you have to wonder or debate endlessly. To collect damages under these conditions, they’d have to distort plain facts, bribe the judge, or both. If someone begins to use that font for personal or income-producing work, the loss is a typical cost, not the full retail price. If they pay promptly upon use, that’d settle it. If there are dated documents or files showing the person has been using an unlicensed font for years, I would support a reasonable percentage fine beyond the fair price due for prompt payment. (I emphasize documents and files, not how long the sample has been stored, because I don’t believe samples should be erased. You might preview the same font several times before selecting it for some actual work and buying a license.)

Here is why what fonts are — programs or data — is considered by so many to be genuinely key. There’s both theoretical and practical consideration supporting the contention that “everything on the computer is NOT programs.” What’s on the computer is either programs or data. Programs process user input and data, following decision trees, responding to instructions contained in data or input by people or by other programs. Programs are active; data is passive. MS Word is a program; the letter you write your brother with it is data. Arguably, the operating system, drivers, and middleware that connect different pieces of your overall system, and “applications” like an Internet browser, spreadsheet, pop-up ad blocker, etc. are all programs. Data is referred to or acted upon, it does not execute decisions — only programs do that. The Copyright Office has very plainly stated both that fonts are data and cannot be copyrighted. The industry is pretending fonts are programs so they can apply for and try to enforce patents, which are, essentially, within the context of disputes about fonts, only for programs. Operating systems and sometimes print or fax utilities contain rasterizing programs which use font data to paint letters on screen, on paper, or to create bitmaps in files for transmission to remote devices. Font data is passively used for this process, never changing, always acted upon, with the rasterizer program doing all the work. The fonts “do” nothing because they are just data.

Font fans did not make up this distinction between programs and data; it is one of the most basic “intro to data processing” concepts a computer user needs to understand. The industry is ignoring basic truth and pretending to believe this falsehood for the sole purpose of seeking an unfair advantage to which they’ve already been plainly told they’re not entitled. It is salient because they have no right to sue samplers except by forcing a blatant legal fiction onto customers, the government, and the courts. They’re showing themselves relentless in the pursuit of advantage, not truth.

Originally, software meant only programs, never data Perhaps as we become more accustomed to having computers around, the term is blurring in popular language, because when you “buy software,” the CD probably contains both programs and data. I suggest using only the more specific terms “programs” and “data,” and avoiding the term software to achieve the clearest meaning in discussion. The Copyright Office used the more specific terms in their document.

The reason I stated no one had defended or denied industry misbehavior was to show that by not doing either, they were more or less realizing and agreeing the industry is in the wrong on the subject of font sampling, and regarding some other basic customer relations practices as well. The “party line” gets a LOT of play. There’s plenty of furious, red-faced table-pounding by people who believe they’re being robbed when they are not. I believe many have carelessly assumed the industry is in the right; until they actually examine the positions, they’ll probably continue in the pre-packaged opinion. If they examine the arguments, they may realize they’ve been misled. If they attempt to defend the indefensible, and are honest about it, they will have to admit it cannot be done. The industry is wrong.

As far as contacting Apostrophe, I would suggest your best bet would be to write to CybaPee at the TypOasis. She created some of the L’Ab fonts and is probably the most likely among those with a public contact mechanism to know where to forward your request. If I heard and remember correctly, Apostrophe wanted to place all the L’Ab fonts in the public domain; but not all the designers wanted that. They had previously committed to the freeware distribution and usage license, but not to permitting others to modify their work or sell it. However, he may’ve already re-released those to which he had exclusive rights and sole control already.

URL: http://moorstation.org/typoasis/typoasis1.htm)

nothanks / May 9, 2005 @ 6:11 am

You sure have the stamina of a believer, StCofG.

Reality being bleak or otherwise is open to interpretation. I think your cat and mouse, sheep and wolf, analogies are dramatic and sensationalist, but if they work for you or others, it is fine by me.

I disagree with the stolen hammer example as an accurate parallel to piracy. A hammer is part of a physical inventory. Downloaded, for whatever purpose, software is not. It is a copy of an item that can never “run out” unless its maker decides to take it out of circulation. A stolen hammer diminishes inventory and incurs a replacement cost. Stolen software does not. Likewise, the usual comparison in situation to the publishing and entertainment industries is superficial and inaccurate. It overlooks the vastly different natures of the compared products. Entertainment and publishing products are self-sufficient and serve, for the most part, non-utilitarian, non-competitive targets, while software products, fonts or otherwise, move in exactly the opposite direction being tools aimed at accomplishing special tasks.

I also disagree with the ease of legally proving a real loss or gain in software. A stolen hammer, to use the earlier example, can be physically shown to be stolen. But under current social systems, to determine the exact amount of loss or gain caused by a software uploaded to a peer to peer network or a newsgroup is impossible. Such a task would require the total and unbiased cooperation of ISP’s and computer users all over the world. It would also require what many electronic freedom advocates consider invasion of privacy. But even in a situation where such obstacles are not an issue, it is still highly improbable to determine the exact amount of loss or gain, because of the individual nature of each downloader’s purpose of downloading. You mentioned a grandmother in an earlier example in the thread. The grandmother likes to harmlessly play with fonts for the sake of harmlessly playing with fonts. It can be argued by a font seller that an exact monetary value can be placed on the peace of mind, relaxation, joy, fun, entertainment, or amusement this grandmother is acquiring through her activity, that the monetary value is the exact price of the font. After all, that same grandmother buys certain entertainment products in order to reach similar objectives provided her by the fonts, so why shouldn’t she pay for “entertainment fonts” like she does for a other entertainment products? For the record, I find this argument very inhumane, and I would never use it, but is there an appropriate response to refute it?

I agree, however, with your statements regarding the “overplaying” of alleged losses in software publisher statements, legal or otherwise. But I will be quick to point out that such “overplaying” is almost balanced by the “underplaying” exercised by the other side. I qualified my statement with the word “almost” because overplaying is usually the logical by-product of some investment at stake, but underplaying isn’t. It is my belief that both the overplaying and underplaying are inevitable movements, in any industry, where it is impossible or very difficult to obtain solid proof. Both overplaying and underplaying are products of bias, so cannot lead to any meaningful degree of exactitude.

Re: software as programs versus data.
Going that far causes - is causing - much confusion. The separation of programs and data, as per your copyright office reference, has ultimately resulted in defining a program - Word, as per your example - as subject to copyright, but everything produced with it as not. If you typed a book of your own using MS Word, would you consider the electronic version of the book not subject to copyright? It is an interesting reversal of roles in copyright protection thinking, when the tool is considered copyright and the sculpture is not. Please do not consider this an attempt to refute your way of thinking. I am a firm believer in copyleft and view this thread as an intelligent discourse on conceptually flawed industries and protective systems. I find it fascinating that legal establishments can place higher priority on the tool rather than what it helps produce. Probably this is due to how complex the tool has become next to its creation. It is not a simple brush producing a complex painting anymore.

Re: your second last paragraph.
The party line gets a lot of play because it is an investment is a monetary interest. Widely accepted and repeated practices of such investments are both dismissing the aficionado as an inexperienced hack and lower priced similar products as lacking in quality or ethical construct, and trying to bring the public focus to the subject of investment, or hyped product, as a unique and very useful high quality product with many great features and possible values. The font industry is a lower species on the commercial software totem pole, so these practices are more transparent within it. It is psychologically fascinating to see a font seller show the photo of chiseled letters on an ancient piece of rock, and claim it as the inspiration to a digital font that looks nothing like the the shown engraving, to see another font seller make his licensing more restrictive just because one of his fonts received much more play than expected when one very rich company used it in their marketing, and to see another font seller think they command enough following to be able, on their own, to change established font distribution methods. It is also very interesting to see how legitimate and not-so circles converge to the point of blurriness in such a small industry.

Thanks for the information and link. I will initiate contact and see where it takes me.

joey / May 9, 2005 @ 7:09 am

the whole hammer thing was just a way of showing that there’s a difference between physical goods and digital data.

Saint Claude of Garamond / May 9, 2005 @ 7:45 am

Yup, I often use extreme analogies. They have the merit of making a point more clearly than fuzzy, mellow tones; they have the drawback of sometimes becoming an unintended emotional irritant. To all who get the point, you’re welcome. To the affronted, sorry.

Another drawback is becoming apparent due to the length of this thread. You said you disagreed with a few of my positions, then went on to state exactly my position in your own words! (At least we agree!) So, it’s getting a bit big to grasp and track. I, too, contrasted hammer theft with downloading; I did not say they were comparable. Likewise the first poster to bring up the hammer example.

You seem to feel we’d have to measure how much aggregate downloading has occurred to establish loss or no loss. I say the quantity of downloading is entirely irrelevant; the issue is whether or not any downloaders or sharers are using the fonts to make documents (incl. WEB screens, PDFs, etc.) No matter how many hobbyists download for preview, study, and tryout, zero loss has occurred. Let’s use your hypothetical granny and the entertainment value of her fonts and movies. If Granny Thanks downloads nothing but trailers, and watches them, there has been no loss. If Granny Thanks downloads and watches full films, there has been loss. Downloading fonts for preview, study, or tryout compares to downloading trailers only, even if the file is the same. Downloading fonts and using them on an ongoing basis to create documents