Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Gets Hit By DMCA
Reeses writes "Adobe has asked a U.S. District court to allow them to embed ITC and Monotpye fonts in their documents, claiming "Adobe has asked the court to declare that Adobe's popular Acrobat product does not violate certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as claimed by ITC and Agfa Monotype." Which is interesting after the Skylarov/Elcomsoft debacle from a year or so ago. I guess they figured that it didn't apply to them since they enforced it."
Comes around to byte 'em in the ass.
But on another note, how would this affect other Adobe products, like building a web page in Photoshop using these fonts and publishing?
I can't say I really feel sorry for Adobe.
What's a gander?
Maybe with more large corps getting hit with DMCA violations, there will be stronger lobbying against it.
I for one like to see the DMCA used against companies that could possibly aid in its downfall.
Ha Ha...
Followed by a Cartman...
I hate you guys!
Tournament Management Online &
We all know that laws like the DMCA are there to protect the big corporations who pay for the politicians to get those laws on the books. We can't have those same laws being used AGAINST these corporations now can we?
Wouldn't it be great if the company that started the worst DMCA trial yet be the company that got it struck down?
I think we're going to see alot of this....DCMA is poorly written, fraught with complexities and consequences beyond what it was intended by the authors. Well, i agree with our friend here. Sauce for the....
ain't it sweet?
It will show that poorly written laws with big teeth are dangerous to everyone, whether they are consumers, the non-consuming public, industry, or the politicians who support them.
Cross your fingers, maybe this is the beginning of the end for the DMCA.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
It's when you look at something. As in, "Take a gander at them mams."
It's pretty archaic, so don't feel bad.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
After the Sklyrov debace it is difficult to have any sympathy for Adobe.
... this is the kind of karmic returns such ill-considered, anti-social behavior in the name of padding stockholders pockets at the expense of the public good warrent, and perhaps now a little more often will actually receive.
Free Market ueber Alles types should take note
There is a social and ethical context to everything we do, as individuals, as members of corporations, or as corporations themselves. This is but one small aspect of it, and while it is far too seldom to see payback of this sort for wrongdoing within the span of a human life, it is most gratifying one rare occasions like this when poetic justice actually does occur.
Maybe next time Adobe will reconsider, and perhaps even lobby against such draconian and despicable legislation, rather than amorally adding it to their lawyers' arsenal.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
...before the DMCA implodes upon itself. There is a huge fundamental flaw here making this a lose-lose situation. Companies like Adobe will increasingly realize they're defending themselves just as much as they're prosecuting others, and will wise-up accordingly.
A nice analysis of this can be found here
I meant DMCA of course. fumble fingers, sorry. :)
They're getting hit by the DMCA
They're getting hit by the DMCA
They went and messed up
and embedded the font
now they're getting it in the [censored]
They're getting hit by the DMCA
They're getting hit by the DMCA
</YMCA Tune>
Holy Crap!
That's either some seriously good photoshopping, or some amazing surgery! At least it's not nearly as bad as the goatse guy.
Is the DMCA written so poorly that other companies like IBM and Lexmark should be worried about their typewriters violating the DMCA? Or Xerox and their copiers? Or Kinkos?
Is the hope courts will begin to see that the DMCA is far too vague in its language and too draconian in its punishments?
a press release shouldn't count as news, for it is rammed packed with FUD and PR bullshit that its hard to really see the issues.
What seems to be the issue. Adobe guessed the market direction, bought imbedding rights on the cheap, now the companies wake up and see the direction the market has gone, and want a larger licensing paycheck.
The DMCA is probably just fluff, but the point should be made that the DMCA even covers the creation of a document (PDF).
The outcome if for Adobe would begin the process of containing and boxing in the DMCA, something that needs to be done.
Tournament Management Online &
Arent these the same companies going after the CMU student for his embed tool?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The adobe press release doesn't say anything more than "we think they're pulling crap"
The slashdot news-blurb doesn't provide a link, or say much more than "neener neener serves you right"
I'm no DMCA fan, but I appreciate the whole story before I pass judgement on a person/corporation/country/planet.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It's actually a male goose. Which makes a lot more sense in the context of the cliche.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
first reaction: [in wise-man voice] what goes around comes around... yeah...
second reaction: so THAT's what a critical mass of dumbasses can do...
and then it dawned on me: so the legends of "lawyers with head in ass" is really true after all...
My life in the land of the rising sun.
All the link given states is that they're accusing Adobe of violating the DMCA with Acrobat. Is it that ITC/Afga are claiming that the embedding of fonts in PDF files with Acrobat defeats a technological measure used to control access to the copyrighted work? What technological measure would that be, for goodness sake. Is it possible to get an installable font out of a PDF that has a font embedded, or are they saying embedded fonts in PDFs bypass some license requirement that anyone who views a font through electronic means must have purchased a license for the font in question?
Hard to form any opinion about whether Adobe actually violates some portion of the DMCA, without hearing the actual complaint from ITC/Afga. Unless of course you're a thoughtless warrior against copyright, who doesn't care about niggling details like "the facts".
Another problem is that Adobe might have a good case for their request. The DMCA is overly broad to be sure, but it does have limits. It's unclear how ITC and Monotype font protection schemes are being circumvented.
I guess they [Adobe] figured that it didn't apply to them since they enforced it
Okay, someone here either has a very sketchy idea of the judicial system, or does not know the meaning of the word "enforced."
a gander is when taco shoves a bottle filled with his feces and taco-snot into michael's wide open anus. Michael then constricts his ass and squeezes the bottle out into his colon.
The real purpose of the DCMA -- and this ain't popular -- is to protect profits for American corporations. Despite the frothing ravings of the "everything wants to be free" crowd, this is not a bad thing. Copyright law has never existed to ensure or even provide equity between the little guys and the big guys. It exists to preserve the wealth creation potential of artists and content providers. It is wholly appropriate that Adobe used the DCMA against Skylarov .. after all, they are the corporation, they are the wealth creators, and they are the major contributors to the market economy. The same cannot be said of Skylarov.
The same is also true of the two parties who brought this frivolous action against Adobe, neither or which I have even heard of. There is nothing at stake in the economy if these clowns get their way. They are only trying to be a thorn in Adobe's side, and from all appearances, are doing it in the most meddlesome and intrusive way they know how.
Mod me down if you like, but I'm sick and tired of seeing people being demonized simply because they want to create wealth and live the American dream. Presumably, when you go home tonight, you're going to fix yourself a meal to eat. Consider this: the employees of Adobe would like to do the very same thing. Do your lofty ideals of socialistic code-sharing take precedence over the health and well-being of decent families?
Wasn't that a Skynyrd song man? Looks like what comes around goes around. I'm tired of hearin that same old song.
A gander is male. A goose is female. Therefore the the expression translates to "What's good for the female is also good for the male."
Remember that Adobe is not fighting the DMCA. They are merely trying to bribe^h^h^h^h^hconvince a judge into saying that their actions are not a violation of the DMCA as has been alleged by other companies. This can have a couple possible outcomes. (IANALBTW)
1. Adobe is sucessful in getting a judge to declare they are not violating the DMCA. This has bad and good reprocussions. The DMCA is strengthened by case law, but what Adobe gets off for, everyone else does as well.
2. Adobe is not sucessful in getting a judge to decalre they are not violating the DMCA. This is initially bad, because the DMCA remains as strong as it was and the restrictions it imposes are stengthened by case law. In the long run, however, Adobe, one of the few non-Media oriented companies that has the most to gain from the DMCA is forced to lobby against it and fight it in court, possibly having longer lasting influence.
The lesson we should learn from all this is that if a law requires a trial just to see if it applies to any certain case, it's probably not a good law and won't be applied fairly.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Duh.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
I have worked in the advertising industry for 7 years, designing advertisements and catalogs -- with purchased fonts -- and I never had this problem, nor have I heard of anyone in that industry having this problem.
Presumably any fonts that shipped with product you got from a software vendor would be (should be) properly registered and legal to use out of the box. Otherwise, the fonts need to be purchased. It should be OK to distribute graphics, artwork, etc. as long as you purchased the fonts. I don't see why documents in Adobe acrobat should be considered any different from artwork produced in any other digital format.
It's a common thing that when sending files to a service bureau for ripping, that you give the service bureau your fonts, or you make sure they are *embedded* in your postscript output. I have never heard that this is considered *copyright infringement*.
The only problem I can forsee is if you can extract the fonts from Acrobat and use them for something else. Then there is a legitimate complaint.
Otherwise, if Adobe can show that Acrobat is yet another format like GIF, JPEG, etc., and that if the person who creates a particular piece of artwork with legally purchased fonts does not violate copyright, then Adobe should win.
If there is a copyright issue, it should be with the person who created the artwork and who didn't use licensed fonts, not with the people who created the file format.
"Many years ago Adobe anticipated the shift to electronic documents. At that time, we obtained the embedding rights from our font partners necessary to permit the creation of electronic documents," said Jim Heeger, senior vice president, cross media products....
Adobe believes these claims are being made to gain ITC and Agfa leverage in the contractual disputes. Adobe strongly disputes this claim and is asking the court to rule that there is no violation of the DMCA.
What this says to me is that Adobe licensed the fonts, intending to distribute them in electronic documents, and ITC/Afga didn't foresee that, and now they want more money for it, threatening to use the DMCA where it doesn't apply.
The Slashdot headline was sensationalist and misleading. I can't see how ITC/Afga could argue that the DMCA should even apply here.
Without actual data as to what part of the DMCA Adobe has alledgedly violated all these "Karma is coming back to bite you bastards" post are a bit premature.
Please see my other post: here
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
Pah! And they say laws are passed by the powerful for the powerful....
Ironically, the legalese file which states the terms is a pdf...for which they strongly suggest Adobe Acrobat.
Dmitry does that really deep evil laugh.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
I know my karma will take a hit for this post, but...
/format/ to your post. And it's incredibly simple. Whatever the contents of your post are, always preface it with "I know this will get modded down to -1" or "This is going to be a big karma hit for me, but". And then, like magic, your post hits 4 or 5, insightful!
I just had to reveal the new secret to getting modded up. Many ppl have revealed strategies for getting massive amounts of karma based on the content of your post, and I am here to tell you that NONE of them work. The only way to consistently gain karma is to have the proper
Why do such disclaimers attract such karma? Why does the underground society of monkies dominate the political landscape of the moon? These are great mysteries.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
http://www.fecyk.ca/spamalbum/
;)
Go here and get (It's Here to Stay, It's The) D.M.C.A.
Seriously, get the WHOLE album. It's funny as hell
Does this mean that we can get free fonts from PDF files?
To be fair about it, we should only grab fonts out of PDF files distributed by the copyright holders of the fonts in question. The most likely candidates for such use would be files from Microsoft and Apple.
And it's legal--they own the fonts, they gave them to us, and they didn't even have a click-through license on them.
... postscript format, or they are converted to postscript format before embedding. And who created the PostScript format? Adobe.
It's a strange world we live in.
Indeed.
Simply put, the best way to elminate the DMCA is to use it. Fight fire with fire. Use their own tool of control against themselves. I wouldn't be suprised if that is why they are poking at Adobe.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
The sense that DMCA is so ilogical and obscure will hit all major corporations and they will lobby to change it. It's the way of democracy and it can be called market equillibrium.
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
In response to an issue brought forth by a software developer, Agfa Monotype has released the following statement detailing the company's position on installable embedding of fonts...
If this is the actual corresponding/relevant issue from Monotype's side of the issue (which isn't specified), it sounds like they have an issue with allowing embedding with any priviledges higher than viewing/printing. Looks like it applies (mostly) to TrueType fonts, though...
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
It's not cool, especially since ITC and AGFA have some awesome fonts. I suppose it's time to ask Adobe to step up to the plate and make suitable replacements.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
This case brings up an interesting proposition, and may hint at future threats to the DMCA. If a law is so draconian and restrictive, then eventually it can come around and bite the ass of the people originally supporting it. The same could be said for Bermans 'right to hack' bill, if it some how survives constitutional muster, then it could allow anyone (you and me) to hack the RIAA, MPAA back, looking for any copyrighted works we have created - art, digital home photos and movies, etc.
The first thing to do is copyright every digital work you have and then sue any company that modifies it without your permission - which apparently every software program out there will modify your creation on some level. I'm not a software engineer, so I don't know all the intricacies.
www.enthea.org
...the chickens have come home to roost. Roost Away...
I couldn't be happier. I would love to see the DMCA result in an enormous shift of capital from one bunch of pirates to another and collapse the whole so called software industry as a result. Watching self righteous bullies like Warnock and whomever replaced him squirm is the best news I've heard all week. My God if any software company annointed itself the bearer of standards for the whole fucking world, it's been Adobe. I would love to see Acrobat and its shitty document handling banished from earth. The only thing it really exists for is to create uneditable documents like that's some fucking holy grail upon which to dictate terms to the rest of us.
Screw them and fontmanagers they rode in on.
While I am pretty pleased that after all the grief DMCA has given to OpenSource, hackers and enthusiasts the people are beginning to fall in the ditch they dug for others, I can't help wondering what is so special about these fonts. I'm sure Adobe can create alternative similar looking fonts.
I did some drafting in College and now sometimes my handwriting looks like the standard drafting lettering - am I violating DMCA - sheesh.
I shoulda checked the date on that... Disregard...
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
This too shall pass.
Honestly, I hope not, though I fear in the current political/economic climate that the difference will be rendered negligible. Fortunately, I expect that given a bit of time, the current political/economic climate will pass, too. I hope it will pass, first.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You really need an econ class or markets finance class. There is such a thing as wealth creation and it's quite simple.
How do you think per capita income can increase in this country and population can increase at the same time? magic? It's monitary supply coupled with growth. The difficult part is growing without inflation (which we have right now but no one seems to care).
even tho donald and mickey are cool by me, but daphne and minnie are stuck up
Wait... who the hell is Daphne? I thought Daisy was Donald's girlfriend? Is he getting some action on the side? Way to go Donald!!!
The author of the above comment must have recently watched 'Animal House' on HBO ...as it reads much like the "...I'm not going to sit here and let you badmouth the United States of America" rant during the college's 'kangaroo court hearing' to banish the fraternity ...in the movie.
I had my Karma up to 50 before the news stupid "excellent" krap they've put into effect around here.
All it takes is intelligent, adult posts, and you get a 5 every time.
I won't tell you all my secrets, but rest assured, they are all just good, commmon sense.
Fonts are explicitly excluded from being copyrighted in the US?
I never would have suspected that.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Just because you haven't heard of these companies doesn't mean that they're small. These are two big design groups, and a lot of the typefaces that you see every day in print, on billboards, on TV, and on your own monitor came out of them.
So would the Agfa and ITC employees. So would the designers who use these fonts every day. Everyone out there is trying to make a buck, but doing it by screwing over other people isn't the way it's supposed to be done. Granted, this is a messed up dog eat dog world, but that doesn't excuse laws like the DMCA which will harm us all in the long run. Just because someone like Skylarov didn't contribute to the annual GDP as much as the collective of Adobe doesn't mean that he should be valued any less. Remember, corporations are supposed to be counted as individuals legally, and thus they should have no more privledge and status than any other individual, no matter how much wealth they create.
And just remember that all companies that grew in to these wealth-creating machines had to start small. Two guys in a garage. A guy in a wharehouse. Two men and a woman with an idea. Everyone and everything has to start somewhere, but they never will get the chance to grow if they are squashed prematurely by the big guys. If you really want to see wealth, and if you really want to see growth then you've got to allow for enough freedom for people to do their work. The DMCA allows the big guys to deny that. If you're really for capitalism then you should be against the DMCA.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This scary new "Homeland Security" thing they're trying to create. Doesn't make me feel secure, instead makes me feel like being watched all the time, cameras everywhere, interrogation for no reason, everything you heard scary about "the communists" in the old days, happening here instead this time.
Wow, you're an amazing dullard.
God, your myopia makes a televangelist appear openminded.
Free Marken uber Alles? Hello, flyspeck, it's not the free market that passed the DMCA--it's a hyper-active government that did so.
hyper-active government? Elected government, acting upon the desires its constituency (not the voter, but rather the paying special interest/corporation), in a free market of influence and paid-for legislators, thanks to a 1978 supreme court ruling interpreting corporate finance as equivelent to free speech. If the governmenty is hyper-active, it is because the ever-worshipped 'invisible hand' of the free market of legislative influence has made it so.
Legislation has everything to do with markets, free or otherwise, indeed no market (free or otherwise) can exist in a complete vacuum of legislation and function coherently (if you really need it spelled out for you, consider any number of ungoverned lands as well as the behavior of the black market itself. Lack of regulation means lack of laws for a court to interpret, i.e. a lack of jurisprudence and the rule of the gun, libertarian myths of anarchistic utopia notwithstanding).
But of course, all of that misses the point I originally made entirely (which was, perhaps, your intent). By perusing any number of Ayndroidian posts here on slashdot and elsewhere from people who argue similarly to yourself, the common reply to complaints about corporate malfaescence and misbehavior, be it financial, social, economic, or environmental, is always a handwave toward the mythical 'invisible hand' of the marketplace (which has already been debunked by more recent, and more applicable, economic theory for which a Nobel prise has been granted) with no supporting argument as to how or why a free market would, for example, prevent Monsanto from poisoning the drinking water of a small southern US town than, say, government oversight that would throw such people in jail for doing such a thing.
As I said before, oh thought-challenged reactionary, everything we do is done in an ethical and social context, a fact which libertarian dogma and naive readers of Ayn Rand can't seem to grasp for all its obviousness to the rest of the human population. That goes for Adobe, and is irrevelent with respect to the specifics of the legislation in question, to wit:
Adobe took a social convention (in this case the poorly concieved DMCA, but it might just as well have been copyright law itself, or some other convention) and used it to the detriment of the the society as a whole. Now that another has turned and done a similar thing to them, they are without support. This means that mitigating cirumstances, that might normally have led to a compromise, are likely to fall on deaf ears and evince, at most, an amused chuckle from the common observer.
In other words, now that the tables are turned, the pathetic excuse of "their only responsibility is to their shareholders and it is proper that they do all that is legal, no matter how unethical or reprehensible, to make money" is shown to be the absurdity that most clear thinking people always recognized it to be, namely that, in the end, such behavior undermines not only the society, and hurts not only the victims of the initial misbehavior, but ultimately the very company and stockholders the behavior was purported to benefit.
Alas, the weakness of the free market for determining ethical behavior is that, as often as not, unethical behavior does pay, often with little or no unpleasant consiquence for the corporate wrongdoer. Which of course means if you want to build a society fit for humans to live in, rather than merely one that is designed to service corporate entities at the expense of everyone else, you need more than just a simple, unregulated, free market.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If that is so, then we need a corporate death penalty. M$ needs to get the chair.
..sooner or later everything comes from something.
Wealth does *not* come from thin air. Resources are used to create it, even if those resources are just the nutrients in the soil that eventually end up boosting somebody's brain power. Unless the resources used are returned, sooner or later we find there's no more resource. Take cod fisheries as a near-example.
The problem is that economic theories tend to equate "Haven't seen limits yet" with "No limits exist".
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
He deserves a strawberry snowcone for it.
Hey, citizen, what time is it?
Breathe deeply; you can get through this.
Try one of the following:
Stayin' Alive, Bee Gees
Sundown, Gordon Lightfoot
MacArthur Park, Donna Summer
Disco Duck, Rick Dees
I'm Too Sexy, Right Said Fred
Blue (Da Ba Dee), Eiffel 65
Baby One More Time, Britney Spears
Optionally, just listen to "The Transformed Man," by William Shatner. You may never want to hear another song again.
There will be many more of these cases where those who have attempted to enforce the DMCA against companies and indeviduals they find to be a threat to their business, will find themselves on the recieving end of these suits.
Such are the perils of ill concieved and internally inconsistant legislation like the DMCA. Making such drastic changes to the tenets of copyright and fair use, established 200 years ago, is frought with risks. I predict there will be a great many of these suits that victimize the vary companies who supported the legislation as it passed through congress, for the simple reason that for the past three decades, products have been developed based on the previously existing standards of copyright and fair use, and there's no grandfathering clause to speak of in the DMCA.
Eventually the quantity of these suits will diminish, as products based on the old standards are removed from distribution and we become acustomed to the slower creative development and weakened artistic and technical growth dictated by the new intellectual property standards we have imposed on ourselves.
The only remaining question is: Are these new standards in the best interest of the majority?
If so, we will fine a new ballance in our creative and technological endevours. If not, the law must be repealed and a more approprite piece of legislation developed.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
AFGA uses Adobe fonts in that document, and none of their own! See Rotis and Plantin.
I NCD+ATRotisSerifi bris-Boldi s-Bold
-- pdffont reports these fonts:
JAFADN+ATRotisSerif
JAEPOI+Exlibris-Bold
Plantin-Italic
Symbol
JAIMNO+Exlibris-Bold
JA
JAMJLC+ATRotisSerif
JAMKFK+Exl
JBBHAD+ATRotisSansSerif
JBBFNC+Exlibr
JBBGBH+ATRotisSerif
(I couldn't get adobe's name out of the pdf, but I assume these trademarks are exclusive to adobe)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
That's the best troll I've ever read.
You need to question your textbooks. If wealth is increasing somewhere, it is decreasing somewhere else, perhaps not even in the same country, and perhaps not even in the same time period. You can mortgage your kid's future to get wealth. Even better, you can mortgage someone else's kid's future to get wealth. You still gain what they lose.
Your personal vitriol against market economics not only made right wingers look evil, it made you look evil as well. I am so far to the right I make YOU look like a TV evangelist, and I know bad law when I see it and the DMCA is bad law. That aside, it shouldn't take too much of a strain to see that not only corporations had input in this law, but so did the tech community, and as with anything in law, it is not so bad that it is not good for something. As I see it the DMCA has been rarely enforced in court, so little so, it has not been challenged in court. It's bad law and despite all your hear about how Evil Corporations(tm) want to make your life miserable (A your view of them already has made you miserable), they see it as bad law. Doesn'nt it occur to you that perhaps the Evil Corporations(tm) who were so gung ho about it, now see it as it should be seen, and wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole? Take my advice: since you so hate market economics, countries like Cuba and Syria would love to have a commie such as yourself fronting for their economics policies. Jeeezuz!
Dawn of the Dead
That's exactly what I was going to say. I know this post is kind of pointless, but considering you didn't get modded up I had to at least recognise a good joke.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Legislation has everything to do with markets, free or otherwise, indeed no market (free or otherwise) can exist in a complete vacuum of legislation and function coherently (if you really need it spelled out for you, consider any number of ungoverned lands as well as the behavior of the black market itself. Lack of regulation means lack of laws for a court to interpret, i.e. a lack of jurisprudence and the rule of the gun, libertarian myths of anarchistic utopia notwithstanding).
Libertarians support the rights of the individual and believe that individuals bring government into existence in order to protect and secure these rights. Fundamental to libertarian philosophy is respect for the rights of others. Libertarians argue that government should be small and limited to protecting and securing individual rights. Government should not interfere with commerce unless there is fraud.
In regards to issues involving copyright you will find great debate within the libertarian community on this subject. One book that you may find interesting is Copy Fights.
No campaign finance law has ever succeeded in keeping money and big money corporations out of politics. People seem not to care about their individual rights and do not defend them. It is easy for politicians to pass and enforce laws that infringe on individual rights when no one stands to oppose them.
Stuart Eichert
Don't we already have that? I believe it's called Chapter 7: Liquidation, and Napster may be facing it.
It's in Revelations, people.
What I'd like to see is that anarchistic utopia of free software developers squash software corporations like Adobe into the ground. There's only one way capitalists will learn and that's for them to watch the very markets that make them rich disappear from right under their nose. Not only software, but media, TV, music, etc. will all experience the effects of the mythical anarchistic utopia you've mentioned. Or maybe they won't... but it sure looks to me like free software is giving Microsoft a run for its money. Who do you think will be next?
... unless the cartel in question buys legislation from a corrupt government to kill individual innovation.
I like capitalism. I'm quite good at it (and make a very good living at it). Capitalism, in the form of competative free markets is generally good for dealing with most naturally scarce things (not all mind you, as sometimes other pressures can cause the free market to break down. Natural monopolies, such as the road to your home and your drinking water are one type of example. Medical services, where the pressure of having an alternative of dying if you chose not to be a customer, is arguably another area that lends itself only very imperfectly to a competative, free market.)
However, in the realm of ideas, invention, software, and infinitly copiable content, there is no natural scarcity, and capitalism breaks down. So much so that the government feels compelled to create monopolies, with no pretense of a competative, free market.
And you are right, a thriving, cooperative commons, with its own internal (mostly friendly, though sometimes not) competition will outcompete a monopoly cartel every time
Which is exactly what Microsoft is all about with Palladium, and the RIAA and the MPAA are all about with so-called DRM (digital rights revocation). They know they can't compete. Microsoft can't compete with free software and, in the long run, the recording industry and movie studios will not be able to compete with a vibrant community of artists creating free (or very inexpensive) music and movies (the latter quite possibly with blender, as I am doing). Online copyright violators and file sharers aren't any more of a threat than VHS and cassette tape users were fifteen years ago, and they know that. It isn't about preventing file sharing, its about preventing competition, something a corporation with a cartel mindset simply cannot abide.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What is a karma whore *NT*
you don't get anything when you spend money to pay your taxes.
So having roads to travel on, schools for your children, and armed forces to defend your nation count as nothing?
Copyrights are (in general) good, because they cause more money to be spent more times.
You're saying copyright is good because it will cause people to spend money. That may make sense if people would not otherwise spend that money. In reality, if people could acquire copyrighted content for free, they would spend their money on something else. Furthermore, without copyright, anyone who wants the content could get it; whereas with copyright, only those willing to spend the demanded fee will obtain the content. Thus copyright holds back the distribution of wealth (content).
You argue that copyright is good because it encourages people to spend money. Your argument is flawed. Spending money is only good in that it can encourage the creation of wealth. When you buy a sandwich at McDonalds, you pay McDonalds to serve you a quick, convenient meal, so wealth has been created. McDonalds pays someone to process your order (which is really just overhead), someone to make your sandwich, and a farmer to grow the food. In each case (except for the overhead), McDonalds pays for the creation of wealth.
As another example, suppose I sell my car to a high school student. The student can't afford a new car, so she won't pay anyone to create a car for her. I can't afford a new car, so I won't pay anyone to create one. However, since I gave up my car in return for money, the student has acquired wealth, and I have enough money to buy a new car, thus creating wealth.
Copyright increases wealth only insomuch as it encourages the creation of wealth (content). Without copyright, artists would presumably not bother creating content and no one would get anything. If copyright lasts longer than is necessary, it prohibits people from acquiring wealth, and allows the publisher to collect money for doing nothing.
Spending money for nothing is pointless. It allows some people to collect money for doing nothing, when they should be out creating wealth.
You're right that exchange of money in our economy is accompanied by a net increase in wealth. This increase, however, is not due to the exchange of money.
The increase in wealth is due to the exchange of goods (both tangible and intangible). An exchange of money usually accompanies the exchange of goods, but this is tangential to the increase in society's net wealth.
That's why the GPL works; even though no money is exchanged, a large amount of wealth is created by the exchange of property.
Actually, that comment is about my software , not Adobe. However, the similarities are striking. I think Agfa Monotype and ITC just love to send out empty threats...
You copied the Constitution???!? Holy crap! I am calling the founding fathers!
Simple, Acrobat can ignore the bits and embed the font anyway. Oops, that's circumventing a copy protection measure, instant DMCA violation.
Actually, even if you can argue that embedding bits are a DMCA "technological measure," etc., (see my reply to Agfa Monotype for arguments about that) I don't think the issue is that clear cut.
Check out 17 USC 1201(c)(3):
Basically, this says that a consumer device (ie, Acrobat) does NOT need to implement any particular response to a technological measure. In other words, it is free to ignore the measure if it wishes, but it can't CIRCUMVENT it. Circumvention as defined in the DMCA has an active component, check out the definition. Simply ignoring the bit would be hard to argue as circumvention.
However, I think the issue in question has to do with licensing, and that the DMCA is a red herring. But, since the article is so poor on details, we can only guess...
Corporations call you consumer, fascists call you citizen. Take your pick (neither is a fine answer.)
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Thanks, really! It's tough being a smartass AC on slashdot, but you made my day.
Being a consumer and a citizen are not mutually exclusive. The grandparent even specifically included "the non-consuming public" in the list of the affected.
I don't normally comment on moderations, but this is hardly Insightful. The poster used a perfectly appropriate word for the point he was making; he didn't say you weren't a citizen, and in the context of the list his word was more correct, since he was pointing out that BOTH consumers and the non-consuming public were affected.
I don't normally comment on moderations, but this is hardly Insightful. In context it's not even correct; it's a knee-jerk reaction to a word which is frequently misused but was not in this case.
There is, I've done it a few times. Print the PDF to PostScript (using the oldest PS driver you can, such as a Win 3.1, is best, as it makes simpler PS). Then you can search throught the PS and often find the entire font as a PFA. Cut and paste, convert to PFB. Doesn't work if the font is subsetted (the best you can get is the actual characters used then). Also, you don't get the metrics. These can be synthesised in a font editor, but the original kerning may be hand tuned, and you won't have that (though Adobe has all their AFMs on their FTP site -- but their fonts are easily obtained anyway).
The Slashdot headline was sensationalist and misleading. I can't see how ITC/Afga could argue that the DMCA should even apply here.
Fonts are considered software programs and contain a flag that indicates if they are allowed to be embedded in an electronic document or not. If ITC were to set the flag in these fonts and Adobe ignored it and embedded the font anyway, then Adobe might be considered to be circumventing a copy protection mechanism.
Pretty weak, I know, but that's the only way I can see this being suit falling under the DMCA.
"Scientists prove we were never here."
-- Devo
What's an interesting difference is this:
A) Skylarov got unjustly imprisoned from the first second they got their dirty hands on him. He's also working for a corporation, but that didn't protect him.
B) Even if Adobe is sentenced, all they likely will have to do is pay a little bribe^W^W^W^W^Wmoney to settle the case.
Somehow, this doesn't smell like justice to me. It smells rotten...
down and it fell on someone killing them, the company is negligent in failing to provide correct safety equipment and therefore the manager/director of the company is also negligent in his duty to insure that the company obeys the law.
...
..(depending on the level of negligence)
The person who put the bucket on the roof wasn't at fault.
In this case I would like to see.
The company
To provide safety equipment for workers and ensure that netting is put up and 'men at work' signs posted.
Train all there workers.
Review there management ( this could be court appointed but paid for by the company)
Pay compensation to the family of the man killed.
Pay some money into a general fund to compensate people injured in working accidents.
The managers
To be listed on a list of bad managers.(or be prevented from holding that position of responsibility)
To compensate the family of the killed man.
To watch or attend the funeral of the killed man.
Be required to give talks on the evils of negligence in the company.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The fonts are generally licensed per user, per a certain number of printers. I think the common license is 5 users two printers. Well your service bureau/printer doesn't have access to the license. The reason why its technically OK for you to do this is because they have already purchased the fonts as well. As far as the adobe acrobat format is concerned, i agree with you, the fact that you make the pdf is as if you printed it. It whould be considerd an electronic piece of paper. You can photocopy something printed with their fonts without a license, this is just the electronic form of photocopying. Their issue with it however is now you can send that to someone else who can print it, and make an exact perfect replica. Now the whole printer license is messed up. And since you embedded the font in the pdf, they can but legally do not have the right to print it. Adobe allows this by ignoring the Allow_embedded bit, and is therefore violating the DMCA.
Yes, it would terrible if a single organization controlled the construction, maintenance, and regulation of all the roads in a locality. They might impose draconian corporate policies about helmets and seat belts [...yada yada yada usual anti-government free market ueber alles dogma yada yada...]
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you simply prefer feudalism to democracy?
I dislike much about our government and am as scathingly critical of them (particularly the current administration) as anyone, but your sarcastic diatribe simply reeks of stupidity.
Hint: local governments are elected, are directly accountable to the people, and more often than not regulate across the board equally. UPS, Federal Express, and the US Post Office all have equal access to the highway system and local roads.
Do you really think that would be the case if UPS, a non-democractic, non-elected, feudalistically organized entity (as are all private companies BTW) owned the highway instead? Recent experience in the telco industry, and the resulting disappearance of DSL providors in the united states as a result of local baby bell abuses of their last mile of copper monopolies, suggests otherwise.
Frankly, I cannot believe anyone over the age of eight would be so stupid as to advocate what you just did. Amazing.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy