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."
A nice analysis of this can be found here
The complaint could be related to how Acrobat handles the embedding bits in truetype fonts.
According to Adobe they have secured the rights for their customers to embed fonts from certain companies. Now what if the customer has a copy of the font which has the "do not embed under any circumstances" bits set? Simple, Acrobat can ignore the bits and embed the font anyway. Oops, that's circumventing a copy protection measure, instant DMCA violation.
If that's the case, Agfa has pressed this issue before: see Font Company Wielding DMCA Against Bit-Flipping
Of course, there's not enough info in the article to determine if this is the case or not...
So, the question is: did Adobe pay for the DMCA?
Doesn't matter. Adobe is a Patriotic Great American Corporation(tm), while the rest of us are just Evil Terrorist Content Pirates(tm).
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Yep, AGFA anyway. That's what I thought of the second I saw this article.
Here's a link to the article about it to save some time. No point in umpteen people all running the same search over and over.
the story I always heard was it was trivial for the software distributors to make one tiny change to one character and it was legally a new typeface (it wasn't bit for bit identical).
Actually, there's a big difference between a typeface - the set of curves that define the shape of a character - and a computer font - the code that draws those curves. The latter has full protection of law. You can't take the font and change a few bits in it and legally redistribute it, and those companies that did got sued big time. You can, however, print out the font at large sizes and scan it back into the computer, or anything else that copies the curves but not the program/font.
"I can't see how ITC/Afga could argue that the DMCA should even apply here. "
The fonts have an "IsEmbeddable" bit. Ignoring that bit is circumventing a copy protection device (although, not really, even under a generous reading of the DMCA), which is a federal crime that would override a contractual dispute.
That's correct.
I just graduated with a B.S. in Printing Management. Here's what we were taught.
In traditional print media, it is okay to give copies of your fonts to another user (read: a printer or service bureau). However, the other user may ONLY use your fonts to output your document files (Quark, PageMaker, InDesign, etc.) The other user is expressly forbidden from using your fonts on other, unrelated projects.
When they are finished working on your document, they are supposed to remove the fonts from their fonts folder, or if they frequently handle your documents, use a Suitcase program to "switch on" your fonts when necessary. But most people are lazy and this rarely happens in the real world.
I honestly don't see why the type foundries would have a problem with PDF's. The concept is similar to the traditional printing workflow except that separate folders of fonts no longer need to be supplied to the printer or service bureau.
You'd think they'd realize this and embrace it as it cuts down on font "piracy." AFAIK there's no way to extract fonts from a PDF.
Although the law in theory applies to corporations as if they were people, in practice it doesn't because there are fewer sentencing options to use against corporations. A person can be sentenced to prison, or in more barborous socities like the USA, even killed.
Also a person who is simply accused of something can have their liberty curtailed whilst awaiting trial.
I want to see PERSONAL responsibility brought back into the justice system. If a high-level manager makes a decision that amounts to committing a crime, don't drag the company to court - drag HIM to court. If people knew that the things they do at work are things they will be held responsible for, they'd be a lot less willing to do things they know are wrong.
The concept of "limited liability" originally was intended to protect those who invested in the company. If it went bankrupt the share/stock certificates would be worthless, but there would be no requirment for those people to pay over any more money.
At some point this became twisted into protection for enguaging in stupid even criminal business practices. With stock market pricing having little relationship with actual profitability.
Whilst outstandingly bored at work once, I actually read the license agreement that came with our font files. Judging by that, Adobe doesn't think it's legal for you to give your fonts to a service bureau.
"If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated"
The first point to stress is
that what happened in Bhopal in 1984 was not an 'accident'. It was the inevitable and predictable result of
negligence, cutbacks and - quite frankly - lack of concern on the part of Union Carbide about the safety of
its Indian employees and nearby residents.
The Sevin manufacturing plant should never have been built so close to the densely populated city of Bhopal.
The lethal pesticide should have been stored in small concentrations, not the 50-ton tank used in the Bhopal
plant. The tank should never have been allowed to become 90 per cent full - way over the 50 per cent safe
limit. The cooling system designed to keep the pesticide at 0 degrees Celsius, and hence safe even if it did
leak, should not have been disconnected. A faulty flare tower meant to burn off escaping gas should have
been repaired. The maintenance crew should not have been cut from six men to two. The night watchman's
position should not have been abolished.
A firm that fails to carry out such basic safety precautions cannot then claim, when the inevitable disaster
occurs, that it was an 'accident'. Furthermore, when the inevitable disaster occurs, it should face up to its
responsibilities and make every effort to compensate those who suffered because of its negligence. Union
Carbide made every effort to evade responsibility.
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.
Contrary to Slashdot-lore, only one small part of the DMCA has anything to do with access control circumvention systems. It's a general copyright law, it just happens to have a few evil parts bolted to it.
KMSMA (WWBD?)