Punch-up in alt.binaries.fonts
Tiro TypeWorks
A few days ago I posted some comments in alt.binaries.fonts, informing
people that the fonts and software (Fontographer, no less) they were
requesting or posting are commercial and copyrighted. So far, I've had
e-mail from one person apologising and enquiring where they can find a
legal version of the software; I've had two messages urging me on; and
I've had several messages, both in the group and by e-mail, of a foul
nature, offering specious defenses of 'free democracy', one poorly
veiled threat, and one invitation to suck someone's big, fat c*ck
(which I suspect is actually short and pencil thin).
Today, Clive and Erik have joined in the fray. Also, our old friend
'dbr' has revealed his true colours by coming down on the side of the
pirates. Anyone else want to join in? It is only fair to warn you that
I've received an anonymous threat of being mailbombed.
Why am I doing this? Because alt.binaries.fonts trundles along for
months without anyone raising the issue of legal font use, and when it
is raised there are determined pirates who will attack anyone who
dares to suggest that their activities are unethical. Not only that,
but they actually adopt self-righteous attitudes to defend their
criminal activity, and propagate the error that fonts cannot be
copyrighted. They appeal to 'free democracy', as if that implies free
software. They appeal to freedom of speech, as if theft were an act of
intellectual expression. They blame software and font companies for
encouraging piracy by, heaven forbid, charging money for their
products. I'm just waiting for one of them to claim that he steals
fonts because he was abused as a child.
I'm not here to make enemies. I'm here to raise awareness, and because
the one person who apologised and asked for a legal source for their
software is worth ten or twenty of the cringing thieves hiding behind
their ill-educated belief that democracy is a license for them to
break the law.
John Hudson, Type Director
Tiro TypeWorks
Vancouver, BC
ti...@portal.ca
http://www.portal.ca/~tiro
d...@wwa.com
Tiro TypeWorks (ti...@portal.ca) wrote:
...
: Today, Clive and Erik have joined in the fray. Also, our old friend
: 'dbr' has revealed his true colours by coming down on the side of the
: pirates. Anyone else want to join in? It is only fair to warn you that
: I've received an anonymous threat of being mailbombed.
I categorically deny being on the side of the pirates. I question your
motives, and I express doubts about the efficacy of your methods. All your
posturing here amounts to is advertisement for the existence of the files
you complain about being in the binaries group. Do you understand what I'm
saying? You've *increased* the amount of downloads of the illegally posted
programs. That is all you've accomplished. The newscancellers didn't touch
the files, and won't. Ever. Macromedia can't or won't do anything to the
guy that posted the programs. You called everyone else that visits the
binary group names, without cause. And now you decide in some kind of fit
of pique, to link me with the people attacking you. You sir, are a liar.
Post one single thing that proves your assertion about me. Go ahead. I
don't like you. I don't like Clive. I don't like Foy or Weltz. I'll gladly
pronounce that. Nobody that likes language, or Usenet, or truth would, to
my way of thinking. You are all self-serving liars of almost comedic
proportions. But I don't support the posting of the Macromedia software to
alt.binaries.fonts. I do think that it wastes peoples time and attention
to make its existence in that newsgroup the focal point of this newsgroup.
The guy that asked you to suck his "c*ck" showed remarkable insight
into your character.
Tiro TypeWorks
d...@wwa.com () wrote:
>I categorically deny being on the side of the pirates.
Then how do you explain your posts to alt.binaries.fonts in which you
support the argument that piracy is a product of the fact that
fonts/software cost money? This argument was put forward by pirates as
an excuse for their actions. Do you excuse them on these grounds? If
so, I maintain that you are indeed on the side of the pirates.
>I question your
>motives, and I express doubts about the efficacy of your methods. All your
>posturing here amounts to is advertisement for the existence of the files
>you complain about being in the binaries group. Do you understand what I'm
>saying? You've *increased* the amount of downloads of the illegally posted
>programs. That is all you've accomplished. The newscancellers didn't touch
>the files, and won't. Ever.
So how come sections of the binary files have been cancelled? How come
so many of the people who tried to download Fontographer are
complaining that they only got two or three parts of it?
Look, someone just stole your car, but don't say anything in case it
gives people ideas about stealing your neighbour's car.
>Macromedia can't or won't do anything to the
>guy that posted the programs. You called everyone else that visits the
>binary group names, without cause.
I referred to the group as alt.binaries.thieves.with.fonts, to
characterise a large part of the activity therein, and the general
attitude to property evidenced both by that activity and by the fact
that no one else was questioning it.
>And now you decide in some kind of fit
>of pique, to link me with the people attacking you. You sir, are a liar.
>Post one single thing that proves your assertion about me. Go ahead.
James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
...
: P'raps if there were more public-domain fonts out here,
: you wouldn't be victimized. But then, that's not really what
: you want, is it?
To which you replied:
- I think you've nailed it. Good insight.
One man excuses font piracy by a supposed lack of public-domain fonts
(it's true -- two hundred + is so few... poor babies), and you support
his specious argument. The fact that Mr Olson's post excusing font
theft was in a thread relating not to illegal font postings but to
illegal software posting (three different releases of Fontographer),
simply indicates the confused company that you keep.
>I don't like you. I don't like Clive. I don't like Foy or Weltz. I'll gladly
>pronounce that.
But you've left out a whole mass of people who would greatly hope to
be disliked by you. I think this is very unfair of you. What about
poor Don Hosek? Doesn't he deserve to keep such fine company? What has
he done to deserve being tarred with the black brush of not being
publicly disliked by you?
>Nobody that likes language, or Usenet, or truth would, to
>my way of thinking. You are all self-serving liars of almost comedic
>proportions. But I don't support the posting of the Macromedia software to
>alt.binaries.fonts.
Maybe you might have said something to that effect in
alt.binaries.fonts, rather than appearing to side with the pirates
just so you could get some ill-conceived and unsolicited digs in at
me.
>I do think that it wastes peoples time and attention
>to make its existence in that newsgroup the focal point of this newsgroup.
Maybe, but that is a matter of free speech... unlike theft.
>The guy that asked you to suck his "c*ck" showed remarkable insight
>into your character.
I'm glad you are impressed by his eloquence. If his member is indeed
as big and as fat as he claims, perhaps I should send him your phone
number.
Tiro TypeWorks
frid...@dragon.pfc.mit.edu wrote:
>I'm not taking any sides here, but just for clarification - the cancels
>like that are not done through regular legal channels. There are ways for
>"regular" people to cancel newspostings. There are software available
>that does that for you. Usially nobody complains about it, since mostly
>commercial binary postings got cancelled. One good known example of this
>that did cause a lot of complaints was when church if scientology was
>cancelling posts directed against them. There are people who don't like to
>see certain posts, and they use that software (cancelbots) to do it. That
>doesn't prove your argument.
Truth is, we don't know who cancelled the Fontographer postings. I
suspect you may be right about a third party cancel; there are a
number of cancellers who keep an eye on alt.net.admin.net-abuse.misc
for warning posts such as mine.
I can understand the official cancellers' policy of not cancelling for
content, but I insist that there is a difference between content in a
text message and content in a binary file. I would never, and would
never encourage, the cancelling of any text message, be it ever so
foul. A binary file, however, may contain copyrighted software which
is the proper and legal property of an individual or a company. If you
saw someone stealing your car, you would probably run outside and try
to stop them. You wouldn't wait for the police to drive by, let alone
wait for a jury to come along and decide if this person is guilty
under the law.
I just get uppity when I see people stealing my neighbour's car. And I
also get uppity when I see someone standing between me and the thief,
bleating that car theft only happens because cars are so expensive and
there aren't enough free ones available.
frid...@dragon.pfc.mit.edu
In a previous article, ti...@portal.ca (Tiro TypeWorks) wrote:
->d...@wwa.com () wrote:
->
->>The newscancellers didn't touch
->>the files, and won't. Ever.
->
->So how come sections of the binary files have been cancelled? How come
->so many of the people who tried to download Fontographer are
->complaining that they only got two or three parts of it?
I'm not taking any sides here, but just for clarification - the cancels
like that are not done through regular legal channels. There are ways for
"regular" people to cancel newspostings. There are software available
that does that for you. Usially nobody complains about it, since mostly
commercial binary postings got cancelled. One good known example of this
that did cause a lot of complaints was when church if scientology was
cancelling posts directed against them. There are people who don't like to
see certain posts, and they use that software (cancelbots) to do it. That
doesn't prove your argument.
Mike.
Just van Rossum
ti...@portal.ca (Tiro TypeWorks) wrote:
>I'm not here to make enemies. I'm here to raise awareness, and because
>the one person who apologised and asked for a legal source for their
>software is worth ten or twenty of the cringing thieves hiding behind
>their ill-educated belief that democracy is a license for them to
>break the law.
Thanks, I'm with you. I also posted a few times, and received a few
apologies. No mailbombs so far.
And I requested a cancel for PunchLabel (I don't know what else to do
than to post a message to news.admin.net-abuse.misc),
which is a SWFTE ripped off of my FF Dynamoe... Then to think that
it is even illegal to post the rip-off.
I saw that there was a alt.binaries.fonts FAQ posted the other day, not
very long. It had 7 points, most dealt with how to post and how to get
the stuff. The last point (nr 7, yes) was a *very* brief paragraph on
what to post and what not to post. (If it was up to me, it should be
on number one ;-)
I feel that part should be rewritten to a more convincing bit. More
educating (in a friendly way), because I know that there are lots of
people out there who are not intentionally doing wrong. There's not a
lot we can do about the pirates I'm afraid.
FontAwareness is pretty low.
I think I am not able to express clearly and compact enough what should
be needed in that FAQ. Please, could someone help?
And if the quy who compiled this FAQ does not agree, we just have to
post an alternative FAQ. Hmm. And post it often...
Just
PS, here are some pieces from the FAQ:
> This is the FAQ for alt.binaries.fonts. It is still under
> construction. You may copy and spread it as much as you
> want. If you have any comment or contribution to this FAQ,
> please send it to:
> on...@xs4all.nl
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Written by: Onno Zweers (on...@xs4all.nl)
> Last updated: may 22, 1996
> Last changes: Macintosh information added
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
<...snip...>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CONTENTS:
>
>> 1. Is there a FAQ for alt.binaries.fonts?
>> 2. How do I download the fonts in this newsgroup?
>> 3. How do I install downloaded fonts for use with Windows?
>> 4. How do I install the fonts on my Macintosh?
>> 5. I can't load anymore fonts in Windows 95. Is there a limit?
>> 6. How do I create fonts on my PC?
>> 7. What fonts can I post in alt.binaries.fonts?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
<...snip...>
>
>> 7. What fonts can I post in alt.binaries.fonts?
>
> You can post any font that is freeware or shareware.
>
> When you post shareware fonts, don't forget to include
> any additional files that belong to the font, for instance
> a registration form.
>
> Occasionally, someone posts a proprietary font, one for
> which the publisher has copyright protection. It is illegal
> to share or exchange proprietary fonts.
>
DickWeltz
What you are doing educationally is good, John, even if only a small
eprcentage get the message.
It is a shame that the font manufacturers (I mean the big ones) don't do
more along these lines and leave it to folks like you to fight their
battles.
The phenomenon, I'm afraid, is a direct result of the amorality being
inculcated to our youngsters on university campuses everywhere. I suspect
that most of the offenders are young, know-it-all types who scare the hell
out of me when I realize that they are going to grow older and take over
the positions of power in our society. One can only hope that they will
acquire some wisdom -- and some ethics -- along the way.
DickWeltz
>>I
don't like you. I don't like Clive. I don't like Foy or Weltz. <<
Whew! That's a relief. I certainly don't want you for a friend.
Just aside to all: why do so many of the kook posts on the Net come
through something named wwa.com? Is this an ISP that specializes in
connecting institution inmates or something?
d...@wwa.com
Tiro TypeWorks (ti...@portal.ca) wrote:
: d...@wwa.com () wrote:
: >I categorically deny being on the side of the pirates.
: Then how do you explain your posts to alt.binaries.fonts in which you
: support the argument that piracy is a product of the fact that
: fonts/software cost money? This argument was put forward by pirates as
: an excuse for their actions. Do you excuse them on these grounds? If
: so, I maintain that you are indeed on the side of the pirates.
Why don't you quote the posting specifically? All you give is your
interpretation. My interpretation was that the guy to whom I was
responding to made a valid point about the motivation of the people like
yourself complaining about "font piracy" (NOTE: NOT the posting of the
Fontographer program, but FONTS!)
: So how come sections of the binary files have been cancelled? How come
: so many of the people who tried to download Fontographer are
: complaining that they only got two or three parts of it?
You don't even understand news propogation. A lot of news sites
will never see the complete posting of that program. A lot have,
will, and still do. The cancellings, *even if they are done*, are
not even recognized by a lot of news carriers.
: >And now you decide in some kind of fit
: >of pique, to link me with the people attacking you. You sir, are a liar.
: >Post one single thing that proves your assertion about me. Go ahead.
: James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
: ...
: : P'raps if there were more public-domain fonts out here,
: : you wouldn't be victimized. But then, that's not really what
: : you want, is it?
: To which you replied:
: - I think you've nailed it. Good insight.
James R. Olson was making a comment about your obnoxiously whining
.sig, ("victim") nothing more. I think he made a valid point about you,
your motivations for complaining, and ultimately the truth that
*even if* alt.binaries.fonts consisted solely and completely of
public domain fonts, and lots of them, you would find that situation, too,
somewhat intolerable. I think that that is the truth.
: >I don't like you. I don't like Clive. I don't like Foy or Weltz. I'll gladly
: >pronounce that.
: But you've left out a whole mass of people who would greatly hope to
: be disliked by you. I think this is very unfair of you. What about
: poor Don Hosek? Doesn't he deserve to keep such fine company? What has
: he done to deserve being tarred with the black brush of not being
: publicly disliked by you?
Well, if it gives the "others" a cheap thrill, hell, ok, tell them
I don't like them either. :)
Hosek is a classy guy. He's so far above you on the "food chain" of
comp.font posters that it's ludicrous to compare he to you. He just got a
little out of hand with an (1) obscene, hostile email, and I had some fun
with it. It's stopped. If I weren't certain that it would be treated with
contempt, I'd actually apologize to him. I was kind of shocked and
disenheartened that somebody like him would sink a little like that,
basically. Notice how unshocked I am about you, though.
I didn't say the above to make a claim that my likes or dislikes have any
importance to anyone but myself, but only to bring you to note that anyone
that says anything bad to or about you or the above have my full and
complete endorsement. It's simply not an activity that can be undertaken
too many times. You don't *embody* anti-piracy - you're not even very
good at doing anything anti-piratical.
: >Nobody that likes language, or Usenet, or truth would, to
: >my way of thinking. You are all self-serving liars of almost comedic
: >proportions. But I don't support the posting of the Macromedia software to
: >alt.binaries.fonts.
: Maybe you might have said something to that effect in
: alt.binaries.fonts, rather than appearing to side with the pirates
: just so you could get some ill-conceived and unsolicited digs in at
: me.
Why should I? Are you some sort of messiah, "He who is not with
me is against me"? There are tons of people here who haven't said
anything there, are they, too, pro-piracy? Would you please
get some perspective on yourself?
I treasure those digs. Please don't take them from me. They are
un-ill-concieved, and you solicit them like very few people I've
ever seen on Usenet solicit them.
: >I do think that it wastes peoples time and attention
: >to make its existence in that newsgroup the focal point of this newsgroup.
: Maybe, but that is a matter of free speech... unlike theft.
I may something to say about that in another posting. Free speech, that
is. It concerns Tiro TypeWorks and libel. You do recognize libel as
a legal entity, don't you? Having the same stature as theft?
I really don't like posting off-topic items, so don't hold your breath
or anything. It isn't anything earth-shattering, just some questions
and comments.
: >The guy that asked you to suck his "c*ck" showed remarkable insight
: >into your character.
: I'm glad you are impressed by his eloquence. If his member is indeed
: as big and as fat as he claims, perhaps I should send him your phone
: number.
Yeah, right. Awesome flame, John, awesome.
Ok, I think we've pee'd on each other enough for one posting.
Take it easy.
d...@wwa.com
Tiro TypeWorks (ti...@portal.ca) wrote:
: Truth is, we don't know who cancelled the Fontographer postings. I
: suspect you may be right about a third party cancel; there are a
: number of cancellers who keep an eye on alt.net.admin.net-abuse.misc
: for warning posts such as mine.
The cancels, especially the "third-party" cancels, aren't universally
honored. I give you my word that as of this moment right now as I type
this, I can go on two large national ISPs and find those pirated
programs still posted. The damage you've done by making a big deal
about them here is pretty much assuaged by one simple fact:
large binary postings are "aged" faster than other postings by
large newscarriers. They simply take up too much storage and bandwidth
to be maintained available for long.
: I can understand the official cancellers' policy of not cancelling for
: content, but I insist that there is a difference between content in a
: text message and content in a binary file. I would never, and would
: never encourage, the cancelling of any text message, be it ever so
: foul. A binary file, however, may contain copyrighted software which
: is the proper and legal property of an individual or a company. If you
: saw someone stealing your car, you would probably run outside and try
: to stop them. You wouldn't wait for the police to drive by, let alone
: wait for a jury to come along and decide if this person is guilty
: under the law.
Who would you ask to do the checking of every suspected pirated
binary file?
D.M. Quozl Falk
: >I categorically deny being on the side of the pirates.
: Then how do you explain your posts to alt.binaries.fonts in which you
: support the argument that piracy is a product of the fact that
: fonts/software cost money? This argument was put forward by pirates as
: an excuse for their actions. Do you excuse them on these grounds? If
: so, I maintain that you are indeed on the side of the pirates.
Regardless, the statement is correct. More accurately, though, that the
software and/or fonts in question cost more money than most can spend.
This is NOT, however, siding with piracy to make such a statement. Yes,
there are wankers who will pirate/crack anything that costs over $1, but
when individual fonts cost over $30 and the software to use them over
$100, it does nothing more than encourage theft. Part of the problem lies
in how commercial software is marketed, making little distinction between
corporate and non-corporate usage. This is a problem with the *entire*
software industry, especially with these days of low-end casual PC
users... The way to deal with this is by decriminalising usage of low-end
software, and concentrate on the corporate level with the high-end
software. This means, for the low-end users, putting out
freely-distributable software (not just public-domain, but freeware and
shareware) that can do enough of a job to be useful and practical, while
having "fancier" programmes for those who can afford it. (And yes,
crippled shareware does also encourage piracy and cracking- Some, I would
even call "viruses" for how they enforce their evaluation period to the
detriment of future trial periods if a person is dissatisfied with the
current version...)
[...]
: I referred to the group as alt.binaries.thieves.with.fonts, to
: characterise a large part of the activity therein, and the general
: attitude to property evidenced both by that activity and by the fact
: that no one else was questioning it.
The best way to counter that is by getting freely-distributable versions
of fonts and software distributed, not criminalising those who *can't*
afford said software and fonts.... Name-calling is *not* the best way to
handle the matter....
: >And now you decide in some kind of fit
: >of pique, to link me with the people attacking you. You sir, are a liar.
: >Post one single thing that proves your assertion about me. Go ahead.
: James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
: ...
: : P'raps if there were more public-domain fonts out here,
: : you wouldn't be victimized. But then, that's not really what
: : you want, is it?
: To which you replied:
: - I think you've nailed it. Good insight.
: One man excuses font piracy by a supposed lack of public-domain fonts
: (it's true -- two hundred + is so few... poor babies), and you support
: his specious argument. The fact that Mr Olson's post excusing font
: theft was in a thread relating not to illegal font postings but to
: illegal software posting (three different releases of Fontographer),
: simply indicates the confused company that you keep.
This one paragraph alone cites your problem- and attitude- towards just
about everyone! It's NOT an "excuse" to cite a significant factor in the
problem, which *is* the lack of freely-distributable fonts and software,
which while not being the sole cause of the problem, it is a major reason
why. The best way to handle this is to counter the problem
*constructively*, by distributing freely-distributable software and
fonts. Please note I didn't say "public domain", because,
legally-speaking, that isn't the only legal venue in terms of
freely-distributable materials... There is also "freeware" and
"shareware", which unlike "public domain", they have full copyright
protection, but *are* freely distributable... I'm not talking about demos
or crippleware, either, since these are just about useless for most. As
for the number of fonts out there, I'd say there's about a couple
*thousand* freely-distributable fonts out there, but most are hard to
find, especially since commercial outfits *have* actively discouraged
free distribution for non-corporate usage. Combine this with a serious
lack of downloadable stylebooks for those not sure of common names for
fonts, and you have a problem with uninformed font users. Considering
that every Windows user gets a dozen free fonts (which Microsoft has made
them fully freely-distributable) and a few programs where they can use
the fonts (since Windows is font-based), there is a ready market for font
usage, but not a necessarily commercial market....
You want to discourage the piracy ofd commercial software? Fine goal, but
I believe you're going about it the wrong way! The best way is to dilute
the problem by getting non-crippled shareweare out, and posting any and
all freely-distributable fonts as much as possible, even encouraging
development of same. Free distribution does NOT mean giving up copyright
rights if done as copyrighted freeware of shareware... And above all else
when you do, ENCOURAGE FEEDBACK!
When you encourage creativity with positive feedback, you get positive
creativity.
....Quozl!
--
Presidential Candidate for the Third Millenium! Quozl for Prez in 2000!
Dennis M. Falk, aka "Quozl Mephit" : 221 Huntoon St. Eureka, CA 95501-4115 USA
Writer, Furry fan, Cartoon fan, Music lover : "A Novel Experience!"
Skunks, skunks, skunks! : Tiny Toons forever! : Snapple me!
Tiro TypeWorks
Is that really the best you can do?
By the way, hinting that someone is guilty of libel could be construed
as a form of libel, but I'm not a litigious person.
What I solicit from you is whatever it is in your character to give,
and others may judge that character from it. So far, my postings in
alt.binaries.fonts have solicited four times as many messages of
support and encouragement as flames. Since I bore the brunt of the
initial hostile reaction from the pirates, Erik and Just have reported
almost nothing but positive responses to their own posts.
I have taken your points on third-party cancels very seriously, and
thank you for your explanation of the vagaries of news propagation.
I'm not so much concerned with chasing individual acts of piracy as I
am with prevention. I maintain that the latter is aided by open and
ongoing discussion of legal font use in the alt.binaries.fonts group.
dbr, what is your name? What do you do for a living? Where do you
live? These are not challenges. I would genuinely like to know, for no
other reason than the fact that most of the other regular contributors
to this group are pretty open about where they're coming from. You're
such an enigma, it is hardly surpising that I am not alone in making
assumptions based on the little evidence of your personality.
John Hudson, Type Designer
J. Edward Sanchez
ti...@portal.ca (Tiro TypeWorks) wrote:
>I can understand the official cancellers' policy of not cancelling for
>content, but I insist that there is a difference between content in a
>text message and content in a binary file. I would never, and would
>never encourage, the cancelling of any text message, be it ever so
>foul. A binary file, however, may contain copyrighted software which
>is the proper and legal property of an individual or a company.
It may not have occurred to you, John, that a text message can contain
copyrighted material just as a binary message can.
As a published writer, I'm acutely aware of that fact. You might want
to rethink your statement that you "would never, and would never
encourage, the canceling of any text message, be it ever so foul."
>If you saw someone stealing your car, you would probably run outside
>and try to stop them. You wouldn't wait for the police to drive by,
>let alone wait for a jury to come along and decide if this person is
>guilty under the law.
I agree wholeheartedly. Good luck with the pirates.
BCNya,
Edward
-----------------------------------------------------------
J. Edward Sanchez <je...@tridel.com.ph>
http://www.tridel.com.ph/softarts/ (The SoftArts Home Page)
http://www.tridel.com.ph/user/jess/ (Edward's Place)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Heilmayr
In article <4o2hjp$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
dick...@aol.com (DickWeltz) wrote:
> The phenomenon, I'm afraid, is a direct result of the amorality being
> inculcated to our youngsters on university campuses everywhere.
Yep, it's those darned liberals brainwashing our kids again...
-- Klaus (heil...@math.berkeley.edu)
DickWeltz
>>Yep, it's those darned liberals brainwashing our kids again...<<
Klaus: you didn't, of course, mean it that way, but you are absolutely
correct.
Tiro TypeWorks
je...@tridel.com.ph (J. Edward Sanchez) wrote:
>It may not have occurred to you, John, that a text message can contain
>copyrighted material just as a binary message can.
>As a published writer, I'm acutely aware of that fact. You might want
>to rethink your statement that you "would never, and would never
>encourage, the canceling of any text message, be it ever so foul."
This, of course, is true. However, if someone posts the entire text of
something you have written to a newsgroup, this in itself is neatly
dated and archived evidence of copyright infringement. The law in many
countries has become very good at dealing with such things in recent
years, and the legal paradigm for hardcopy infringement works equally
well for the Internet. With copyrighted software, including fonts, the
case is not so simple. The law is confused when encountering digital
data, per se. Besides which, if someone infringes text copyright in a
newsgroup, the worst that can happen is that someone will read it.
When software is posted there is no way of checking how many people
around the globe have downloaded it.
>>If you saw someone stealing your car, you would probably run outside
>>and try to stop them. You wouldn't wait for the police to drive by,
>>let alone wait for a jury to come along and decide if this person is
>>guilty under the law.
>I agree wholeheartedly. Good luck with the pirates.
Thank you. It is not the pirates that really concern me (as far as
alt.binaries.fonts goes); it is the poor people who are being
unwittingly tempted into breaking the law because no one has taken the
time to educate them about legal font usage.
John Hudson, Type Director
Stephan Heilmayr
In article <4o4e3f$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
dick...@aol.com (DickWeltz) wrote:
You're right, I didn't mean it that way.
I do agree that _I'm_ absolutely correct. What I _said_ wasn't, though.
In case anyone missed it, it was sarcasm...
-- Klaus (heil...@math.berkeley.edu)
d...@wwa.com
Tiro TypeWorks (ti...@portal.ca) wrote:
: Is that really the best you can do?
John, your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?
I almost admire your audacity.
You flame me anonymously as "JH" in the "Skunk" thread, but
offer this charming overture of friendship here.
I'll tell you where I'm "coming from". I'm just a guy with an amateur's
enthusiasm for type. I like talking about it, reading about, and learning
more about it. It's obvious to me now that this newsgroup is the wrong
place for any of this. Yeah, I'll admit I stepped out of line at the
beginning, but I also think that people over-reacted a bit. If anyone
dares to dispute the outrageously self-obssessed here, or question the
incessant posting of off-topic messages by the very people who should know
better, they get harrassing email, publically insulted and generally
ganged-up upon. Well, I can handle the email and insults (in fact, I
probably handled them a little too well, I think, but that's how it goes
when you get an Irishman mad) and the "gang" isn't as beloved here as
they might imagine, if my other email is any indication.
Look, you are never going to be man enough to admit you made a mistake by
attempting to smear me in your jihad against the fearsome 14 year-old
pirates of alt.binaries.fonts, so it's kind of pointless to continue any
attempt at reasonable discourse. Go back to your "typonaut" slobs and
enjoy yourself. I'll be fine, honest. I know the way out. (Yeah,
I can write a good straightline too. "Well, TAKE it, then!" :=) ).
Tiro TypeWorks
d...@wwa.com () wrote:
>John, your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?
>I almost admire your audacity.
>You flame me anonymously as "JH" in the "Skunk" thread, but
>offer this charming overture of friendship here.
Flamed you? This must be some new definition of flame, with which I
was not previously familiar. You, taking exception to David Foy's very
amusing story (and yes, your own story was amusing -- though his was
better because he didn't refer to you by name), chided him for
applying the epithet 'Cacaphon' to two different people. To which I
replied:
That would be Mr Cacaphon's brother.
JH
Tiro TypeWorks
Vancouver, BC
ti...@portal.ca
http://www.portal.ca/~tiro
This is a flame? Note the full sig, which I include here to refute
your ludicrous accusation that I 'flamed' you anonymously. JH is how I
sign myself occasionally, especially such short comments, as most
regular contributors to the group know. The full company sig is hardly
anonymous,,, or are you going to tell me off now for 'advertising' my
website address?
All this is very different from repeatedly and genuinely flaming
people under the protection of 'dbr', never once being open about your
identity. Personally, I suspect you are in fact Clive Bruton, and this
is all an extended cockney piss-take.
>I'll tell you where I'm "coming from". I'm just a guy with an amateur's
>enthusiasm for type. I like talking about it, reading about, and learning
>more about it. It's obvious to me now that this newsgroup is the wrong
>place for any of this. Yeah, I'll admit I stepped out of line at the
>beginning, but I also think that people over-reacted a bit. If anyone
>dares to dispute the outrageously self-obssessed here, or question the
>incessant posting of off-topic messages by the very people who should know
>better, they get harrassing email, publically insulted and generally
>ganged-up upon. Well, I can handle the email and insults (in fact, I
>probably handled them a little too well, I think, but that's how it goes
>when you get an Irishman mad) and the "gang" isn't as beloved here as
>they might imagine, if my other email is any indication.
Yeah, I'm sure we all get our fair share of fan mail and our fair
share of hate mail. For the record, I have never sent 'dbr' any
e-mail. E-mail is for my friends.
Will you please give more examples of these 'off-topic' posts? So far
as I recall, you made a particular objection to Liam's posting of the
weather in Toronto last month. Since a good number of comp.fonts
readers were attending the GDC Type Symposium that week, this was
hardly off-topic. Good thing I read it, too, as it was bloody cold and
I was glad of the coat Liam's post had prompted me to take.
>Look, you are never going to be man enough to admit you made a mistake by
>attempting to smear me in your jihad against the fearsome 14 year-old
>pirates of alt.binaries.fonts, so it's kind of pointless to continue any
>attempt at reasonable discourse. Go back to your "typonaut" slobs and
>enjoy yourself. I'll be fine, honest. I know the way out. (Yeah,
>I can write a good straightline too. "Well, TAKE it, then!" :=) ).
I did not attempt to smear you. I pointed out that you had, without
any explication of your reasons for doing so, posted messages
supporting those who were excusing font piracy. Since I was busy
drawing a line in the sand, at that point, you had stepped neatly onto
the other side of it. I will admit (being man enough) that I was
hasty, and that I identified you too closely with the pirates. Mea
culpa. I might suggest, however, that if you explained your position a
little more clearly (rather than simply supporting someone because
they happen to be taking a dig at me), and if you were a little more
open generally about who you are, etc., people probably wouldn't jump
to this kind of hasty conclusion.
R.H. Watson
DickWeltz wrote:
>
> What you are doing educationally is good, John, even if only a small
> eprcentage get the message.
>
> It is a shame that the font manufacturers (I mean the big ones) don't do
> more along these lines and leave it to folks like you to fight their
> battles.
copying of fonts and programs as expressed in this and previous threads.
However, where are the "big guys" in all this? Has anyone ever heard of
any action taken by any of the major software/font publishers to stop
unauthorised copying of their products? The Software Publishers'
Association run ads in the computer mags calling for information of illegal
copying, but have they ever taken a case up? I've never heard of one.
It might be more appropriate to relate software piracy to shoplifting
rather than car theft (in terms of value and social nuisance). In these
parts, if someone saw a shoplifter, they would stare at them. Soon there
would be several people staring (like in comp.fonts - eh?). The manager
would notice, call the cops and lay charges. No exceptions. Doesn't stop
shoplifting, but if you pinch *anything* and are spotted, it is (almost)
inevitable you will be charged and fined.
The fact that software publishers don't follow this procedure indicates
to me that they are not, in fact, too concerned with illegal copying.
Maybe Microsoft secretly hopes that every student finds it easier to copy
Word than any of the rivals in the hope that when they go to work they
will insist their employer buys the latest update. Maybe Monotype hope
that if struggling DTPers use their fonts illegally, they will buy the real
thing when they succeed.
If anyone should have any knowledge to the contrary, let's be hearing you.
Otherwise we had better just get used to the idea that copying software is
on the level of copying audio tapes/cds - illegal, but so what?
Bob Watson
D Synstel
>>>>or question the
incessant posting of off-topic messages by the very people who should know
better<<<<
On the contrairy, I think that this group *should* cover topics like font
piracy, it affects all uf us sooner or later.
Some members in this group have a bit of a limited veiw of what On-topic
means as far as fonts go.
--Don
David Foy
In article <heilmayr-240...@klaus.hip.berkeley.edu>,
heil...@math.berkeley.edu (Stephan Heilmayr) wrote:
> In article <4o2hjp$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> dick...@aol.com (DickWeltz) wrote:
>
> > The phenomenon, I'm afraid, is a direct result of the amorality being
> > inculcated to our youngsters on university campuses everywhere.
>
>
There is a substantial body of opinion which holds that modern degeneracy
started when women got the vote.
DickWeltz
>>
I do agree that _I'm_ absolutely correct. What I _said_ wasn't, though.
In case anyone missed it, it was sarcasm...
<<
The sarcasm wasn't missed at all. But that doesn't make it less true.
Liberal academia is still brainwashing you adolescents. Fortunately, most
of you learn better when you get into the real world. The ones who don't,
unfortunately, seem to run for political office, frequently in California,
although we get our share elsewhere as well.
-- Dick Weltz, Spectrum Multilanguage Communications, NYC
America's leading translators & foreign language typesetters
===================================================
Visit our Language News & Notes on the Web at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SpectrumLang
DickWeltz
>>
However, where are the "big guys" in all this? Has anyone ever heard of
any action taken by any of the major software/font publishers to stop
unauthorised copying of their products? The Software Publishers'
Association run ads in the computer mags calling for information of
illegal
copying, but have they ever taken a case up? I've never heard of one.
<<
What you say is all too true. The wristwatch manufacturers such as Rolex
take well-publicized action against counterfeiters and knock-off artists
(counterparts of our industry's font pirates); and the President is on the
verge of a major fight with China over software piracy -- so where the
hell *are* Adobe, Monotype, ITC, et. al. in this arena?
Stephan Heilmayr
In article <4oa1u2$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dick...@aol.com
(DickWeltz) wrote:
> >>
> I do agree that _I'm_ absolutely correct. What I _said_ wasn't, though.
> In case anyone missed it, it was sarcasm...
> <<
>
> The sarcasm wasn't missed at all. But that doesn't make it less true.
> Liberal academia is still brainwashing you adolescents.
Well, this doesn't jibe at all with what I've seen in academia. Also, it
bespeaks a very low opinion of college students. If, by the time you get
to college, you are so incapable of independent thought that you can be
brainwashed by a professor, perhaps college is not the right place for
you.
And by the way, I'm not an adolescent.
> Fortunately, most of you
> learn better when you get into the real world.
Well, if you remember how this thread started, it was about the attitudes
that lead to rampant font piracy. In my experience, academics are, if
anything, excessively sincere and moralistic. Perhaps you don't agree
with their moral standards, but these standards tend to be sincerely and
strongly held. The types of attitudes that you bemoan are exactly the
ones that academics spend a lot of time fighting. And they're the
attitudes that people tend to learn once they get into the real world.
> The ones who don't, unfortunately,
> seem to run for political office, frequently in California,
> although we get our share elsewhere as well.
Yeah, right...
-- Klaus (heil...@math.berkeley.edu)
Tiro TypeWorks
df...@canuck.com (David Foy) wrote:
>There is a substantial body of opinion which holds that modern degeneracy
>started when women got the vote.
Actually, I believe it all began with this tree and this fruit and
this snake...
However, may I agree with 'dbr' just this once, and suggest that this
thread is going way off topic.
DSTEFFMANN
You are right.
My Homepage: "http://members.aol.com/dsteffmann/homepage/welcome.htm"
Unknown
> qu...@netcom.com (D.M. "Quozl" Falk) writes:
... Part of the problem lies
> in how commercial software is marketed, making little distinction between
> corporate and non-corporate usage. This is a problem with the *entire*
> software industry, especially with these days of low-end casual PC
> users...
There are some significant differences. Most software programs are of limited
usefulness without a manual. Not so with fonts.
> The way to deal with this is by decriminalising usage of low-end
> software, and concentrate on the corporate level with the high-end
> software. This means, for the low-end users, putting out
> freely-distributable software (not just public-domain, but freeware and
> shareware) that can do enough of a job to be useful and practical, while
> having "fancier" programmes for those who can afford it>
>
I have to admit you've lost me here. It doesn't seem that a font vendor could split
the market into corporate and non-corporate. I can't imagine how it would actually
work in real life.
> The best way to counter that is by getting freely-distributable versions
> of fonts and software distributed, not criminalising those who *can't*
> afford said software and fonts....
I think most freely-distributable fonts are either shareware, like Elfring's fonts, or
freeware, and freeware seems to be from the Unix community. Elfring might be
willing to comment on how successful the shareware business is -- minimally, I
think. The Unix community is a little bit coddled. Some big daddy somewhere is
paying the bills while the font designer is spending weeks and months creating the
fonts. An independent designer usually has mouths to feed, like other software
authors, and it is just simply wrong to steal his or her work. It is also unrealistic to
ask designers to put that kind of effort into something and then get nothing for it.
Surely the Unixite would balk at being asked to do all that and not receive a
paycheque. Some may design fonts without being paid; most can't.
> Name-calling is *not* the best way to
> handle the matter....
>
Amen. I wish this was more widely understood. Thank you for saying it again.
> (lengthy quote omitted...)
> ... a significant factor in the
> problem... *is* the lack of freely-distributable fonts and software,
> which while not being the sole cause of the problem, it is a major reason
> why. The best way to handle this is to counter the problem
> *constructively*, by distributing freely-distributable software and
> fonts... I'd say there's about a couple
> *thousand* freely-distributable fonts out there, but most are hard to
> find, especially since commercial outfits *have* actively discouraged
> free distribution for non-corporate usage. Combine this with a serious
> lack of downloadable stylebooks for those not sure of common names for
> fonts, and you have a problem with uninformed font users.
I've never heard anyone seriously propose the lack of freely-distributable cars as
an excuse for auto theft.
> You want to discourage the piracy ofd commercial software? Fine goal, but
> I believe you're going about it the wrong way! The best way is to dilute
> the problem by getting non-crippled shareweare out, and posting any and
> all freely-distributable fonts as much as possible, even encouraging
> development of same. Free distribution does NOT mean giving up copyright
> rights if done as copyrighted freeware of shareware... And above all else
> when you do, ENCOURAGE FEEDBACK!
You' ve made an interesting point, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. I'd like to hear
your opinion again a few months from now after you've designed and digitized a
font.
> When you encourage creativity with positive feedback, you get positive
> creativity.
>
I hope you consider this feedback positive. Your points are interesting and need to
be considered.
Unknown
Dick is feeling cranky...
> > dick...@aol.com (DickWeltz) wrote:
> >
> > > The phenomenon, I'm afraid, is a direct result of the amorality being
> > > inculcated to our youngsters on university campuses everywhere.
Klaus takes him up on it...
> > Yep, it's those darned liberals brainwashing our kids again...
Dave puts in his two bits worth...
> There is a substantial body of opinion which holds that modern degeneracy
> started when women got the vote.
>
Private correspondents have pointed out to me that my comment is being taken
seriously. Sorry. Not meant to offend.
David Foy
In article <4o5fir$l...@kirin.wwa.com>, d...@wwa.com () wrote:
> Tiro TypeWorks (ti...@portal.ca) wrote:
>
> : dbr, what is your name? What do you do for a living? Where do you
> : live? These are not challenges. I would genuinely like to know, for no
> : other reason than the fact that most of the other regular contributors
> : to this group are pretty open about where they're coming from. You're
> : such an enigma, it is hardly surpising that I am not alone in making
> : assumptions based on the little evidence of your personality.
dbr's response, greatly abbreviated:
> John, your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?...
> Yeah, I'll admit I stepped out of line at the
> beginning, but I also think that people over-reacted a bit....Well, I can
> handle the email and insults (in fact, I
> probably handled them a little too well, I think, but that's how it goes
> when you get an Irishman mad)
...
> I know the way out. (Yeah,
> I can write a good straightline too. "Well, TAKE it, then!" :=) ).
>
Nobody's asking you to leave, just to try and control your temper and stop the
baiting and name-calling.
D.M. Quozl Falk
D Synstel (dsyn...@aol.com) wrote:
: >>>>or question the
: incessant posting of off-topic messages by the very people who should know
: better<<<<
: On the contrairy, I think that this group *should* cover topics like font
: piracy, it affects all uf us sooner or later.
: Some members in this group have a bit of a limited veiw of what On-topic
: means as far as fonts go.
The person you quoted was referring to alt.binaries.fonts, not comp.fonts...
D.M. Quozl Falk
DickWeltz (dick...@aol.com) wrote:
: >>
: I do agree that _I'm_ absolutely correct. What I _said_ wasn't, though.
: In case anyone missed it, it was sarcasm...
: <<
: The sarcasm wasn't missed at all. But that doesn't make it less true.
: Liberal academia is still brainwashing you adolescents. Fortunately, most
: of you learn better when you get into the real world. The ones who don't,
: unfortunately, seem to run for political office, frequently in California,
: although we get our share elsewhere as well.
Sounds like somebody who has never *lived* in California....
DickWeltz
>> In my experience, academics are, if
anything, excessively sincere and moralistic. Perhaps you don't agree
with their moral standards, but these standards tend to be sincerely and
strongly held. The types of attitudes that you bemoan are exactly the
ones that academics spend a lot of time fighting. And they're the
I hope you are right. I just seemed to notice, however, that the "help
yourself if you want it" and the "intellectual property should be free to
everyone" attitudes have been coming over the Web mostly from students, as
far as I can tell.
You are also correct that college students should be able to think for
themselves, but I saw too many of my fellow students swallowing real
nonsense from some of the professors (at one of the big-three Ivies) in my
long-ago youth not to be a little cynical about this.
David Foy
d...@wwa.com wrote:
> d...@wwa.com wrote...(enormous quantities of text snipped)
> You don't even understand news propogation. A lot of news sites
> will never see the complete posting of that program. A lot have,
> will, and still do. The cancellings, *even if they are done*, are
I wouldn't ordinarily struggle through this unvarnished mayhem, but I
did, and it inspired me to find out more about news propagation. Readers
may find the following enlightening:
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph//www/tskirvin/cancel.html
D Synstel
> I believe you're going about it the wrong way! The best way is to
dilute
> the problem by getting non-crippled shareweare out, and posting any and
> all freely-distributable fonts as much as possible, even encouraging
> development of same. Free distribution does NOT mean giving up
copyright
> rights if done as copyrighted freeware of shareware... And above all
else
> when you do, ENCOURAGE FEEDBACK!
You know, when I first started designing fonts I distributed my fonts as
shareware. The price was five dollars. (aggreeable to your pricing
scheme?) I got almost no registrations, barely enough to remind me I had
fonts out.
after a while I changed to having them distributed as keyware (fonts
crippled until you pay the fee) and for a much higher cost. My
registrations increased by a huge amount and I made much more money.
Apparently people did need to use the fonts, and now also needed to pay
for them in order to use them.
People will not pay for what they do not have to pay for.... period.
there will always be piracy, just like there will always be those
committing piracy and claiming that they have every right to do it.
Gary Persons
>> The phenomenon, I'm afraid, is a direct result of the amorality being
suspect that most of the offenders are young, know-it-all types who
scare the hell out of me when I realize that they are going to grow
older and take over the positions of power in our society. One can only
hope that they will acquire some wisdom -- and some ethics -- along the
way. <<
Not just Universities...the news yesterday had a story of a software
bust in Spain. A small group of people were doing business with 100%
pirated software. The significance was that they were all monks in a
monestary.
Let's not get started on the history of the Catholic church...
!^NavFont02F0246000FIGJHH5CIH5EHI470B34
David Foy
D.M. Quozl Falk wrote:
>
> DickWeltz (dick...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Liberal academia is still brainwashing you adolescents. Fortunately,
> : who don't, unfortunately, seem to run for political office,
desolation, said "There is no there there."
She was misquoted a couple of years ago in The Economist, by a writer
who said she was writing about Los Angeles. The writer was promptly
corrected by a reader who noted that, in the case of Los Angeles, it was
more correct to say "There is no air there."
Then there was that unfortunate period during the Regan governorship in
which California State Police at State border checkpoints turned back
anyone who didn't believe in God.
California, after all, is the source of many excellent type fonts, as
well as fruits and nuts, and its flip-flop politics, overcrowding, and
shameful agricultural policies should not blind us to its typographic
achievements.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
In article <4nvuur$m...@thoth.portal.ca>,
ti...@portal.ca (Tiro TypeWorks) wrote:
>d...@wwa.com () wrote:
>>I don't like you. I don't like Clive. I don't like Foy or Weltz. I'll gladly
>>pronounce that.
You don't like me? Oh dear, and how did you come to that decision, did I
say something you disagreed with?
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'd probably be upset by this if I
thought you had even 1% of the measure of my character, as it is, so what?
>>The guy that asked you to suck his "c*ck" showed remarkable insight
>>into your character.
You keep using the same old words, "insight", go look it up, at least in
this case you have a thorough misconception of its meaning.
-- Clive
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
In article <quozlDr...@netcom.com>,
qu...@netcom.com (D.M. "Quozl" Falk) wrote:
>Regardless, the statement is correct. More accurately, though, that the
>software and/or fonts in question cost more money than most can spend.
[big snip]
I'm not really sure I understand what your points are, software costs
money, therefore it should be free?
There is plenty of freeware and shareware in the world, how much more do
you want, what do you want all this software to do for you?
Let's just deal with fonts, just because of where we are. End users seem to
have these strange ideas about fonts, like we can make "bad" ones just for
them, that type designers are all millionaires because fonts are $30 each
and there's millions of them.
I don't know any millionaire type designers, not unless they're keeping it
very well hidden.
The fonts that are pirated on disk and around the net are exactly the same
ones that can be used in high end printing applications, how can we make a
distinction when the purpose is so wide ranging?
What do you mean by "there needs to be distinction between home and
corporate users", there already is, do you think corporate users buy one
copy of a font or application, no, they have to buy site licences costing
many thousands.
Ok, no answers here, but I can't see what your questions are.
-- Clive
Tiro TypeWorks
gper...@earthlink.net (Gary Persons) wrote:
>Not just Universities...the news yesterday had a story of a software
>bust in Spain. A small group of people were doing business with 100%
>pirated software. The significance was that they were all monks in a
>monestary.
Dominicans or Benedictines? Surely not Franciscans or Cistercians!
This gives a whole new meaning to 'Liberation Theology'.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
In article <4oa1uf$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
dick...@aol.com (DickWeltz) wrote:
>What you say is all too true. The wristwatch manufacturers such as Rolex
>take well-publicized action against counterfeiters and knock-off artists
>(counterparts of our industry's font pirates); and the President is on the
>verge of a major fight with China over software piracy -- so where the
>hell *are* Adobe, Monotype, ITC, et. al. in this arena?
Suing SWFTE?
-- Clive
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
In article <4o5lu7$c...@thoth.portal.ca>,
ti...@portal.ca (Tiro TypeWorks) wrote:
>All this is very different from repeatedly and genuinely flaming
>people under the protection of 'dbr', never once being open about your
>identity. Personally, I suspect you are in fact Clive Bruton, and this
>is all an extended cockney piss-take.
Well I can disprove that very easily, if I were dbr I'd pull you up on your
mistake, Cockney should always have a cap 'c'.
-- Clive
Tiro TypeWorks
Richard J. Kinch Ph.D.
R.H. Watson (rhwa...@log.on.ca) wrote:
: However, where are the "big guys" in all this? Has anyone ever heard of
: any action taken by any of the major software/font publishers to stop
: unauthorised copying of their products?
Oh, they have *very* busy legal departments, they just don't publicize it.
But if you try to do something legal that they don't like with respect to
their software (much less actually do something illegal), they will step on
you like a bug. One has to have a thick skin when it comes to taking this
personally, though, it's just a business strategy on their part.
I have a few lawyer's nasty-grams to prove it.
DickWeltz
To John and Clive, and anyone else who is interested, I would like to pose
a naive question.
I buy and use fonts for only one purpose: to set type for customers (who
pay us to do so) who use the typeset matter to produce printed materials
they require in their business or other pursuits. I assume that other
typesetters, as well as graphic design firms, advertising agencies, etc.
buy fonts for similar or related purposes.
My question, then, relates to all the characters here and on
alt.binaries.fonts.
What in the living hell do they need all these fonts for, and what do they
do with them? I am especially curious as to what urgent need drives so
many to steal fonts or demand them for little or no money.
Who are these people, and just how crazy are they?
Remember the guy who went to a psychiatrist and said, "I don't know why my
family sent me to you. They said it's because I like coffreecake." The
psychiatrist replied, "That's not so strange. I like coffeecake myself."
To which the patient responded, "Really! Then you must come over to my
house. I have rooms full."
Let me know.
pdds typographic
On 28 May 1996 14:02:18 GMT, gper...@earthlink.net (Gary Persons) wrote:
%% Not just Universities...the news yesterday had a story of a software
%% bust in Spain. A small group of people were doing business with 100%
%% pirated software. The significance was that they were all monks in a
%% monestary.
Getting revenge on Gutenberg, eh?
furari est orare?
Mark P. Fishman
df...@canuck.com wrote:
>
> The Unix community is a little bit coddled. Some big daddy somewhere is
> paying the bills while the font designer is spending weeks and months creating the
> fonts. An independent designer usually has mouths to feed, like other software
> authors, and it is just simply wrong to steal his or her work. It is also unrealistic to
> ask designers to put that kind of effort into something and then get nothing for it.
> Surely the Unixite would balk at being asked to do all that and not receive a
> paycheque. Some may design fonts without being paid; most can't.
I think you are giving "the Unix community" a bad rap, not to mention confusing the issue a bit.
The only examples I can think of for "free [scalable] fonts" in Unix are Charter, Courier, and
Utopia, donated to the X Consortium by Bitstream, IBM, and Adobe respectively. There are also
four fonts donated by URW. Hardly Unix-specific companies, and surely not big daddies who pay
the bills while designers labor in obscurity.
Unix gets this reputation largely because of the well-publicized work of *programmers* (not font
designers) at the Free Software Foundation, i.e., Richard Stallman and associates. Most people
misunderstand his use of the word "free": he doesn't mean free of cost, he means free of
restrictions on use and distribution.
Stallman charges a hefty -- and, given his competence, reasonable -- fee for his *time*. Once
he's been paid for his time, however, I believe he doesn't think he should charge for the same
time again. So if you buy a copy of a program he's written already, he'll charge for the time
and materials it takes to make the copy. He'll also include source code, and he will require
that *if you redistribute his work* you do the same. The "copyleft" provisions in the General
Public License are quite clear.
Stallman may oppose the way that many software or even font companies run their business, but he
doesn't condone stealing. His response has been to produce competing tools of even better
quality and to make them freely (in the legal sense) available. I admire his ethics *and* his
skills.
There's lots of commercial software and commercial type being sold in the Unix market, much of
it built using tools from the FSF. Unix doesn't equal theft, or even irresponsibility.
Cheers -- Mark F.
Mark P. Fishman
Mark P. Fishman
Oh, I'm sure that I'm crazy, Dick. I'm also sure that I'm (mostly) not dysfunctional or
dangerous.
For a long time I was interested in audio equipment because that's how I was able to explore my
interest in music. Then one day I realized that I was also interested in books and words, and
started learning about printing, and book design, and typography, and readability, and typeface
design. I think it's no coincidence that this happened about the time my close vision started to
get worse. <g>
I buy type because I want to learn to recognize it, use it, and eventually, maybe, design it. My
wife collects rocks and plants (i.e., she gardens). Is it so different? She doesn't make a
living as a farmer; I don't make a living with type.
OTOH, I don't steal type, or books. There's a library system for books I want to look through
but not keep, and for books no longer in print. I'm not sure what to do if I decide I like a
typeface and discover it's no longer available, so when I see one I like, if I can afford it I
buy it even if I don't know what to do with it yet. In the early days of compact disks, we had
to do the same thing, because they didn't stay in production very long.
My mania stops short of financial ruin. If someone has it so bad that they have to steal to
support the habit, they need medical help as well as ethical and legal restraint. My two cents.
Cheers -- Mark F.
DickWeltz
>>
My mania stops short of financial ruin. If someone has it so bad that they
have to steal to
support the habit, they need medical help as well as ethical and legal
restraint. My two cents.
<<
I have no quarrel with what you said, and I have responded at greater
length privately.
David Foy
DickWeltz wrote:
>
> To John and Clive, and anyone else who is interested, I would like to pose
> a naive question.
>
> I buy and use fonts for only one purpose: to set type for customers (who
> pay us to do so) who use the typeset matter to produce printed materials
> they require in their business or other pursuits. I assume that other
> typesetters, as well as graphic design firms, advertising agencies, etc.
> buy fonts for similar or related purposes.
>
> My question, then, relates to all the characters here and on
> alt.binaries.fonts.
>
> What in the living hell do they need all these fonts for, and what do they
> do with them? I am especially curious as to what urgent need drives so
> many to steal fonts or demand them for little or no money.
>
> Who are these people, and just how crazy are they?
The biggest font collection I know of is on a Physics grad student's
Mac. He says he has every font Adobe sells. He also admits he hasn't
paid a nickle for any of them.
He never uses them, just has this acquisitive streak.
As for many of the other collectors, I think they just have too much
time on their hands.
The simplest kind of execution-protection scheme would stop these folks,
but since they never buy fonts anyway, I'm not sure it would make much
of a financial difference to font vendors, other than increasing their
costs a little.
David Foy
A very pugnacious man named Dan something-or-other decided he could take
them on when he started The Font Company. He had rights to the data he
used, but made some assumptions about his right to use trade names.
Rumor was (rumor, I stress) that when Monotype was finished with him
he'd lost his house. As far as I know The Font Company is long gone.
Jeffrey Joel
In message ID <4oh37j$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> on 5/29/96, DickWeltz wrote:
> What in the living hell do they need all these fonts for, and what do they
> do with them? I am especially curious as to what urgent need drives so
> many to steal fonts or demand them for little or no money.
>
Dick, you know as well as I that most people who need to use fonts
professionally purchase legal copies. (At least one hopes so.) I believe that
a lot of these multi-thousand font disks are intended for those who have
neither discrimination as regards quality of type nor taste as regards usage.
You may never have seen some of the flyers that people post, including 10 or
more fonts on 6 lines on one side. Also, some people seem to choose an
outlandish display font for some purpose that is not supported by that choice
of font.
And then there are the people who just collect things. Don't most people have
software that they never use? Perhaps once purchased and discarded as
unneeded, but there pieces of code sit on their hard disks. And it's even
better if you don't have to purchase it, if you can wheedle it from someone,
etc.
My 2 cents.
JJ
- via BulkRate
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
In article <4oh37j$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
dick...@aol.com (DickWeltz) wrote:
...
>Remember the guy who went to a psychiatrist and said, "I don't know why my
>family sent me to you. They said it's because I like coffreecake." The
>psychiatrist replied, "That's not so strange. I like coffeecake myself."
>To which the patient responded, "Really! Then you must come over to my
>house. I have rooms full."
>
>Let me know.
>
I think that's pretty close to being the correct answer.
-- Clive