Font Company Wielding DMCA Against Bit-Flipping 429
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..."
I really think that he should.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not overturn (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not overturn (Score:2)
If he loses, I'll be sorely disappointed. The tool shouldn't be censored because it could possible be used to break the law. That's like outlawing guns because someone might get shot!
Newsflash! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what they've been doing gradually for the past few years now?
Re:Newsflash! (Score:3, Insightful)
They also consider corporations to have "personhood", and "interstate commerce" to be anything at all. All three are silly after-the-fact interpretations designed to legitimize politically expedient but unconstitutional legislation without passing an ammendment.
Let criminals own guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I really think that he should.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to court and try to win this one.
Put your money where your mouth is. Download the program and mirror it on your own site.
Unspecified bit... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sad.
Re:Unspecified bit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unspecified bit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Although that could be interesting in the other way. If notepad can be used to change an "access control byte", it should be illegal too... so would all software... all computers... all ***stack overflow, brain dumped.
Richard Stallman as visionary, not crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
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: [gnu.org]
- 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.
What's next? (Score:2)
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.
This really sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:This really sucks (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This really sucks (Score:3, Informative)
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.
(Cavaets: I used to work for Goss and Varityper, and am well informed about the history of electronic-font theft by printing houses and the older copyright law surrounding fonts. I do not claim to be up-to-date on all aspects of modern font copyright. IANAL -- I Am Not A Lawyer.)
Case law following the 1972 copyright changes made it clear that the actual letter shapes are not subject to copyright, and a cursory look at the various amendments to the Copyright Acts since 1992 indicate there has been no statuary change in this area. What is protected by copyright is the digital description of a font -- the electronic file. The contents of such files go beyond the description of how to draw the character; it also includes information concerning the placement of characters in relation to other characters, sizing information, and "hints" as to how to modify the rendering as you change size, among other things.
What a lot of people tend to forget is that the name of a font is protected by trademark law. That's why Apple used place-names for a number of its in-house-developed fonts, and why "Helvetica", "Swiss", "Ariel", and "Megaron" appears to be synonyms for essentially the same typeface. They are. The difference between the fonts they name is the source of the font.
So, by using "Helvetica" in your document, a trademark, you are acknowledging the source of the font. Helvetica is a registered trademark of Linotype-Hell AG and/or its subsidiaries. Adobe, for example, licenses the face from Linotype-Hell, and is most likely required by that license to limit distribution of the outline files to people who have paid for a license to use.
Unfortunately, the embedding of the outline information in a PDF does not meet the tests for fair use. Others have listed the requirements in this discussion; I leave it to you, Dear Reader, to apply the tests and see how they fail.
The DMCA implications of "embed" is, frankly, just icing on the cake. At the base of the problem is copyright infringement, and the unjust enrichment that comes from the infringement. One person made it clear that he "needs" to embed fonts to ensure that the correct outline, kerning, and master-modification information is used when reading the document, or the result is a "mis-proportioned document" that looks ugly. The person derives a financial benefit from embedding fonts, and this can be viewed in court as "enrichment." By exceeding the boundaries imposed by the font license, s/he is profiting from the copyrighted work of another. The fact that the infringement is internal to an organization is of little weight, as the company may be the one considered guilty of the infringement, not the individual, if the copyright holder can show that the infringer is working within the scope of his/her employment.
The argument that there is no copyright infringement when the document is printed on paper, and therefore there can be no infringement because PDF is "like paper," isn't going to hold up in court. The problem is that the letterform itself is not subject to copyright, and the version of the type on paper is the letterform. Contrast this to the version of the letterform in the electronic PDF document is in its original copyrighted form. If the PDF document were to be in the form of a compressed pixel map, like a fax, then there would be no infringement because the copyrighted work would not be embedded in the electronic document. Unfortunately, such a pixel map, even heavily compressed, would be considerably larger than the desired PDF form, and the resolution of the resulting document would be fixed at the one used to render the page.
This suggests one way to avoid infringement: render the document as an image. It meets most of the original requirements, although the resulting file will be bloated. Because the outline file is not distributed in any way, there is no copying, therefore no copyright infringement. For purely inside distribution over a fast LAN, the bloat issue isn't as much of a problem. Mail servers may need to be upgraded to deal with the larger file sizes, but with the cost of mass storage plummeting the delta shouldn't be painful at all. It's definitely cheaper than lawyers and lawsuits and damages.
The more direct path to avoid infringement is for that person needs to enter into a license with the original holder of the copyright for each typeface s/he uses to specifically permit embedding those fonts s/he uses into PDFs. There may be a license fee per font to do so -- this is a good thing, to reduce file bloat from too many font outline files, not to mention the cleaner documents that will result from reducing font clutter. If there is a distinct business necessity to use specific, copyrighted type faces, the cost of entering into a license agreement should be tolerable. After all, type foundries are in business to sell type, not to bleed customers dry. For that reason, shop around. Every type house/foundry has their versions of a Times newspaper face, a san-serif block face [Helvetica/Swiss/Megaron/&c], a mono-spaced typewriter face, and useful display faces, and their licensing requirements may be more in line with your needs than what Linotype offers. That's competition.
Don't like paying cash for the right to use a letterform? The shapes of the letterforms are not subject to copyright. There is nothing I'm aware of that says you can't print a font, letter by letter, scan the printed pages, and encode them into your own font outline file using any of the many font development packages available. Then you can embed to your heart's content. (Check with a competent intellectual property attorney before doing this.) Don't forget to use your own completely made-up name for the resulting font outline.
For those not willing to put in that kind of time, there is yet another alternative: investigate other type face sources. Donald Knuth has designed a number of faces, originally rendered in Metafont, which are available as Postscript type faces. [ams.org] They are quite pleasant to the eye, and are very readable. Another source of potential type faces is the X Consortium, although I would check the license regarding typeface use outside of the X environment. A Google search showed there are a number of people who have contributed type faces to the public domain, as well as providing faces in a shareware distribution format.
There's no excuse for copyright infringement.
Fontographer (Score:5, Interesting)
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...)
Re:Fontographer (Score:2)
So shouldn't they go after Fontographer as well?
Similar to how most/all "professional" DAT/CD recorders will ignore any copy protection bits on a audio stream... are those DMCA violations too?
Re:Fontographer (Score:3, Informative)
PS. Lawyers don't read slashdot.
No -- "primarily designed" for circumvention (Score:5, Insightful)
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...?
Re:No -- "primarily designed" for circumvention (Score:3, Funny)
So... if I happened to write, say, code to drive a coffee machine [tldp.org], but it also happened to have 'features' to crack e-book encryption and add the ability to embed fonts, it would be OK?
It's primary purpose would be, after all, to make me some java. =)
- Jester
Re:No -- "primarily designed" for circumvention (Score:3, Informative)
Lawyers don't think like geeks. Unless the e-book cracking code was somehow important to its primary function, I don't think your argument would hold much coffee.
OTOH, decss and livid have a better argument. If the primary purpose is to enable you to back up your DVDs or play your DVDs (which, we assume, are both "fair use") then any hypothetical piracy uses they may have as a consequence of performing their primary function are not DMCA-infringing.
The same would go with an editing/creation program which allowed import of copyrighted material (e.g. an e-book editor). Its primary purpose is to create content and modify your created content. The fact that it may let you import and modify someone else's content is a side-effect.
Those programs are still relevant (Score:3, Insightful)
mirror? (Score:2)
Re:mirror? (Score:4, Informative)
/*
* This program is for setting TTF files to Installable Embedding mode.
*
* Note that using this to embed fonts which you are not licensed to embed
* does not make it legal.
*
* This code was written by Tom Murphy 7, and is public domain. Use at your
* own risk...
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void fatal();
int main (int argc, char**argv) {
FILE * inways;
if (argc != 2)
printf("Usage: %s font.ttf\n\nPublic Domain software by Tom 7. Use at your own risk.\n",argv[0]);
else if (inways = fopen(argv[1],"rb+")) {
int a,x;
char type[5];
type[4]=0;
fseek(inways,12,0);
for (;;) {
for (x=0;x<4;x++) if (EOF == (type[x] = getc(inways))) fatal();
if (!strcmp(type,"OS/2")) {
int length;
unsigned long loc, fstype, sum=0;
loc=ftell(inways);
for (x=4;x--;) if (EOF == getc(inways)) fatal();
fstype = fgetc(inways) << 24;
fstype |= fgetc(inways) << 16;
fstype |= fgetc(inways) << 8
fstype |= fgetc(inways)
length = fgetc(inways) << 24;
length |= fgetc(inways) << 16;
length |= fgetc(inways) << 8
length |= fgetc(inways)
/* printf("fstype: %d length: %d\n",fstype,length);*/
if (fseek(inways,fstype+8,0)) fatal();
fputc(0,inways);
fputc(0,inways);
fseek(inways,fstype,0);
for (x=length;x--;)
sum += fgetc(inways);
fseek(inways,loc,0);
fputc(sum>>24,inways);
fputc(255&(sum>>16),inways);
fputc(255&(sum>>8), inways);
fputc(255&sum , inways);
fclose(inways);
exit(0);
}
for (x=12;x--;) if (EOF == getc(inways)) fatal();
}
} else
printf("I wasn't able to open the file %s.\n", argv[1]);
}
void fatal() { fprintf(stderr,"Malformed TTF file.\n");
exit(-1); }
Re:mirror? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, it's important that you are not acting in concert with me -- your actions are independent. (That also of course makes it harder for them to use legal measures to get it taken down.)
Writing new programs that do the same thing would also make it quite annoying for them...
Re:mirror? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm.... first person to write an implementation in Brainfuck [muppetlabs.com] gets a cookie.
In Other News (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other News (Score:5, Funny)
Haiku XOR algorythm (Score:2)
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."
Microsoft Explanation ... Good Reading (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Corrected Link (Score:2)
The next DMCA circumvention device: (Score:2, Funny)
This poster's name secretly replaced with Folgers Crystals
Do I understand correctly? (Score:2)
Dumb.
Re:Do I understand correctly? (Score:2)
Access control for mimes... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Let AGFA Monotype know how you feel! (Score:5, Interesting)
AGFA's Web form [agfamonotype.com].
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.
Here is mine... (Re: Let AGFA know how you feel!) (Score:2)
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.
Re:Here is mine... (Re: Let AGFA know how you feel (Score:3, Informative)
Sue them. (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple Program! (Score:4, Interesting)
The OS/2 chunk
has a bit for embedding.
Set it to zero.
I read the letters (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
Re:I read the letters (Score:2)
Your reading is wrong. The DMCA text has a number of exceptions; it simply doesn't apply here.
Did you read my response? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Did you read my response? (Score:2)
You have a very good point, and if I were a judge, I would probably find in your favor. But IANAJ
The case hinges on the questions of "Are those bits used to enforce copywrite?" and if so: "Is this program written to change those bits?" Once those two questions have been answered, there is a third question which is, IMO, the most interesting: "Does setting bits on a file on your computer which you rightfully own constitue a DMCA volation of the rights of the copywrite holder of the product." If you are using the program to change bits on fonts you own, then no. If the program is being used by people everywhere to embed fonts which the rightful owners have tried to prevent embeding with, then the answer is Yes.
If people can copy fonts without using your program then you're program isn't guilty of the piracy clause. If they are using your program to embed fonts which they obtained illegally, then you might be found guilty of a DMCA violation under the non-piracy clauses governing fair use. Let's say their EULA states that they can't embed fonts, and they use your program to embed them anyhow.
I know this is all speculation, but lawyers have a knack for finding corraborating evidence for this kind of stuff.
Now back to my argument: they have a case. It's not an open-and-shut case by any means, but it can be argued and it probably would go to trial if brought before a magistrate.
Re:Guns! Lots of them! (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Guns! Lots of them! (Score:2)
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.
Yikes, well, here we go... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, in case you're curious, I've been pushing their buttons a little bit, with the help of Dave Touretzky [cmu.edu] , 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! [eff.org] )
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 [tom7.com] .
Re:Yikes, well, here we go... (Score:2)
Non carborundum illigimatus Tom.
... ---
The above message is digitally encoded. Use of any software or device to decode it is in violation of the DMCA. We'll be around to suck out your illegal brain later.
KFG
OFFS (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Other things of note (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Timing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Still Illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Timing? (Score:2)
leverage Slashdot for legal expenses (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:leverage Slashdot for legal expenses (Score:2)
Subsrcibers could give /. page views to the EFF (Score:2)
Re:leverage Slashdot for legal expenses (Score:2)
Only half of /.'s readership read comments (Score:2)
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.
Re:leverage Slashdot for legal expenses (Score:2)
Doesn't your first statement assume the answer to the question in the second sentence? That said, I think giving to the EFF is a good idea. I've done it, and I'm sure other slashdoters have, too. Still others have probably done other things to help: publicity, letter writing, petition signing, website defacement, etc.
Don't assume we've done nothing because it fits your rhetorical arguments.
I like your quick-donation-link idea, though. Regards
Re:leverage Slashdot for legal expenses (Score:2)
I think you're projecting your inadequacies onto the Slashdot crowd, and I don't like it one (flipped) bit (snicker). How do you know what other Slashdotters do in response to any article posted here? You assume that because you have an orgy of analysis and then do nothing, that everybody else does the same. Why don't you get off of YOUR lazy ass and donate, and stop worrying about MY ASS and everyone else's?
And why should Slashdot do anything to make it easier to donate to any particular cause? The EFF already makes it pretty easy, and anyone who was inclined to donate knows where to look to discover where to send the money.
Now take this spoon.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you make a good point (Score:2)
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.
Are hex editors illegal now? (Score:2)
Of course hex editors have "substantial commercially significant use other than circumvention", but lawyers don't seem to care...
Aha! I've got it! (Score:2)
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.
Haiku is on topic! (Score:3, Funny)
judge considers fair use death
rights flush down toilet
A... "bit" on the false side (Score:2, Interesting)
Anti-competitive behavior (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd call this use of the DMCA anti-competitive, and just plain rude to boot.
This is the last straw (Score:3, Funny)
How to get around this, for dumb lawyers (Score:4)
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.
Re:How to get around this, for dumb lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
--
If you want to see history repeated, you need to control the education system - BG saying
Re:"a person acting pursuant to a contract" (Score:3, Funny)
I am a driver licensed by a State. Does this mean that I may be able to circumvent the DMCA?
*do* something rather than just complain (Score:2, Informative)
Contribute to the EFF [eff.org] [eff.org]
Write the Politicians [congress.org] [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.
By the way... (Score:4, Informative)
As it turns out, fonts cannot be copyrighted in the US. Only the truetype "programs" that generate them can. (See comp.fonts FAQ [nwalsh.com]
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?
Re:By the way... (Score:2)
I doubt you could blatantly just rename fonts, but I think you'd be in the clear if you looked at the font and made your own version
From the link..
However, scalable fonts are, in the opinion of the Copyright Office, computer programs, and as such are copyrightable:
Aren't all font's basically scalable? I not sure how they decide which fonts are scalable and which aren't.. also how do they call them computer programs?
No, that'd be a derivative work (Score:4, Informative)
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 [cornell.edu] gives the copyright owner of a font file a limited exclusive right to prepare derivative works from a copyrighted work.
Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
As is said in the comp.fonts FAQ [nwalsh.com]: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.
Email Addresses to voice your opinion (Score:2, Informative)
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
Fonts take work to create, and should be protected (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Fonts take work to create, and should be protec (Score:2)
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.
Shit takes work to create, and should be protected (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
His defense is lousy (Score:2)
'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.
The DMCA and single bits (Score:4, Interesting)
Realnetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc. [uh.edu]
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 [sethf.com] under the DMCA for my anticensorware work [anticensorware.com]Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Does this really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Doing something about it NOW -- easy! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [eff.org]. 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 [2600.org].
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.)
I've seen that line before... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Is this supposed to make sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aladdin foresaw this (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Primary use: Work around Fontographer's bugs (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [google.com] for my take on this.
-Martin
Re:What next... C Illegal? (Score:2)
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?
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:wow! (Score:2)
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.
Re:wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't want customers copying fonts? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [amazon.com].
Re:Don't want customers copying fonts? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Don't want customers copying fonts? (Score:4, Informative)
comp.fonts FAQ: Are fonts copyrightable? [nwalsh.com]
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.
Re:Worry not, RIAA, CDs are already copy protected (Score:2)
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.
Actually (Score:2)
Now continueing to do said act after the law was passed would be illegal.
But, IANAL.
EFGearman
Re:I think I'm gonna thank the lawyers (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re:I think I'm gonna thank the lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yes and No (Score:3, Insightful)
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...