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..."

Comments

first :)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm first....

All

[Anonymous Coward]

All your WATERMELON are belong to me.
All your FRIED CHICKEN are belong to me.
All your GHETTOS are belong to me.
All your WELFARE CHECKS are belong to me.
All your CRACK PIPES are belong to me.

I am..
I am.. American..
I am.. American.. Negro.

Don't want customers copying fonts?

[CmdrTaco (editor)]

I know in most cases, a font is freely distributed. Sure, there are some companies that make their money of designing proprietary fonts, but I think that goes against the whole principle.

First, what if someone designs a web page that is best viewed with their font? Does the font company have the right to regulate the distribution of that webpage simply because the majority of the users have not payed for that font?

Second, what if someone downloads the font and uses it to print out copies of a novel they wrote? Would this font company have the right to restrict the reselling of this novel simply because some of their artwork had been used in its creation?

I believe the font companies have the right to control their property, but it is a fine line they walk between protection and overly restricting use.

moron

[The Living Fractal]

Bill Gates has better things to do than read fucking /.

gg

Re:leverage Slashdot for legal expenses

[Anonymous Coward]

it's funny what your mom did for a one dollar donation