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..."
Go to court and try to win this one. This case is even more riduculous than the others, and if it goes to court there is a good chance that it might get the DMCA struck down. Then of course it might just get thrown out because he isn't really violating the DMCA. But either way he shouldn't back down from it.
Mess Stuff Up
Soon any "undefined/future use" bits on a devices will be retroactively defined as access/copyright control and used as an excuse to sue thru DMCA.
Sad.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Maybe next Microsoft will say that any OS that users a username/password scheme for security is infringing upon their copyrighted access control schemes and thus violating the law too?
When will the madness end? It is good to see people like Tom standing up to the man.
Gee, I hope I didn't give Billie Boy Gates any ideas here.
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
Say goodbye to saving your work in the middle and coming back to it. Say goodbye, potentially, to backup software, since adding registry keys post-installation may be involved in copy control, and backup software would bypass that. Say goodbye to...well...computers. (Not that this hasn't been said before elsewhere, but...)
This flies in the face of science.
It would be kind of fun to mirror Tom's program and source all over the web just to mess with these idiots who are trying to stop him. I wonder if he would mind.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
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!
Non-Parity memory outlawed due to the risk of alpha particles bit flipping true-type fonts!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
This raises a great point about the DCMA. If I have a company that produces a tool to help me create products I am ok. Now, if my tool is used by others to circumvent what they call protection am I liable?
2 .h tm
In this case preventing someone from embedding a font doesn't protect the font. The font can easily be included with the document. This is nuts.
The embedding bits were orginally designed to make things easier for people to *distribute* fonts, not impede the distribution.
Check out this from Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/embed/embed
The best quote:
"Most foundries and type designers set the embedding level of their fonts to Editable embedding allowed or Print & Preview embedding allowed. However, a few foundries set the embedding level to No embedding allowed. If you feel that embedding technology has a place within your organization, be sure to ask the type vendor about it before you part with any money."
a hex editor.
This poster's name secretly replaced with Folgers Crystals
There's 1 bit in the font that says "please don't allow anyone to copy me?"
Dumb.
They have a web form you can fil out here:
AGFA's Web form.
When they get bombarded with emails, they'll know that they're under the public eye. If this goes to court, I may be willing to donate a few dollars to assist ith legal fees.
"Derp de derp."
Here is the right link.
Agfa Monotype, per their own Web site, came about in 1998 when "Monotype® Typography [was] acquired by Agfa Corporation in 1998...". You wrote embed in 1997. So sue them.
For those who haven't read the article, and think that the author of the program has made some complex circumvention device, here's a haiku description of the program from the author's webpage:
The OS/2 chunk
has a bit for embedding.
Set it to zero.
Grr! Arg!
And I must say, they do have a case.
The DMCA was designed to give "The Monotype Corporation, International Typeface Corporation, and Agfa Monotype Corporation" the right to sue over this.
It's sad, and complete BS, but they do have a case. The tool was written to assist font designers create free fonts, but it also, purely accidentally, violates the DMCA.
I really am interested to see what happens in this case because it's a perfect example of what happens when you give unmoderated power to an entity with no morals whatsoever (a corporation).
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Anyway, in case you're curious, I've been pushing their buttons a little bit, with the help of Dave Touretzky , and my current guess is that they have given up on me. (I haven't heard back since the letter I sent them that's on that page.) But I will be happy to go to court over this retarded case, and the EFF has informally offered to help if I do. ( Donate! )
In case you're interested, my fonts, which I've been making since 1993 (and which are free for you to use for practically anything) are at fonts.tom7.com .
Oh For Fuck's Sake.
What about hex-editors then?
What about sed? I'll be you could come up with a nifty program to twiddle some bits in the same manner.
And for those lawyers, I've got a couple of bits they can twiddle; my balls.
I hope Tom wins.
Humorless sig goes here.
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"?
Everytime we see an example of the little guy getting threatened by the Big Evil, we Slashdotters have an orgy of analysis and in the end do absolutely nothing. Appeals to donate to the EFF are roundly issued but how many bother?
What Slashdot needs to do is have a Fund set up - basically, an Amazon click-to-pay or PayPal (or both) account setup on the front page. It shoudl be preset for $1 donations. Every time we have a YRO post on slashdot frontpage, the donate buttons shoudl be inserted into the comments page.
The idea is, make it EASY to donate, makie it quick, make the links impossible to miss and always appear in correct context. If I had such a link infront of me right now I'd click it.
Every time we see a case like this, we set up a fund and channel funds to the poor guy. And maybe Slashdot could channel a matching percentage to the EFF as a donation from teh advertising revenue.
There has to be a way to leverage the huge community numbers here into actual tangible pressure - and money is the best way.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
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.
Isn't that the ultimate goal? The outlawing of general-purpose computers and the reduction of PCs to "media devices", the transformation of the bitstream into a revenue stream?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
In a case like this, where there are only a few bits to "adjust" to achieve desired results, anyone with a little knowhow could just use a hex editor.
Of course hex editors have "substantial commercially significant use other than circumvention", but lawyers don't seem to care...
-... ---
You obviously don't work in the design field do you?
Fonts aren't "freely distributed" in most cases. Fonts usually do accompany a piece sent to the printer to ensure the printer can reproduce the typeface in the design. But the printer must remove the fonts from their system if they do not have rights to them. Fonts you see in print are nearly always copyrighted due to the demanding nature of making a good, legible and proper typeface.
Check out this book.
Greedy lawyers sue
judge considers fair use death
rights flush down toilet
The threat from their lawyers is a bit on the false side. It looks like their complaint is centered on 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) which has nothing to do with making a tool available. If you were posting hacked versions of their fonts or admitting to changing the "protection" bits on their fonts they would have the start of a case. Fortunatly, your tool doesn't even seem to fall into the "primarily designed" to circumvent a protection measure on a controlled work requirement of 1201(a)(2). If it goes to court, somebody needs a kick.
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.
From this day forward I will not use fonts anymore!!!
I Heart Sorting Networks
As computer "intelligence" increases, and the line between artificial and biological "hardware" becomes thinner, this will actually become an issue.
I was thinking about this before because it seems that human language is very "GPL-ish". People can modify it at will, and generally make available their modifications. And much like a GPL-ed compiler or image editor, the results (poems, books) can still be licensed in a different manner.
I guess Microsoft should stop using open source language, and instead use a proprietary one they create themselves.
-... ---
Did you read my response?
In order for embed to be covered by the DMCA, the program has to be primarily designed for circumvention. Circumvention only occurs when the act is without the authority of the copyright holder. In this case, I am the copyright holder, so of course I grant myself authority to modify the bits!
(There are several other reasons why their argument doesn't hold that I give, but this is the strongest...) I think their legal argument is faulty.
Check what IP the lawyer uses.
:-)
Use a Apache rewrite rule to serve up a version of the web page without the link to the program, for the lawyer's subnet.
Solved.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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...?
subject says it all
Lasers Controlled Games!
Contribute to the EFF [eff.org]
Write the Politicians [congress.org]
If a decent percent of the hundreds of thousands of people who read slashdot acutally did these things, we might actually make a difference.
What do you find in every circumvetion device?
Well some circumvention devices contain the following:
1. A data tranfer medium: wires, space, fiber-optics
2. Data: electrons, photons, magnetized particles.
3. Algorithms: hardware, software, or just ideas.
4. A container: metal housing, zip file meta-data.
Basically what we see here (if we simplify), is that a circumvention device will contain "stuff". So all we need to do is ban all "stuff" as well as any talk of "stuff", and we'll all be safe.
-... ---
For each bit in x,
Flip y's identical bit
Where x's bit is one.
If he wins, the legal precedent could be : "If the algorythm is simple enough to express as a haiku, it is protected speech and not a computer process."
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Here's an interesting tidbit. .)
As it turns out, fonts cannot be copyrighted in the US. Only the truetype "programs" that generate them can. (See comp.fonts FAQ
Therefore, it would almost certainly be legal to write a program that takes copyrighted truetype "programs" as input, and produces equivalent programs (that is, they generate the same typeface) that are not copyrighted. It would also need to change the names to avoid trademark infringement. If I did this, and also changed the embedding bit, would that not put me in the clear of any possible DMCA claim?
I recommend writing the following persons to voice your complete disgust at AGFA Monotype for their lawyers using such tactics against Mr. Tom Murphy.
e .com
e .com
Robert Givens
President of Agfa Monotype
robert.givens@agfamonotype.com
Ira Mirochnick
Senior Vice-President
ira.mirochnick@agfamonotype.com
Steve Kuhlman
VP Sales & Marketing
steve.kuhlman@agfamonotype.com
Mark Larson
Marketing and Public Relations
Agfa Monotype Corporation
985 Busse Road
Elk Grove, IL 60007-2400
847-718-0400
mark.larson@agfamonotyp
Vikki Quick
OEM Product Marketing Manager
Agfa Monotype Corporation
200 Ballardvale Street
Wilmington, MA 01887-1069
978.284.5926
vikki.quick@agfamonotyp
Hmm. I thought it was a 2 bit system. (no pun intended)
one bit for copyright, one for original.
If copyright & original is set, making a copy is okay. THe cdopy should have original turned off and copyright should stay in whatever state it was on before.
If copyright is on and original is off, copying shoudl be denied.
That is a great explaination.
The DMCA covers all electronics/software right. So now that everything has electronics and software, you cant reverse engineer and make modifications available to the public.
Damn, cant make the better mouse trap, it brakes the DMCA.
I was under the (perhaps flawed) assumption that one couldn't copyright a font, but could copyright the name, which is why pc's and mac's and other systems all have basically identical fonts with totally different names.
Also, if when you purchase a font, you can produce printed works with it, whats to say you can't embed it in webpages. Fonts afterall are designed for presentation, otherwise why would people pay for them in the first place. Whats it matter wether the presentation is in print on the web instead of in a magazine.
It just means, according to what I know, that you can't be charged with violating the law, because it wasn't a law when you did what you did.
Now continueing to do said act after the law was passed would be illegal.
But, IANAL.
EFGearman
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
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.
If Tom wants to make his fonts freely available to others, and uses his software to toggle bits on his fonts, fine.
But, it clear from comments here that at least some people are using the program to illegally embeed fonts in documents, such as PDFs. And yes, this is illegal. Embeed fonts are a good thing, I like them, but only if I own them and the redistribution rights or can freely do so. This is why default system fonts are so often used for such documents. So that the fonts can be freely passed around.
Like any other piece of software, font design and typograph requires work to create. And its not drudge labor either, it takes both skill and creative ability. Commerical font houses pay people to create these, and then sell their work. Usually, such fonts are licenses so that people can use them to print paper documents, or view other documents on systems where the owners have also licensed the font. Don't have the font? Buy it or go read something else.
Using a propitary font on a website, and redistributing it to people looking at your site is piracy, clear and simple. No ifs, ands, or buts.
The font industry has adopted a very reasonable approach till now. No heavy handed DRM, just a couple of bits and the trust that software will honor them. This is convient for consumers and protects the people who work to create the things we use.
The DMCA might not be entirely appropriate here, and perhaps the case should be tossed on technicalities. But whatever the non-infringing uses and the authors own utility for the program, the people on slashdot have made it clear that the non-infringing use is pretty marginal to the illegal one.
A shame. Perhaps the author should look at writting a font editor of his own. One that defaults to free access for new fonts, and allow increasing security, but not granting new permissions on commercial fonts. This is a fair method of handling the problem, one that appears to have previously been used successfully without resorting to more draconian copyright protections.
Jason Denton Colorado State University [Thoughs and comments are my own, and not reflective of CSU]
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.
comp.fonts FAQ: Are fonts copyrightable?
Looks to me like truetype fonts (and similar formats that have program-like logic included) are copyrightable, but typefaces in general (including the font after rendering) are not.
314-15-9265
I recently read about your harrassment of Tom Murphy, the young graphic designer at Carnegei Mellon University.
Frankly the attempts of large companies to usurp the rights of the rest of us disgusting.
Let me strongly urge you to issue a full, public apology to Mr Murphy.
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.
And the reason guns are protected under the constitution? You won't find it in the constitution, but you'll find it in the Federalist Papers.
It's to protect yourself against an over zealous * government.*
Nope, don't see no over zealous government around here. Move along people.
( P.S. I'm not a "gun nut." I hate the things and not only haven't ever owned one, I've never fired one. That doesn't preclude me from understanding their legal function under American political philosophy)
KFG
I agree with your point whole heartedly. I think that your point about it being wrong is right on.
I do not think however that Tom should be responsible for the use of this application. The app he has written is not milicious in nature. It has a very valid legal use, and he states that on his site.
I don't believe a software vendor has the right to stop him from legally using, and distributing his own creation. I think they need to stop users from using it. In that sense they have an uphill battle I do not envy.
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
Yeah... it's what usually 600-800 replies for these hysterical DMCA threads? Let's say 10% will hit that "donate $1" button (probably highly unlikely), that gives you $80.
Not everybody who reads comments posts a comment, and only half of Slashdot's readers ever hit comments.pl at all.
I'd love to slashdot the credit card company.
Will I retire or break 10K?
His defense is just lousy.
'Since the enactment of the DMCA, I have only ever run embed on fonts for which I own the copyright.'
That puts him in the clear when it comes to traditional copyright laws.. kinda like making a copy of a game for backup purposes only. However, he is freely distributing his prorgam which can be used to circumvent licencing control. This is covered by the DMCA. Just because he is using the system legally doesn't mean others will, and since it's available for the public to use, he's technically in the wrong.
However, I back him because the DMCA is ridiculous, but he IS breaking its conditions and this case is valid.
mogorific carpentry experiments
I'm not a gun nut, I owned several, I've shot many.
You're right, that's the reason for the right to bear arms.
But you forget that when this country was founded there was no real way to control mass opinion.
Now that there is a very limited number of mediums for controlling public opinion and those mediums are kept in check by impossibly insurmountable barriers to entry into the field of propaganda those rules have changed, and public opinion is very controlable.
Now we need a "Right to use media" clause, and a public commision to provide equal-footing voice to citizens. The right to own and bear arms was safe because the most expensive arms would always be affordable to the masses. The right to free speech and freedom of the press are attainable by the masses, but only in a very limited fassion. The pen always was mightier than the sword/gun and so the right to bear arms has simply become trite.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
To all the university students, on a tight budget,
(like, say, me) consider this:
Someday, you may be the one who needs help,
for a program you thought was completely innocent.
If we don't contribute now, there might not
be anyone to help when that time comes.
-Slackergod
From this day forward I will not use fonts anymore
You don't have to go that far. The legal issue under discussion pertains only to an aspect of TrueType font technology. There are alternatives, such as PostScript and good old bitmap fonts. And bitmap fonts are somewhat scalable with algorithms such as scale-blur-median-threshold and 2xSaI.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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."
Paul F. Stack
Member
Stack & Filpi,
Chartered
Suite 411, 140 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603-5298
(Cook Co.)
Telephone: 312-782-0690
Facsimile: 312-782-0936
Here's his email addy. AOL, kinda figures, don't it?
pstack7901@aol.com
KFG
And when they use another IP to get at the protected content, you can sue them under the DMCA!
Wrong. According to 17 USC 1201(e):
You can't hide from the cops behind the DMCA.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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 I practice and get good, is it illegal for me to use the magnet technique to decrypt DVDs?
I must start practicing my magnet-palm technique...
Realnetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do, however, know the DMCA very well, since I've been worried for many years about being sued under the DMCA for my anticensorware workSig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
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.
Therefore, it would almost certainly be legal to write a program that takes copyrighted truetype "programs" as input, and produces equivalent programs (that is, they generate the same typeface) that are not copyrighted.
Such a program would have no different legal status from a C preprocessor; a U.S. federal court would probably consider the output to be a derivative work of the input. 17 USC 106 gives the copyright owner of a font file a limited exclusive right to prepare derivative works from a copyrighted work.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
You could just as easily argue that firearms were developed for protection and hunting, but that's beside the point. A better analogy would be if Colt designed a weapon with a weird caliber, say 5.11mm and then copyrighted the 5.11mm caliber. Under the DMCA it would be illegal to measure the bore and make your own bullets. Certainly the wacko/survivalist fringe would not stand for this. Then again, they don't stand for much other themselves...
Now that I think of it... If this font thing is upheld, it would allow Colt to patent a bolt, and then use a weird screw head to keep you from opening up the chamber. If you then find a way to unscrew the weird screw you are in violation of the law. Then again, you wouldn't be able to clean your weapon and your personal well being wouldn't matter for much after a few trips to the range!
Believe nothing -- Buddha
>You won't find it in the constitution, but
>you'll find it in the Federalist Papers.
The real reason is buried in the soil of New England.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
They of corse keep a plaintext version of your CC inof on thier website
From now on I'll be doing all my documentation as haiku, starting with my custom streamInputHandler for Apache Fop
This may actually make documentation a little less boring methinks.
I wonder what my boss will say. (If she bothers to look at the code, that is...) Ok, that was terrible!
I don't even dare to count the syllables.
Curse those long class and function names!
Maybe I'll get better with a little practice...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
I only said:
;-)
"Please let Tom and his program Embed alone,
Thank you."
Can I copy your text and send it to them? I hope that if they get multiple copies someone will eventually get a clue
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
I sent AGFA an email on that web page. I'm a senior SW developer in their industry and I will make my displeasure known to my company and our customers.
I broke out the CC and sent $100.00 to the EFF. AND IT FELT GOOD.
I've already sent a letter to Sen. Santorum on the whole DMCA/SSSCA issue and only got a wishy-washy letter in response. Are you listening, Rick? Because YOUR NEXT VOTE FROM ME IS RIDING ON THIS!
Grrr. I think I'll go bite someone.
WC
As is said in the comp.fonts FAQ:And thus, anything created from those bitmaps is free of the copyright restrictions on the original font program. Unintuitive, but true!
This is what explains those "1500 fonts for just $4.99!" CDs that you often see in computer stores. A company can buy up a bunch of copyrighted font programs from major type foundries, create scalable lookalikes by the above process, name them something similar but not identical to the originals, and sell collections of the things. 100% legal under current copyright law.
iSKUNK!
A Good Fscking Lawyer?
That's not an abbreviation, that's an oxymoron.
I searched the copyright office's web site for "fonts" and stumbled across this letter:
p df
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/004.
It's a comment submitted by Aladdin Enterprises (the makers of ghostscript) during the Copyright Office's review of the DMCA two years ago. It addresses almost exactly the current situation:
"...There is, in fact, a commercially important situation where this is currently the case. A software package called Fontographer is used very widely for creating TrueType font files. A bug in Fontographer causes it to improperly mark the fonts it produces in a way that causes certain other widely used software packages to consider that the font may not be embedded in documents that use the font. This incorrect marking happens by default, contrary to the wishes of the font author. The authors of Fontographer have been unresponsive to users and authors and have not fixed this problem. Thus a situation has been created where the author of the font wishes to allow users to embed it, but users who remove the protection marking (which is extremely simple technically -- it involves changing one easily-located bit in the font) will be in violation of the law."
I wish the parent was modded up.
I think that if every lawyer who put out a crap case like this received lots of email and snail-mail, maybe they wouldn't be so eager to advise their clients to pick on people.
God is real unless declared integer
If he wins, the legal precedent could be : "If the algorythm is simple enough to express as a haiku, it is protected speech and not a computer process."
Brilliant!!! Now all we have to do is express a complete Turing machine in haiku form, and then we can reduce all other algorithms to it!
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.
>Making it tougher for a criminal to buy a gun
>does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
It's ALREADY illegal for a criminal to buy a gun.
What's your fscking POINT?
-l
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.
Again, I hate the DMCA and hope Tom wins. Indeed, I just sent him $5 bucks to help out (check your AOL account, Tom), but I don't think he'll win using the argument that he didn't violate the DMCA.
Miko O'Sullivan
Instead of "thinking" what they thought, why not check out what they actually thought? The "Federalist Papers" were a series of articles written by the founders, published in newspapers, in an attempt to convince the American people they should ratify the Constitution. There are also numerous letters among Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. They make it clear that a person should be armed to disourage foreign invasion, but also to protect themselves from federal gov't tyranny and overreach. Of course, Abraham Lincoln and his civil war showed who was really in charge....
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Nobody is arguing anything criminal.
This discussion is about a civil matter.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
If you're distributing embed, please assist AGFA's lawyer, Paul Stack, by confessing your distribution of embed. You can fax your confession to 312-782-0936. Here's the confession I just sent:
Hello. I wish to confess that I, too, am distributing the embed program on my website. Please send a demand letter to the following
address:
Russell Nelson
521 Pleasant Valley Rd.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213
Do not bother sending me legal notices via email or fax.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
If you read what the founders wrote outside of the constitution, you will be pretty satisified tht they meant that anyone who wanted to own a gun should be able to own a gun. In this manner was tyrrany to be prevented. We don't exactly have a tyrranical government yet, but neither has the government managed to confiscate everybody's guns either.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
Doesn't this constitute barratry, which is illegal?
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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
It wouldn't be the first time a lawyer had been harassed by a horde of obnoxious thugs. I think they'd just see it as part of the job. In any case, it would be unethical of them not to give their clients the best legal advice.
Apparently now every pissant little software corp is going to try to use the DMCA to flex its shrimpy muscles and feel manly by smacking around the Linux geeks, and the Linux geeks will see it as yet more evidence they're living some romantic battle against evil.
Here comes a wave of copycat DMCA fights. =P
Oh, I've also thought of the perfect anti-circumvention scheme! Every bit of software will have the following written as a comment at the head of the program: "Everything in this program is ours and you can't play with it. Doing so is circumvention". Voila, now companies can saddle the courts with controlling their crudware, what a lovely use of tax dollars.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
"the lawyers say"? Lawyers? Since when do they know crap? I'm reminded of a Dilbert strip:
Idiot: So, tell me about our product.
Dilbert: Our product is beige. It uses electricity.
Idiot: Woah, brain overload!
I'm sure these lawyers had to have explained to them what a "bit" is so they could sound convincing, I guess.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
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.
Sorry... Been there done that. The US recognizes no moral rights in any artistic work. Copyright only exists because of expediency, not for a moral reason.
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.
He's got 10 digits you silly coward! Hey wait, I only count 9... :)
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
This means that none of your fonts (even those created by yourself) can be embedded in PDF.
So, every font producer probably has written an EMBED-like program for themselves. I know 'cause I've written it twice: Sometime in 1992, but then lost the source code, and again a couple of weeks ago.
Agfa/ITC/Monotype/Letraset/whateverCorpWeAreGobbli ngUpThisWeek are bullying Tom around for a program which has a predominant legitimate use for every font producer.
Oh, BTW, Macromedia will never fix the endless amount of bugs in Fontographer. Development is on hold, the last version was published eight years ago. Click here for my take on this.
-Martin
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android
what part of "analogy" do you not understand?
Believe nothing -- Buddha
/* :-)
;
> I remember a version of DeCSS in a few hundred bytes. How short can you make this one?
How about 597 bytes?
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
FILE *F;
int c() {return fgetc(F);}
void s(unsigned long t) {fseek(F,t,0);}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int a,x;
char *want="OS/2", *p;
F=fopen(argv[1],"rb+");
s(12);
for (;;) {
p = want;
while (*p && c()==*p++)
if (!*p) {
unsigned long cs,l=0,t=0,sum=0;
cs=ftell(F); s(cs+4);
for (x=4;x--;) t|=c()<<(8*x);
for (x=4;x--;) l|=c()<<(8*x);
s(t+8); fputc(0,F); fputc(0,F);
s(t); for (x=l;x--;) sum+=c();
s(cs); for (x=4;x--;) fputc(0xff&(sum>>(x*8)),F);
exit(0);
}
while (*p++) c();
for (x=12;x--;) c();
}
}
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
That was terrible
Don't dare count the syllables
Curse those long class names
Sorry, couldn't resist.
But seriously I'm with you in spirit.
I am a driver licensed by a State. Does this mean that I may be able to circumvent the DMCA?
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
All CD Audio disks have a "Copyright" bit. It's a "flag", really, not anti-circumvention device, since no ripper listens to it.
Getting legal on this guy is like taping a license agreement to a wad of money, putting it on the sidewalk, and arresting anyone who doesn't sign the agreement. It's too big of a stretch.
...Museum of Modern Art sues Kodak (Camera)
...Addison-Wesley sues Xerox (Photocopier)
...Sony sues Bell ExpressVu (PVR)
This law is assinine. I wonder how long it is before the inventor of the floppy disk gets sue, lord knows I used them to pirate millions of games.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
#include <stdio.h>r (;;){p=want;while( *p&&c()==*p++);- ;)t|=c()<<(8*x);for(x=4;x--;)l|=c ()<<(8*x);( x=l;x--;)sum +=c();; }}
FILE *F; int c(){return fgetc(F);}void s(unsigned long t){fseek(F,t,0);}
int main(int argc, char **argv){int a,x;char *want="OS/2",*p;
F=fopen(argv[1],"rb+");s(12);fo
if(!*p){unsigned long cs,l=0,t=0,sum=0;cs=ftell(F);s(cs+4);
for(x=4;x-
s(t+8);fputc(0,F);fputc(0,F);s(t);for
s(cs);for(x=4;x--;)fputc(0xff&(sum>>(x*8 )),F);exit(0);
}while(*p++)c();for(x=12;x--;)c()
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
No. You can *trademark* a typeface name. As a few examples of registered typeface trademarks, there are Times Roman (U.S. registration 417,439, October 30, 1945 to Eltra Corporation, now part of Allied); Helvetica (U.S. registration 825,989, March 21, 1967, also to Eltra-Allied), and Lucida (U.S. reg. 1,314,574 to Bigelow & Holmes). Most countries offer trademark registration and protection, and it is common for a typeface name to be registered in many countries.
Digital (as opposed to analog) fonts may be protected by copyright of digital data and of computer programs. It has been established that computer software is copyrightable. Therefore, software that embodies a typeface, e.g. a digital font, is presumably also protected. There is some objection to this kind of copyright, on the grounds that the ultimate output of the program or the result of the data (i.e. a typeface design) is not copyrightable. However, the current belief expressed by the National Commission on New Technological Use of Copyrighted Works is that software is copyrightable even if its function is to produce ultimately a non-copyrightable work. Hence, typefaces produced by Metafont or PostScript(R), two computer languages which represent fonts as programs, are presumably copyrightable. Typefaces represented as bit-map data, run-length codes, spline outlines, and other digital data formats, may also be copyrightable. Some firms do copyright digital fonts as digital data. The copyright office is currently reviewing this practice to determine if it is acceptable.
The designs of typefaces may be patented in the U.S. under existing design patent law. Many designs are patented, but type designers generally don't like the patent process because it is slow, expensive, and uncertain.
The reason you see so many fonts that appear to be identical is there is no copyright on the design itself. However, you cannot copy the program or digital data which is what you would be doing if you just kept the typeface you get from a designer.
Interestingly, there has been a story (on NPR?) today mentioning how credit card companies have been quietly updating the terms in their credit card contracts. Supposedly, buried in there is an agreement that if the credit card user has a dispute with the credit card company, he may no longer sue them outright and instead agrees to use binding arbitration.
You (or perhaps NPR) have odd definitions for the words "quietly" and "buried". In addition to the little legalese-filled pamphlet (labelled "Important Amendment to Your Cardmember Agreement Regarding Binding Arbitration"), my statement had a sentence right under the balance reading, "Please read the enclosed amendment to your cardmember agreement; it contains important information about binding arbitration." In addition, the statement I received just yesterday had a sentence under the balance reading, "You should have received an amendment to your cardmember agreement with last month's statement regarding binding arbitration; if you did not, please call our customer service center to have a copy sent to you."
I have five credit cards, and they are all absolutely shouting about binding arbitration.
Most legal understandings of the second amendment allude to that right as being the right for the country to build and maintain a military; not your personal right to own a gun.
The language in the Constitution is not difficult to read. It's easy to understand. And every word of the Bill of Rights details things that the government *cannot* do. The 2nd Amendment is the assurance that the government cannot take away your weaponry.
Why is this so important? Because if it become neccessary to remove the government by force, the citizenry needs the weaponry to do it. Remember, these guys just got through fighting a war with their government and winning their independance. They knew exactly how important weapons can be in the hands of the common man. Don't think it's not true today. It is. The right man in the right place with the right weapon can topple any regime.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the power of the government under the people's final control. Period.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I submit that in the post-war period, where soldiers and yeoman militias essentially had the same weaponry, this amendment would create the intended deterrent to government action.
However, in the modern age, we've come to realize information has as much (nay, more) power than guns. So control of the media, something the government has a hand in, of the intelligence agencies, of the police, etc. all translates to the government being able to do what it thinks is appropriate regardless of the presence of arms in the citizenry.
Additionally, I submit that the arms that can be borne by the citizenry (which does not, for the most part, include tanks, laser guided smart bombs and stealth fighters, etc) would fare very poorly (as would the citizenry) in a general revolt in which they were opposed by the military. Revolution isn't the simple matter it once was, nor is it perhaps even relevant in the same manner anymore.
On the other hand, the epidemic violent crime in America may be far more directly relevant.
Of course, that's just me criticising. The ultimate defence for the ownership of some (I do not believe I need to own a recoilless rifle for example) firearms seems to me to be the lack of need to abrogate that right. If I'm a gun enthusiast who takes all requisite precautions, there really isn't any reason the government needs to legislate away my ownership (at least for safety reasons). My own competence and diligence will keep my weapons safely out of the hands of miscreants.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
For one thing, I don't forsee "the people vs. the military" if it became necessary to take out the US government. For one thing, the military is made up of the people. I highly doubt that the majority of military personel would be willing to use military weapons on US citizens.
Secondly, violent crime does not decrease as the number of guns goes down. Quite the opposite in fact, depending on which studies you look at. It's far from proven either way, admittedly.
The art of revolution may have changed, I agree. But if it really came to the point where revolution became necessary, I think the infrastructure would have also toppled to the point where a firearm, even a handgun, would be a damned important thing to have.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.