Slashdot Mirror
Font Raid Spells Trouble for Publisher
rs232 writes to tell us The Register is reporting on a publishing firm that got fined for using unlicensed fonts. The firm claimed to only be actively using one font, but was found to be using approximately 11,000. In addition to their font headaches, the firm was also found to be unlicensed on 95% of their Adobe software and 75% of their Microsoft software — talk about a bad week.
*Sigh... I know creating fonts is a lot of work and pretty-much an art form, but still... sigh.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You've got a good point. Sure the BSA proclaims that 75% of their Office licenses were "pirated" but how many really is that? 4 PC's? 400?
Is it a police organization? A government agency charged with protecting the virtue of copyright? What company in their right mind lets some schmuck come in and do an audit without a warrant?
Unless this is a normal occurance in England...
They should get busted. I'm wishy-washy on the idea of copyright (and how far it should extend) but one thing I do believe is that businesses should pay for software with which they make money. It's one thing for the hobbyist who uses photoshop to make desktop backgrounds not to pay for it; it's another thing when it's a world-class photographer who supports themselves based on their photoshop output.
A question, though - why exactly is this in the YRO section? It has nothing to do with someone's guaranteed rights being violated or abridged. In fact, it is just the opposite; Adobe's rights (and those of the font distributors) are being protected. Someone broke the law, and got turned in by an ex-employee, probably somebody they crapped on. Fuck 'em, let them pay the full fines, and then some. Personally, I suggest collecting the fines from the employees of the company that made the decision to use unlicensed software and fonts. Why should they get off scott free? They're the ones who actually broke the law, the company charter didn't fly its ass up out of the file cabinet and insert the CD in the drive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would have thought the same thing about fonts.
Click here or here.
Pirating fonts for use in for-profit activities falls under YRO?
I didn't realize that this was a right.
I was a little dismayed when I first read the blurb. I could swear there wasn't any type of legal protection for typefaces in US law... One of the reasons that Adobe et al. made a push towards programmatically described fonts (Type 1 and Type 3). Although they couldn't protect the typeface itself, they could protect the copyrighted code that generated the font.
Then I remembered where the register.co.uk was located. Thank god... I was almost forced to RTFA. Phew.
You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
How is it even possible to use 11,000 different type faces??
Font management software. I have over 2,000 myself (collected over the last 20 years and properly licensed, of course), which I can browse and activate as needed with Linotype FontExplorer. I also know a tiny company that uses a single computer for their layout work that has 5,000 fonts, so 11,000 for a larger publisher isn't surprising.
Blank until
It's one thing for the hobbyist who uses photoshop to make desktop backgrounds not to pay for it; it's another thing when it's a world-class photographer who supports themselves based on their photoshop output.
It sounds like you are trying to justify piracy. Good luck!
I'll probably be modded down for this...
It really surprises me that people in the IT industry can be so apathetic to theft. We all know how many millions (billions ?) get put into software development each year, and how thankless a job it really is. Just as important, we're in this industry! I write code most every day of my life, as do many others here, to make a living.
My open source code I'm happy to give away, it was fun to write! But please, let me eat with the boring, soulless code I have to write at work.
Writing software has made me appreciate the work that goes into professional level production of electronic work at any level: music, _fonts_, software, graphics, games, etc. I don't know about y'all, but I don't pirate software, I buy my music, and if I can't afford the software, I don't use it. Considering how much good software's available for free, I can't see how someone can justify stealing commercial apps.
I can't see how anyone expecting to make a living in the IT industry can pirate with a clear conscious.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Most fonts allow embedding as part of the liscense.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Yet your CEO is able to justify accepting jobs from customers he cannot, technically, support. This analogy is admittedly imprecise, but if a customer came in with a job on eight-inch floppies, would you accept it? Or would you turn the customer away, saying, "Sorry, we don't have the facilities to read your job data?"
Let's assume computers didn't exist, and you were still using cast lead type. If a customer came in requesting a job in Garamond, and you didn't have a case of Garamond, would you turn away the job, or suggest substituting a typeface you do have?
If we make the analogy more precise, and the customer walks in with their own case of Garamond type, would you return the type to them when the job was complete?
It's my personal view that computer software and data, once it's been created, is essentially valueless, since it can be infinitely duplicated at zero cost. So I don't see unsanctioned copying ("piracy") as a problem, but merely an inevitability that all software authors and vendors must acknowledge and learn to live with. However, even I am taken aback by the rather cavalier attitude your CEO seems to show for the economic realities facing those who created the tools he uses to conduct his business and satisfy his customers.
Our civilization stands at a crossroads in our social and economic evolution. The computer heralds a day where even physical goods can be duplicated infinitely and effortlessly (assuming we survive the rising seas), and copyrights and patents as we conceptualize them today truly will become meaningless. But we're in a transition period, and that future is in peril. Physical artifacts can't be freely duplicated -- a fundamental assumption of the old economy -- but digital artifacts can, which the old economy can't cope with. It will take an exercise of good character and strong ethics by many people to carry us through to the real New Economy.
Your CEO may care to participate in this transition, and acknowledge the good work he is able to do by rewarding the good work of others.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
But for marketing purposes, % makes more of an impact.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Read the software license you agreed to when you installed most any software.
Just wondering... does the license apply if the software is pirated?
I mean, isn't the customer signaling their intent to pay zero for the product and basically saying "I don't intend to follow your license. If I push this little button will you install for me anyway?"
Seems to me that the software industry is trying to show "intent to consent" to the license where no such thing exists.
I know that the ONLY reason that I push the button is that is what I have to do to install it.
Seems to me that a "contract" or "license" has to be agreed upon BEFORE accepting payment for the product to be legal... not afterwards.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Big printers have a copy of every commonly used font, and a great number of uncommonly used fonts so that when their client sends in a rush order with "Bob's slightly altered version of Arial" they don't have to try and dig it up while on deadline. You need a copy of the font accessable to your RIP to make sure the text renders correctly.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
So you think Novell, Red Hat, etc should pay for Linux? Do you believe everyone should pay for anything with which they make money? Let's say an industry sells bottled oxygen, extracted from air. Should they pay the farmers whose plants produce the oxygen that's found in the atmosphere?
I do believe this: it's wrong to take something away from someone without permission. Stealing is stealing, the thief needs not sell the product of his crime to be a thief. But copying something is not stealing. I think what's wrong with the whole "piracy" thing is that it's becoming a common idea to associate crime with profit denial. That's totally, utterly, wrong. Getting profits is not a God-given right.
There are laws granting limited monopolies to people who create things, because those monopolies are supposed to be an incentive for creativity. However, there is a big problem in identifying where to draw the line. One limit is: no copyrights for raw data. Another limit: no copyright for purely utilitarian creations. This is the one that denies copyrights to font faces. The alphabet has one purpose, which is to enable communication by writing. You cannot copyright the shapes of the letters themselves, because the alphabet itself is public domain and recognizable variations of the letter shapes are derived works, with a clearly defined use. If it were possible to copyright utilitarian creations, then someone could coyright, for instance, "3242 + 1547 = 4789" and every company on whose accounts that addition appeared would have to pay royalties.
The biggest problem with the whole IP mess today is that delusion that anyone has an intrinsic right to obtain profit everywhere. Let's face it, no one has the right to get paid for anything unless they cease to have possession of something. You sell me your car, then I have a car and you have not, I must pay you in compensation for that. I light my candle in yours, I have a light but have taken nothing away from you, I owe you nothing. Patents and copyrights are narrowly defined exceptions to these rules, with one purpose only: to give an incentive to creativity. The one and only reason why anybody should pay for the right of copying a work is when that payment will generate, either directly or indirectly, the creation of new works.
"Typefaces are not copyrightable, but computer generated fonts count as programs, and so they are copyrightable."
Yet another of these "...but, it's on a computer!" exceptions. Why should computer fonts be copyrightable, when everyone accepts that typefaces are not?
I'm sure that it was actually some small number of machines - could be 3 - so "3 machines had unlicensed software" vs. "75% of their Office installations were pirated" does make sense.
BUT!
I have no problem with individuals pirating software for their personal use. I, personally, have pirated just absurd quantities of software throughout the years - everything from Visual Studio and Office on to every Adobe and Macromedia app out there, and then into some really esoteric and freakishly expensive 3D software. And I learned how to use most of the tools I used professionally on pirated copies. However, if I found something useful and wanted to make it into a business, I bought a legit copy.
To me, using pirated software to make money is just flat out wrong. Not an acceptable practice at all. Even if it's "only" a couple of copies of Office (and, after all, MSFT is the devil) - still not acceptable. I am sure that Camden would be pissed if people stopped paying them for their work, or if people simply took their copyrighted works and re-published them to sell as their own. It's just not kosher.
If a business can't afford the tools they need to do a job, then they either need to find cheaper tools, change the way they do business, negotiate with the vendors, or get out of their field.
I don't like the bullshit tactics that the BSA uses, but I also don't think that anyone they stomp on is automatically on the side of the angels, either.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
So, let me get this straight - the company was caught using unlicensed fonts, Adobe software and MS software, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them?
You want to use software, you abide by the terms of the licence. You don't want to abide by the terms of the licence, you don't use the software and seek out an alternative with a more agreeable licence. End of story.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You can't do anything with the fonts in the document, other than use them for viewing that document
Sure you can. Granted, it doesn't happen "automagically", but any coder worth their salt can fully automate the process with about half-an-hour of one-time work.
Keep in mind, it could be as simple as they lost the original CDs and packaging.