Slashdot Mirror
Font Company Wielding DMCA Against Bit-Flipping
Roundeye writes: "Seems that AGFA Monotype is trying to stop Tom Murphy from distributing his embed tool. According to the lawyers, the pair of bits in a TrueType font which specify how a font should be embedded constitute a DMCA-worthy access control device. Tom's standing up to them because, 'Embedding bits do nothing to keep consumers from copying fonts' and 'Since the enactment of the DMCA, I have only ever run embed on fonts for which I own the copyright." He's even got his own haiku version of the software..."
The very sucky part about this thing is that fonts aren't exactly the kind of thing you see in warez groups. The people who do use Embed (and I have) are the ones who really need it for their work, in my case it's creating electronic documents (PDF or Corel Envoy) to send off to whomever needs this or that report within the organisation.
If the font doesn't follow the document, you can sure bet that important CEO-type dude will see a bunch of disproportioned junk because the tech people haven't touched his workstation since 1995. "Ooh look! I'm an evil font-embedding whore!"
The big piss about this case is that the only people who understand the issue, aren't going to be the ones making the legal decisions (as usual).
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Is with the CDA, the entire law was not thrown out, just the parts that were questioned and found unconstitutional.
For any real effect, the trial court ruling has to be reviewed by an appeals court.
Fight Spammers!
I woudl have had nothing to read today except an interview with somone from sun.. yay. seriously look at the front page. its kind of scary to have so many stories taking away the rights of people. only in america.
-
Go to court and try to win this one.
Put your money where your mouth is. Download the program and mirror it on your own site.
2. Non-embeddable fonts will prevent you from creating a PDF file that is portable and will display correctly, if you're using Adobe software (Acrobat Distiller). This program can fix the problem. (hmm. Significant noninfringing use?)
3. There's a lot of free fonts out there that, through accident or omission, have the "don't embed" bits set. So there's a significant number of fonts where the author did not intend to limit the ability to distribute the font, yet these stupid bits (more correctly, stupid font-creation software that turns them on by default) are interfering with use of fonts as intended.
314-15-9265
Tom wrote "embed" in 1997, as stated in his emails. DMCA went into the books in 1998. So he wrote the program before the law even existed... How can you break a law before it's a law?
This guy has some really good points, this just appears to be another case of a corporation using the vaguely worded DMCA to try and push someone around. How's that saying go? "If you can't make a good product, sue someone that has"?
The lawyers went on to say: "By reading this notice you have looked upon copyrighted fonts. Take this rusty spoon, and with it gouge out your eyes, as they are a circumvention device. They have made unauthorized copies of our fonts in order to embed the font with other information to be sent to the brain."
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
This is not a case of "you can't do what you want to your own fonts".
Rather, this is a case of "while you can do what you want with your own fonts, you can't distribute a tool to let other people do what they want to their fonts without writing their own software".
It's still wrong and still probably outside the scope of the DMCA, but not quite as bleak as you state.
Notice that this is one font company suing another font company (even if he is just one guy) for releasing a tool to enable other users to produce fonts. That you can fiddle with someone else's property is just a side effect of the tool capabilities, in the same way that a VCR can be used to edit your own stuff, or to create the next Phantom Edit.
I'd call this use of the DMCA anti-competitive, and just plain rude to boot.
ATM, however, nothing bars a good old fashioned C & D letter hinting at something in the DMCA or any other arcane law.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I don't think that 2 documented bits are a copy prevention mechanism, nor a program that set these bits in a font is a copyright circumvention device. Copy prevention has to at least have some effort put into it - this is the equivalent of the joke of ROT13 (or even ROT26!) being valid as a means to prevent copying, and unrot13'ing the file is a copyright circumention mechanism.
ridiculous
You're bringing up a good point. Then if "undefined/future use" bits can be used retroactively, nothing prevents currently used bits to be "redefined with an added meaning". Then if that holds in count, that could mean that DMCA = "all generic hex/text editors/viewers would be illegal under the DMCA".
Although that could be interesting in the other way. If notepad can be used to change an "access control byte", it should be illegal too... so would all software... all computers... all ***stack overflow, brain dumped.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Probably not. A device has to be primarily designed for the purpose of circumvention, or marketed for circumvention.
Most importantly, though, "circumvention" only occurs if it is done without the authority of the copyright holder. If a format is open, and therefore many people (including the author of the program, perhaps) have reason to modify their works with the program, they of course have authority -- so it would be hard to argue that the device is designed "primarily" for circumvention. That's my main argument for this Embed thing.
Perhaps that is the real downfall of the DMCA...?
I don't mind. It's also in the public domain, so I can't stop you.
But, it's important that you are not acting in concert with me -- your actions are independent. (That also of course makes it harder for them to use legal measures to get it taken down.)
Writing new programs that do the same thing would also make it quite annoying for them...
Nope, its still illegal. Creating the software is not illigal, but once the law was passed (according to the complaintant) the software now violates the law and becomes illegal. So as long as he stops distributing/using the software after it has been deemed illegal, he is doing nothing wrong.
Oh, don't assume that it wouldn't be laughed out of court. All that Agfa did is send some letters threatening legal action -- which they can do until they go blue in the face, whether or not their case has any merit.
No judge is currently taking this seriously; that's because no judge has seen this case. Right now, it's just at the point of mean and scary-sounding letters talking about what Agfa might do if Tom refuses to capitulate.
If there are a number of such programs (not designed primarily for circumvention, but nonetheless contain "circumvention" features as a small part of their total feature set), then those bits don't "effectively control access to a work". So neither set of programs should be ruled illegal.
It is good because it adds to the nonsense that surrounds the DMCA.
It will come a day when such nonsense became so annoying and the DMCA is such a headache that it will be changed or erradicated completely.
You push me, I push you back. In the end, there will be balance. One way or another.
That's like outlawing guns because someone might get shot!
Isn't that what they've been doing gradually for the past few years now?
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
For those of you who don't think this really matters...
There is a right guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States by the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." I see this right as upholding and ensuring the preservation of the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Any soldier or historian will tell you that effective, non-compromised communication is one of the deciding factors in battles and wars. In a strange twist of fate (or maybe not so strange), the freedom of speech is tied closely to the right to keep and bear arms. Arms will not do a group of determined individuals a lot of good if they don't have an effective non-compromised communication system. Parallels can be drawn between an attack on the people's right to analyze algorithms and an attack on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
What are they afraid of?
Well, this calls for action. This clueless lawyer is probably going to get an order from a kangaroo court, maybe from Kaplan, the judge who ruled that publishing a link on 2600.org was an act of DVD piracy. If this happens, Tom Murphy is going to face huge legal costs.
Since this is really bothering me a lot, I went to EFF's site and made a small donation. Come on, do it now! Do something for your rights now!
If the EFF starts getting donations each time these bozos fling the DMCA around, then maybe they'll understand.
Do you feel safe? Huh uh. Want to admire the handywork of Lewis Kaplan against your right to put a link (a freakin' link!) into your web site? Feel free to bask in his wisdom.
Got the message? Donate now.
Hodie mi, cras tibi - Today it's me, tomorrow it's you (famous last words of a Roman dragged to his execution by his tyrannic government.)
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Quote:
DMCA additions to 17 U.S.C. are unconstitutional
A. Attempting to use the DMCA to restrict dissemination of a computer program is prohibited by the First Amendment, because computer code is protected speech.
-End Quote-
I was a policy debator in high school, we actually had a case that used, as far as I can recall, exactly that quote (or at least exactly the same idea). The problem with that article though is that computer *code* may be protected speech, but what the code *does* is not. Which is an extremely important distinction. Something tells me he won't be paying any damages, but if it goes to court, I don't see him being on the winning side.
The Internet, one place where if you're not right, someone else will set you straight... maybe.
I am probably making a mistake by trusting the slashdot editors since they typically don't edit any posts for clarity, but if the mini-description is true, then what is the point? If someone finds a new way to embed AGFA TT fonts then isn't that financially, a VERY GOOD THING for AGFA? Normally corporate executives are deleriously happy when someone finds a new legitimate use for their products because that creates potential for more customers. Of course since copyright is involved, all logic goes out the window. Copyright companies would rather have power than an ever expanding bottom line and/or relevence in the market; Sony, AGFA, et al would rather be able to wield terrible power over their customers' use of their products than have virtually no power and be almost unable to have production meet demand because their products are so hot.
Isn't it ridiculous? This supposed "access control" is nothing if it isn't honored. It's like when a mime is trapped in a box. The mime is only trapped in the box so long as he continues to pretend that there is a box he's trapped in. If the mime gets bored and wants to leave, he doesn't 'circumvent' the box, he just stops prentending it exists.
Or it's like I put up a sign in front of my house that says "Property surrounded by impenetrable force field". If someone ignores the sign, I may be able to accuse them of trespassing, but I sure as hell couldn't accuse them of breaking and entering because they had to break through my forcefield to trespass! Well, I could, but I'd be branded a looney the moment the words left my mouth. I can only -hope- something similar happens here.
The enemies of Democracy are
There is a way to stop the dmca from being successful in it's efforts to thwart people from being productive. If there is a software product that is under dmca dispute and, and say, a million people download before an injunction is put in place, then the point of the suit is moot, as the product is already distributed. This of course, only applies to free software (gnutella clients for example). I would urge everyone to support an initiative to just download things that the dmca poses threat to prior to injunction (even if you never use them), so as folks trying to inforce it get back to developing new products which actually benefit consumers and generate revenue as opposed to bitching about fricking fonts.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
Whether this is a DMCA "circumvention" or not is irrelevent. There's this nice legal concept in the US called Ex Post Facto. It is normally applied to criminal law, and means you can't be charged with a crime for an act that was not illegal when it was committed.
You could make a valid argument that the same thing applies here. Even if a judge were to decide it *was* a circumvention, you can argue that it was written for legitimate use, and was developed years before DMCA was passed. As long as there's been no substantial improvements or added capabilities since DMCA, you developed a perfectly legal tool, and have been distributing it legally for several years. You even have had a disclaimer for some time indicating the appropriate usage.
In short, for this and all the other reasons, they have no case.
Is it illegal for me to wave a magnet in just the right way near my computer as to flip the bit in the font to make it embed?
If the font is copyrighted, and you don't have permission, then yes.
If I practice and get good, is it illegal for me to use the magnet technique to decrypt DVDs?
If the DVD is copyrighted, and you don't have permission, then yes.
What's your point?
I think this has been brought up before, but bears repeating:
What he did before the DMCA was law may well have been legal, but the fact of the matter is, under current law distribution of this software is illegal.
Think about it: if you had a massive marijuana plantation in the 1920's (or whenever the first anti-pot laws got passed), and had developed this marvelous strain of weed, do you think you'd legally be able to distribute said weed today?
Ex Post Facto means you can't be charged for PRIOR acts. Continuing to distribute this software is a CURRENT act, and as such, illegal.
Not that this case makes sense to anyone except a slimy software company and its even slimier lawyers...
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I found this on the agfamonotype website:
There are four levels of embedding with TrueType and OpenType font data. These levels are set by the font developer, and written into the font data. The user cannot change the embedding level. [my emphasis]
Is it possible that AGFA's VP of Marketing, believing his own communications department got overly excited about a program that does something that cannot be done?
Kudos to Tom7 for not only standing up to these guys, but in doing so by beating them at their own game with a well-researched, thoughtful rebuttal argument. Perhaps if more people stood up to "official and forceful" sounding lawyer's letters, fewer of these things would end up in court and we could bleed the lawyers a little of their ill-gotten fees.
Following your reasoning to its logical conclusion reveals the problem with the DMCA. His tool is fundamentally no different from any other tool that can be used to edit TTF fonts, and it is NOT illegal to write a TTF font editor, anyone can write one, and the format is published for people to do so. But, according to the DMCA, he is essentially not allowed to write a font editor. But if you keep following the reasoning further down the line, it can be eventually argued that simply being allowed to write software should be something that is regulated, as anyone with a compiler becomes capable of generating all these nasty tools that flip bits. This is the disturbing part that I'm worried about, not just because it would essentially cause the free software movement to stop (as you would need special government granted commercial licenses to write software), but its an entire violation of freedoms.
Protect society from violent criminals by removing them from society. Don't let them out and then naively presume that they're going to follow the law and not own a gun. They're criminals. These are the people who have proven that they're not interested in following the law.
Who would have thought that Richard Stallman was correct all these years regarding free-as-in-speech software? How many of you just thought he was a paranoid lunatic?
From The Right To Read:
- Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.
--Jeff++... In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.
ipv6 is my vpn
However, they might be encouraged to go after people who were dumb enough to make threats (you know SOMEONE would do it) or lump it all under a RICO case for harassment.
If you want to be effective, go after the source of the complaint. More than likely, AGFA went to the lawyers saying they wanted it stopped, and the lawyers have to act in the best interest of their CLIENT.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
By this same argument.. It takes effort to shit if you're constipated... Thus, shit can be an artistic work and should be protected. In fact, 'American Standard' (maker of toilets) should be paying me for the destruction of my artistic work.
Sorry, but more practically, the 'sweat of the brow' argument has been discounted by the Supreme Court. (See Feist v. Rural Telephone).
``In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company, the Supreme Court recently put to rest the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, holding that originality is a sine qua non of copyright law, regardless of the author's efforts in collecting and assembling facts.'' -- http://www.lgu.com/cr38.htm
IE, the very notion that it takes effort to create a typeface is irrelevant to its copyrightable status. (And, as typefaces are NOT copyrightable, this is moot in any case.)
The program (a TTF file) that creates a typeface is a protectable entity under copyright, but only because it is creative, not because of the effort put into it.