Do they make any provisions for sending jobs to print including their fonts? That seems like another rather large issue.

Do you have InDesign? What happens if you try to package a job that uses their fonts? Just curious.

Like you, I find this offputting.

It’s problematic for the legit user, but if Apple and Adobe can load their fonts onto your menus so that you can’t get rid of the damn things, all power to an Indie foundry for strutting its stuff.

I don’t think they’re the first to use installers, Tankard and Hoefler have gone done this route, haven’t they?

I have no idea how the Mac works with respect to this but it would seem that its totally possible for an ’installer’ to enumerate fonts from memory or from a hidden file every time the machine is booted. After all this is how font managers work. I can’t help but think that this, like most protection schemes, causes headaches for legitimate users, but would be quite easy to crack. But providing they’re up-front about the unconventional nature of their product, then best of luck to them.

Can’t say I blame them for trying. It doesn’t keep their fonts off the internet, but it’s probably good at keeping one design teacher from passing them on to a hundred students who will use them in commercial work for a decade after graduation. And it probably wipes out intra-office piracy in companies without technically adept designers.

I’m all for doing everything we can to prevent theft, and I can certainly understand why LHF would impose such a scheme. It’s a real shame, though. I was about to make a sizable purchase of their fonts and the new policy has turned me off completely. It’s unworkable for the creative professional. Maybe for the signmakers that use their site it doesn’t matter, but for designers such as myself it’s yet one more technology hassle that puts severe restrictions on my capabilities and workflow. I am praying they ditch it sooner rather than later. Are you reading LHF??? Pleeeeeease!

You could contact them directly, you never know they may be willing to bend the rules for a “sizable purchase” esp. if they feel you’re trustworthy - can’t hurt to ask.

Regarding the question about packaging an InDesign job with one of the new LHF fonts: No, InDesign’s font packaging didn’t work for me, nor does imbedding them in PDFs. LHF’s suggested solution for PDFs is to convert the fonts to outlines first. Of course, without Adobe Reader’s “Smooth line art” preference checkbox turned on, fonts turned to outlines in PDFs look quite cruddy except at very large point sizes. I don’t know what the default setting is these days, but I remember a few years ago that was not set by default, and clients usually do not know or bother to change it. If this is still the case, previewing jobs for clients via PDF would be a problem.

About the comment whether LHF is “up-front about the unconventional nature of their product”: I would say partially but not completely. They do say in their FAQ about the new OpenType fonts, and I quote:

“Q. My Letterhead Fonts aren’t in the regular font folder!
A. Letterhead Fonts work a bit differently than normal fonts in that they aren’t installed in the Fonts folder. But you will see them in your applications.”

“Q. The fonts are not displaying in FontBook or Suitcase.
A. While you may see your Letterhead Fonts in font management programs such as FontBook or Suitcase, you won’t be able to turn them on or off. And of course you won’t be able to install Letterhead Fonts using your font management program since they must be installed using the Letterhead Fonts Installer. This has no effect on how the fonts function in your design applications however.”

The FAQ does mention the fonts won’t embed in PDFs and to convert to outlines first. However, despite the mention that fonts are not installed in the regular Fonts folder(s), it wasn’t clear, at least to me, that you don’t get a font file you can deal with at least *somewhere* on your hard drive as you wish, that activating any LHF font means all of them get activated, and that you can’t turn a font off without completely uninstalling it. I mean, after years of dealing with fonts and being able to do all these things, your assumption is most likely going to be that you still will in *some* fashion, unless explicitly told you can’t.

They also do not mention you can’t package a job in InDesign for a service bureau, though someone knowledgeable could probably assume that from the statement fonts aren’t embeddable in PDFs. And while they say converting fonts to outlines for PDFs “may add a bit to the file size, the end result is visually the same as if you had embedded the fonts,” this will be true if Adobe Reader’s preference for “Smooth line art” is set, but otherwise not. (Which it may or may not be by default. Someone else will have to weigh in on that.) All in all, less than full disclosure in my view.

Also, I went to LHF’s online forums to see if others were commenting or complaining and found their forums are now gone. I don’t know how long that’s been the case or if it’s a permanent thing or not. It does make one wonder whether the disappearance was intentional so they wouldn’t have deal with public criticism on their site. Then again, perhaps they are busy now dealing with the new system in place and just wanted space.

Thanks for the further details. Maybe they’ll comment here?

So does the Letterhead DRM system require an internet connection to use the fonts? I’m trying to figure out what’s to keep someone from just redistributing the executables, aside from some watermarks and lawyers.

These fonts have to be *somewhere*… and if they are, they are extractable. OR there is some encrypting added, which would make the process of extracting the font files somewhat harder.
My guess: they are inside the application (control click on the icon and choose Show package contents).

While I realise that LHF fonts are (all?) display fonts, so quite not as much of an issue as if you were dealing with pages of text, converting fonts to outlines adds a considerable amount of effort to a PDF workflow from your DTP app.

Unless there’s a way anyone’s heard of to convert fonts to outlines ’on the fly’ while printing to PDF, it means embedding all your text as graphics rather than being able to edit in the DTP app, and if there any changes, going back to an editable text version and saving a new outline copy.

’Anti-Piracy’ is just a way to say ’anti-consumer’. Blech.

But I agree with Bert, open the package itself and see if you can grab the files.

The ’can’t embed in a PDF’ would be a show stopper for me, though. That’s absurd.

>But I agree with Bert, open the package itself and see if you can grab the files.

I disagree. If you don’t like the protection scheme just don’t license the product. Someone might get their jollies cracking the product for ’fun’ in the privacy of their own home, and although this is quite sad, providing they don’t publicize the hack then no harm is done.

I had looked inside the application package cursorily earlier but not too closely, and didn’t see anything that easily stood out indicating a font anywhere. Also had done a drive-wide search for any file containing the five core characters of the main font name without finding anything. This morning I dug a little deeper and first performed a drive-wide global search for invisible items. When that didn’t turn anything up, I went back and did a “show package contents” on the LHF application package again to look closer.

Not counting the usual tiny little incidental files, there’s just three files of any size there. In the “MacOS” folder of the package there’s a file named “FontInstaller” at 316 KB in size. Then inside the “Resources” folder of the package there are two more, one named “FontInstallation.icns” at 56 KB and “FontInstaller.icns” also at 56 KB. Making copies of either file, then changing the file extension to .otf and opening with FontLab just to see what might happen gives nothing other than a blank new font.

P.S. (edit) Sii, I didn’t know the font was going to be protected like this when I bought it. It was not clear to me from LHF’s FAQ, and I feel like I was taken for a bit of a ride here. Glad it was just one font I purchased so I’m not out much money.

I hope we get more information.
I wonder if other manufacturers are going this route?

For someone like myself having every font opened would mean my system would slow down drastically and I’d never get any work out.

Also, the printer I use, who still won’t get Quark 7, doesn’t do Open Type - so to hand my work over to a professional - would be difficult. Would Letterhead expect my printer to buy everyone of their fonts so my work could be printed out professionally? Do they have anything in their guidelines (like URW) about being able to send the “font” with the job to the printer?

Isn’t this what killed QuarkXPress?

Okay, it turns out I overlooked something and did end up finding the font on the drive, but I suppose it would be best if I do not say how or where. In the end, at least for a user at my level, it doesn’t matter because the font is still not recognized by either FontLab or Suitcase, both of which I tried. I assume that must mean some type of compression or encryption (attempted expansion with UnStuffIt did not work, though), so we are still where we were before with the consequences of all this.

Zebra, thanks for the notification. I certainly won’t be buying anything from them now. I’m glad there are House Industries, Veer, Sudtipos and others… I think this is disrespecting towards almost all of the paying customers and not likely to stop pirating of their fonts. (If that’s been a problem, I don’t know.)

It would be nice to hear some of the reasoning behind this.

Chuck has expressed continued despair the few times I’ve e-mailed him in regards font piracy. His actions are his choice and I hope this becomes something he is happy with. However, just like a overly restrictive EULA, this will surely keep some people from licensing from him. People such as myself, for instance, (and others above) who really do prefer to control their fonts. He has some gorgeous stuff for license, but surely this is a sad day.

Hoefler and House both had installers, but you could still manage the fonts.

>Sii, I didn’t know the font was going to be protected like this when I bought it. It was not clear to me from LHF’s FAQ, and I feel like I was taken for a bit of a ride here.

Fair enough, but I’d suggest you talk to them. Also glad to see you support not turning Typophile into Typo-H@X0RZ-forum. ;-)

The ‘can’t embed in a PDF’ would be a show stopper for me, though. That’s absurd.

And, ultimately, bad business. If we can’t show clients a pdf proof, or publish the document like that for the web, then I won’t buy their fonts.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face....

These fonts have to be *somewhere*… and if they are, they are extractable.

Not necessarily. My guess is that the LHF app loads the font set into memory (RAM), in much the same way that “opening” an OT font file by clicking loads an individual font on-disk into memory.

For as long as the fonts are loaded into RAM they show up in DTP apps and can be used. When the LHF app is closed down the fonts would be unloaded from RAM and no longer available in DTP apps.

OR there is some encrypting added, which would make the process of extracting the font files somewhat harder.

In a way, probably, the LHF fonts are “encrypted” as code compiled as part of the LHF app’s .EXE file (or whatever file(s) comprise the app). Extracting them would be implausible unless the user happens to have decompiler software capable of decompiling the LHF app files into constituant components.

Extracting the fonts from RAM while they’re loaded is even more implausible.

What do the rest of you think about where LHF has gone with this?

They appear to have taken serious measures to prevent further piracy of their products, since illegitemate users are very keen on stealing LHF fonts. In that sense it’s a measure of how desirable their fonts are, and a rebuttal to the immoral, cynical, interminably immature mindset of those who insist on stealing them.

LHF’s hand has been tipped.

The user-end compromises entailed by the solution they’ve adopted seem impractical to me too, but the people who baulk at it should ask Chuck Davis or Richard Kegler what it’s like and how it feels having to clean up the mess every time their fonts are ripped off and posted on the web for free. It’s constant, ongoing, and a pain in the arse.

And all because their fonts are popular. The “reward” for making excellent artistically-crafted fonts is a heartache

Put yourselves in Chuck’s shoes and see it from his point of view.

This also illustrates the basic fallacy inherent in the digital “media revolution”. The bright new future of digital audio, video and graphic arts is open to wholesale abuse.

j a m e s

It is frustrating, indeed. But I fear Letterhead will see a decrease in sales, not the number of pirated fonts. The right anti-piracy method has not yet been developed, and until then, legitimate customers will suffer. It’s best to continue to create and promote great type. Most of the pirates wouldn’t buy the fonts anyway.

jpad, about an internet connection being required to use the LHF fonts. I reinstalled the font earlier today, and during the process Little Snitch did pop up an alert that the installer was phoning home, which I okayed as a one-time event only. The installation progress dialog box also put up a brief mention it was “checking license” or something to that effect during the process. Little Snitch hasn’t indicated any further phoning home during use since then.

I have a question: Would it be possible in theory as an alternate antipiracy solution to have some sort of product activation process (like for Adobe’s CS2 products) that ties fonts to a particular machine, but still lets you move them around and work with them on your hard drive as you see fit? (Even make backup copies, but your product activation would have to be transferred to another machine or drive if you decided you needed to use them there?) Something like that I could live with. Or does product activation depend on an installation’s files remaining stationery on the drive where things were originally installed?

>I’m glad there are House Industries, Veer, Sudtipos and others…

>If we can’t show clients a pdf proof, or publish the document like that for the web, then I won’t buy their fonts.

Well, that counts out the standard House Industries license - where anything other than PDF to the bureau costs extra. What’s better a software solution that stops you from doing things against the EULA, or the EULA you don’t read and end up breaking?

...does product activation depend on an installation’s files remaining stationery on the drive where things were originally installed?

AFAIK, Adobe’s activation scheme is tied to the hardware, and as long as you don’t swap out the relevant hardware components you can move the software all over the place on a Mac. I’ve never tried moving software around under Windows (or any non-Mac *NIX OS) because complex Windows apps prefer staying put after being installed. Adobe’s protection does, however, refuse to work if you screw around with the license management daemons, which are kept separate from the rest of the Adobe software. I once moved the management daemon library out of a directory when diagnosing a problem, and after moving it back I was unable to run any Adobe apps, even after reinstalling the entire suite. It’s been a while, but IIRC I had to reinstall the OS to fix the problem.

“I disagree. If you don’t like the protection scheme just don’t license the product. Someone might get their jollies cracking the product for ‘fun’ in the privacy of their own home, and although this is quite sad, providing they don’t publicize the hack then no harm is done.”

Nothing sad about a consumer actually wanting to posses what they purchase. I dislike the whole ’it’s just a license...not a purchase’ guise the media industries hide behind.

TRUST your customers. Be NICE to them. Give them a REASON to keep giving you money in the future.

Look at this thread here. They’ve already tainted their image through just one PAYING customer being annoyed.

“What’s better a software solution that stops you from doing things against the EULA, or the EULA you don’t read and end up breaking?”

It’s better to not bother. Consumers don’t read EULAs.

Darrel, consumers that care do read EULAs.

The font components are downloaded by the LHF Service and placed in:

/Applications/Letterhead Fonts/Contents/Resources/LHFService/Contents/Resources/fonts/

These files are still not generally functional. They might be modifying the data slightly just before making the ATS call to activate the font. It’s not entirely clear what problems this might pose for FontExplorer or Suitcase users. Running two font managers at once has been problematic in the past. When a font is activated by ATS it is not entirely possible to hide it’s location. The complete font may only exist temporarily, but it is possible to find it’s location.

I think the other stated reasons are more important for avoiding these fonts. Really this is not flexible enough for professional design work. In most cases, a very similar font will be available from a major vendor without the potential headaches.

>Look at this thread here. They’ve already tainted their image through just one PAYING customer being annoyed.

If the paying customer had said “I spoke to the vendor and they said - tough luck, and sent me packing” then there may be some validitiy to this. So far no one has indicated that they’ve even spoken to the vendor.

>It’s better to not bother. Consumers don’t read EULAs.

That’ll change, esp. once they get sent the invoice a few months after they’ve posted a PDF containing the fonts on their blog.

—Consumers don’t read EULAs.

—consumers that care do read EULAs.

Do you adhere to EULAs for typefaces that you purchase?

I will say this about Quark and EULAs - if you Collect for Output in Quark it point blank asks you if you have read the license and are complying with its restrictions. Of course then it lets you go ahead and collect anyway, but I think it’s cool they ask.

That said, I rarely read EULAs. Sorry. Doesn’t mean I’m not aware of font piracy issues.

I would NEVER buy a font I couldn’t turn on and off at will.

>Sii, I posted this here instead of talking to the vendor first because I did not want my complaint possibly being kept private.

It’s unlikely they would have said “we’ll provide unlocked fonts providing you don’t publicize the fact” but you never know. Anyway thanks for providing us with the detailed explanation.

Cheers, Si

It’s interesting that they’re willing to bet their brand on this. If I were going to try to implement font DRM I would create a new brand. The reason is that the print/design community is very “sticky” with regard to their opinion of specific companies. If people who support Macs in education and publishing put up “No Letterhead Fonts!” policies, this sentiment could get stuck in consumers’ minds. They may become affaid to use any LH fonts.

Also, I’m not sure it’s been mentioned, but if LH decides to not to update their application to support new versions of Mac and Windows, font users could potentially lose their ability to use their fonts!

I am a consumer that reads the EULA, but cares less about it than consumer protection legislation. It’s a contract? So what? A contract could be invalid, unconscionable, or unenforceable. And intellectual property rights are not natural law, but exist only to the extent that they are recognized by the state. So I respect a EULA only to the extent that it deserves respect.

>It’s interesting that they’re willing to bet their brand on this. If I were going to try to implement font DRM I would create a new brand. The reason is that the print/design community is very “sticky” with regard to their opinion of specific companies.

Do you think? People were quick to forgive Adobe when they tried and abandoned protection schemes. I don’t think these guys have much if anything to lose by giving this technology a college try.

People were quick to forgive Adobe when they tried and abandoned protection schemes.

I think it’s easier for companies who make multiple products, like Microsoft, Apple and Adobe. Just because I think the Zune’s DRM makes it useless, doesn’t mean I dislike SQL Server 2005.

Also, if it is something Adobe abandoned, then it is easier to forgive.

Who do the makers think they are kidding? If it’s possible to outline it before making a PDF, the font can be “re-engineered”, right?

Thanks for commenting Chuck.
As I said, all power to an indie foundry that wants to do things its way.

its fonts.

“Why would you want to rekern any font? If the font you purchased is so lousy that you have to rekern it, I would suggest you ask for your money back.” See Bringhurst v3.0 at 203-06.

I wrote Chuck about this and he responded very courteously in a matter of minutes. I feel his pain. I absolutely hate the new protection scheme, but I for one will do everything in my power to try to work within it because I want to support Chuck. It’s a good thing he has such wonderful fonts and such an obvious love for the craft or many of us might just decide it’s not worth it.

I have purchased many LHF types over the years and have long been a big fan of their products and their customer support. Whenever I have encountered any sort of difficulty they have been helpful, prompt, and gracious. Unfailingly. And I have always been scrupulously diligent about not allowing my LHF files out into the wild, out of respect for the designers and for LHF. Plus, they’re mine!
I’m such a big fan that I’ve even purchased types from them that I don’t even need. To satisfy my collector’s impulse, or some other irrational motive. Abject affection, maybe.

But I will not buy anything from them as long as they employ this contrivance. No way.

Chuck, I too want to thank you for your comments even though I am obviously unhappy with the new system. I do hope the increased sales continue to stay up. I don’t know about others, but in my case buying one of the recent LH fonts was due to a feeling of pent-up demand for a choice new release from LHF because of the 2-year drought in font releases till your new system went live just recently. I would have bought more than a single font, but being unsure of what the new font installation system might entail, decided to play it safe.

I’ve wondered for some time what the reason was for the lengthy absence of new releases, and tended to assume LHF must have been busy converting the entire preexisting catalog over to OpenType, which had to have been a huge task. In any event, my feeling at this point is I will probably end up buying a few more LH fonts in the future on occasion but at a significantly reduced level compared to the past because of the impact of the new scheme on our workflow. (I.e., “must haves” but not the “like to haves” like before.)

As the previous poster said, however, I continue to have great affection for LHF’s fonts, and I hope fortune smiles on you and your business.

Dear Chuck,

I have dropped out of buying fonts for a few years. I purchase to rarely, a client has to give me a pretty good reason to spend the extra money.

However, as a typesetter in New York City, when the Mac became the way, I plunked down more than $25,000 on a font library. Owning Letraset, Bitstream (Type 3, which they were kind enough to update to a Type 1 a year later), Monotype, Linotype, URW, Adobe (originally library was a mere $15,000 and talk about errors in fonts.), and many fine fonts from FontFont, FontHaus, etc. (BTW, do you have any idea how many Garamonds a typographer during 1989-1991 in New York had to buy to be legit?)

In my typeshop, I had a disgruntled worker. He made a copy of my entire library (including some original handtailored fonts) and gave it to his friend, a photographer, down the street. The friend decided to become a design shop, and you could imagine my face when I received a flyer from the “other” shop, letting my customers know that “his” library contained exclusives, and he could set the job better than who you are using today...

I contacted Adobe immediately. Yes, I called in the Font Police. I learned pretty quickly that one person stealing a library wasn’t worth their time and energy in legal fees. They referred me to a person at QuarkXPress. That was an interesting story. Quark found a consultant in New York who bought 25 copies of Quark. He placed them in one of the companies he was consulting for. Then he placed them repeatedly in other companies — all using the same serial numbers. He did it so many times, that eventually companies started to contact Quark on their own to get the upgrades — all using the same serial numbers. I still wonder how that lawsuit worked out — that is what Adobe wanted me to know, you have to go after the big fish.

It isn’t like you’ve lost a customer in me, I do like your fonts, and maybe one day, I’ll be able to have a customer who appreciates them and is willing to pay the price. I no longer am. But the fonts I own, all licensed and legit — I do need to pass on to my printer when I am doing book, advertising and magazine work.

I am just sharing this. Maybe some would call it rambling. I do want you to know, I do know what it is like when one is stressed out in a business that is going nowhere, where your assets are being stolen - and worse, advertised against you. Sometimes you have to realize it is okay to move on.

Meanwhile, I am curious, if someone did want to give a printer a pdf or have the font to give their absolutely, legitimate printer so their job looks exactly like they expect it to — is the new licensing of Letterhead Fonts opposed to this? Or must we make a PDF in Photoshop, flatten it like a graphic, and have no fonts — which means, oh no, more time on making type corrections down the road...

And by the way — I keep repeating myself lately, but I am amazed that a “newbie” can go on line, pick up tons of illegal fonts — and have a better typography library than Photolettering did in 1989! Probably every typographer I knew, is rolling over in their graves... and most likely, laughing.

Heron you only have to turn the typefaces to outlines, you don’t need to rasterize them. All of Letterhead’s fonts are display. I suppose turning the headings to outlines isn’t that bad. It is just a nuisance.

Being involved with information sharing in between foundries, I’ve seen a disgusting amount of font piracy. I don’t want anyone to think I’m against a foundry doing what they feel they must to protect there work. It is a business decision and like any business decision there is an upside and a downside. It sounds to me like you, Chuck, did what you felt you needed to do.

“Darrel, consumers that care do read EULAs.”

Care about what?

Consumers want a simple transaction: Here’s my money, give me my product.

EULAs are only used to restrict the default assumptions of that transaction. They’re bad, bad, bad. IMHO, of course. ;o)

“I am a consumer that reads the EULA, but cares less about it than consumer protection legislation.”

Well said.

“For those that say that protection is a slap in the face to the consumer or even hint that we are less friendly to our customers now— You obviously have never purchased anything from us or called us.”

It is a slap in the face. I love Apple. I think they are a great company. But DRM on their songs is a slap in the face. Period.

Piracy...the damaging kind...the ones where people are selling your goods...these aren’t stupid people. They know how to get around DRM. There’s a monetary reward for doing so.

The ones that aren’t as damaging...the paying customer sending a font to the printer with the file or just wanting to make a PDF to send to a client...this just annoys them.

Chuck, good luck with it all. I hope that your protection scheme actually works as you intended. I have a strong hunch it won’t, but would love to be proven wrong. Keep us posted. In the end, only you know your user base and perhaps this is the ideal solution for your target audience.

Thanks for the response, Chuck. It’s rare for any vendor to speak out candidly about piracy; I’m used to just hearing the same old statistics spewing out of lobbying organizations. Sometimes I think that there would be a lot less IP theft out there if businesses tried a little harder to put a face on things. Good luck to you, and sink or swim, please let us know how it works out.

Chuck, I certainly feel your pain, but essentially breaking your customers’ final product can’t be the best way to do this. I wish I knew a better one, though ...

Converting to curves means that the content of your files cannot be searched/indexed/aggregated/copied&pasted, and essentially breaks the whole metadata point of a PDF. It also means that my entire proof process - which is 100% PDF based, now - would have to be abandoned on any jobs I used LHF fonts on. I doubt any art department that uses PDF workflow from proofing onwards can afford to completely re-engineer their procedures just to accomodate your type, no matter how well made and attractive it is.

My 2¢. Good luck,

JLT

—-

jlt : http://www.hewnandhammered.com : rnrmf!

Thanks for your side of the story, Chuck. I appreciate the effort you made to explain your point of view at Typophile.

> From that point forward we began noticing increased cases of piracy.

Did you also notice any affect on sales?

Just checked with the IT department of my biggest client, a worldwide TV broadcaster, and unfortunately LHF fonts cannot be allowed on their network as the protection scheme installation is considered an application, and they do not allow new applications on their worldwide network without many, many months of testing, etc.. So much for my big purchase/site license of LHF fonts. Meanwhile, I have done a survey of 11 designer friends who all work closely with type. I had them visit the LHF site and also read these threads. Every one of them was adament that the protection scheme was a definite deal breaker. It wasn’t even close. I can’t see how this is going to work for Chuck. I’d rather see LHF charge A LOT more for their fonts to try and make the business more profitable. Unfortunately, I believe this protection scheme will kill the business sooner or later. What a pity! Please Chuck, come up with something else!

>Just checked with the IT department of my biggest client, a worldwide TV broadcaster,

But, did you contact Chuck directly? I have never negotiated with a font vendor or designer who was not willing to be flexible when the price was right.

Actually, I did contact Chuck—although at the time I did not propose a special exception for my situation—and he was kind enough to send me a lengthy, articulate and thoughtful email explaining his reasoning. I have always enjoyed fantastic service from LHF. I did not want to offend him by asking for special dispensation or trying to throw money at him and asking him to bend the rules. Anyway, if Chuck was willing to forego the protection scheme by increasing the price of his fonts, he probably would’ve had that as a policy. Even if he did go for the bait, having such a two-tier policy would not only be unfair, but would be a tacit admission that the protection scheme is so bad, customers would be willing to pay extra to avoid it. Sigh.

If I need specific rights I ask for those specific rights. The vendor can give me a price or say, sorry not at any price. Sorry, but maybe it’s a cultural thing, but I don’t consider this haggling or sordid in any way, it’s just business, and as other commentators have said, it’s not as if you can’t go and find fonts elsewhere.

A simple example is that most vendors make P&P embedding fonts, and I only license ’editable’ embedding fonts. The fact that I ask for those rights, and am willing to pay for the extra value that functionality gives my customers does not mean that the vendors are wrong to set their fonts to P&P embedding.

Hmmm. OpenType. Very.

Interesting discussion. While sitting on the fence, I’d like to address two points:

1. Chuck’s peace of mind will evaporate as soon as a single crack team fixes the installer, making it redistributable. Then what?

2. The story about an expensive font library being copied. If an amateur can produce the same results with your tools, wtf is your workmanship worth?

Before we offer suggestions such as increasing prices to offset any losses incurred by piracy, the following would have to be true:

1. Piracy = fewer sales
2. Letterhead Fonts cares more about the bottom line than preventing piracy

I believe neither is true.

I await Chuck’s answer to my question from earlier today, but I doubt that sales decreased substantially as a result of the increased piracy. And I don’t think that matters much to him anyway. It sounds like preventing piracy is a very high priority for him, even if his methods hurt his bottom line. I don’t personally agree with that point of view, but if it’s true it would trivialize most of the discussion here.

Sergej - this happened in the early 90s — when typesetters were becoming dinosaurs.

I can remember going to Poppe Tyson (an advertising agency in NY) one morning — they framed their very first job. I looked at it and screamed, “Who the F set this?”

I was asked by the art director, “Why?”

I looked it over and responded, “If I sent you a job that looked this bad, I’d have a call at 9:01 a.m. letting me know I was replaceable. There is no kerning, no proper rag, no true punctuation!”

The art director responded, “It doesn’t matter, I’m proud of it, it was the first job I set myself and the client has ’ok’d’ it.”

To me that was the end of typography. For others that day, it was the New York Times printing a full page ad with very large inch marks for quote marks... same day, same fate.

So Sergej, I don’t know how old you are, or where you were when the amateurs took over - and the customers decided - ah, this is cheaper and we can live with it.

Our shop was excellent. Photoshop, according to Cosmos, ran an ad on my behalf - “Often imitated, never duplicated...” when I spent money on an altergraph and a graphflex and was able to do many of the special effects that they were known for — and well.

I guess you haven’t run into the kid that spent $2200 bucks and thinks he/she can do it all themselves... and what’s worse - professionalism has been placed 6-feet under.

And a flash bulletin - there are no typesetters left. Even Boros has given it up. The only reason I was able to survive was by becoming a graphic arts studio... and I was fortunate to work with so many wonderful art directors in New York - greatest apprenticeship program ever!!!

and P.S. I never said he could do it as well - only that he advertised to my customers he could...

It amazes me that designers, people who sell their intellectual property to make a living, would jump all over a company that wants to protect its business by protecting its product. Maybe Letterhead’s method isn’t foolproof (from the designer standpoint, it sounds like it has some major issues), but I commend them for taking the first step.

The real solution here is that Adobe/Microsoft/Apple need to get together and extend the OpenType scheme to have some sort of native DRM so that designers can protect their work from criminals that justify stealing with “I didn’t decrease their sales, so its ok.” and other pathetic excuses for their inherent lack of morals.

It’s saddening to see this in the creative community.

“It amazes me that designers, people who sell their intellectual property to make a living, would jump all over a company that wants to protect its business by protecting its product.”

No one is against a company fighting piracy. A lot of people ARE against a company that ties its own paying customers into absurd hoop jumping clauses that only frustrate.

“The real solution here is that Adobe/Microsoft/Apple need to get together and extend the OpenType scheme to have some sort of native DRM”

DRM does nothing to stop real piracy. If someone can come up with a DRM scheme, someone sitting in a cubicle in China can crack it. It’s just a silly cat and mouse game and the paying consumer gets stuck with dealing with all the crap it entails.

Are there exceptions? Certainly. iTunes succeeds in spite of its DRM. Granted, a big part of that is because their DRM is a lot less restrictive than other music DRM options right now.

“and other pathetic excuses for their inherent lack of morals.”

Unfortunately, neither laws nor technology can do much to change personal morals.

Some examples, btw, in the past month:

- Windows Vista DRM has been cracked to get around the authentication scheme

- HD DVD DRM has been cracked so you can now copy HD DVDs

Now these are DRM schemes brought to market by huge industry heavyweights with ungodly amounts of money and resources. But, easily cracked. They always are.

“But Letterhead Fonts has the right to protect it’s fonts.”
Of course it does. I’m still a little confused about how you’re going about it...

You have not mentioned any problems that are not correctable by forceful legal action assuming copyright and trademark registration.

Whether you are opposed to the use of legal force, or a simply trying to stop font “collectors”, the temporary protection (via an installer), puts a permanent stop to casual borrowers who become licensees when your IP hits their publication’s legal fan, at which point they are normally in immediate need of a license.

This is close to 1/4 of our business, so I’m wondering at the marketing, sales and support model that makes this work, and while hoping it works for you, we can’t follow and continue our policy of forceful legal action, the very threat of which, usually accomplishes our goals.

Cheers!

what’s the actual security mechanism? i’m assuming you are emailed a licence key number when you make a purchase, and this must be typed into the installer before it will download the fonts?

I don’t see how a small company could muster the forces to persue legal action—even threats—again and again and again. Sounds very expensive and time-consuming to me. How do you do it?

That’s one of the points malbright - most companies cannot afford to go after small time thieves...

I was always “comforted” by — the person who steals wouldn’t have been one to buy the service anyway.... I know, not comforting, but also, not a loss of a sale.

Exactly, heron2001. I was responding to dberlow’s post above. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the fact that most of those doing the stealing would never be customers anyway.

Geez - this site is so polarized sometimes.

Letterhead has every right to do what they want and you have every right ro respond accordingly.

Is there more to the story than that?

peace

>a small company could muster the forces to persue legal action—even threats

If I understand David Berlow’s posting rightly, normally lawyers don’t need to be involved, once the ’nastygram’ has been written. I think at TypeCon he said that they send a letter something like this: “Congratulations, you are now our valued customer. Our bill of ... for our fonts that you are now using is attached. The penalty for using our fonts without purchase, otherwise known as piracy is...” and then follows the nasty stuff.

A catch here is that publications such as magazines and newspapers are FontBureau’s primary customers, whereas Letterhead Font’s customers are, I gather, to a large extent sign makers. Publications I would think are a lot easier to monitor than signs. On the other hand, sign makers are a much smaller universe than signs, so maybe there is another way...

I have ten distributors, none of whom give me more than an email address in the way of purchaser information, so it’s practically impossible to know, when I see a type of mine being used, whether it’s legit.

My marketing strategy has always been “I am the brand”, putting a face to the face, so to speak, so I rely on the inclination of users not to pirate original work by an identifiable person (as was earlier noted in the thread).

On a positive note, I’ve found that a great many font users, in businesses of all sizes, are extremely diligent about their software licences, and that includes fonts. So the results of the survey here are no doubt quite genuine, and heartening. And those respondents who say they ignore the EULA are not admitting to piracy.

So the results of the survey here are no doubt quite genuine, and heartening. And those respondents who say they ignore the EULA are not admitting to piracy.

There is a difference between piracy and violating the EULA, which is a breach of contract (to the extent that the EULA is binding).

By the way, (and this is off topic), suppose I buy computers with pre-installed fonts from a company that no longer exists — suppose they went bankrupt or the owner retired to Costa Rica. Would one say that I can do whatever I want with the fonts since I am not bound by the contract? In other words, do the rights of the designer stem exclusively from the EULA?

Please close your CITE tag - thanks!

Edit: Thank you!

There is a difference between piracy and violating the EULA

That was my point. If you can’t be bothered to read the EULA, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to be pirating software to friends and acquaintances.

Admitting that I am sometimes (usually) too busy to read every last word of a EULA before checking “I agree” doesn’t translate to disseminating the font to everyone I know. I’m aware of font piracy, try not to do it, but wish EULAs were simpler and a bit more user-friendly for the independent designer.

I wonder why there’s no fuss when I loan a book to a friend. The author doesn’t get the royalty, but you never hear authors or publishers trying to stand in the way of passing books around. In fact you can buy used books at Amazon. Why is it so different with fonts and music?

>but you never hear authors or publishers trying to stand in the way of passing books around.

I think they have complained in the past, especially when the second hand book trade started to move online, and finding second hand copy of the title became much easier.

However, the difference is of course that in passing the font or music file around, more often than not a “backup copy” is retained by the original purchaser. That’s not really sharing, its more like duplication.

You have a point.

But once I’ve read a book I’m usually done with it, whereas I reuse fonts and music all the time.

I guess my point is that business models are changing - witness what’s happening to the music industry with iTunes - and while there was an initial fuss now they’re trying to accept the new reality and figure out ways to still make money. I think if it were a bit easier with fonts it would be less tempting to just pass a font on to a printer with a job. Everybody would win. Letterhead is trying to address this in their own way, but they will no doubt lose customers. There should be a better way for designers and foundries to make their profits and not punish the customer. And accept that there will always be people who circumvent the rules, you can’t go after everybody.

Why is it so different with fonts and music?

Actually, some EULAs allow resale of the licence, if the seller trashes her own copy of the font file—so that would be like reselling a book.

European copyright law has recently changed, to allow artists “commission” on works when purchasers resell them. Don’t see that working with books though.

Reselling is different than sharing! Whether it’s fonts, music, or books.

I wonder why there’s no fuss when I loan a book to a friend. The author doesn’t get the royalty, but you never hear authors or publishers trying to stand in the way of passing books around. In fact you can buy used books at Amazon. Why is it so different with fonts and music?

Here in the USA, first sale doctrine was established in law ages ago and this keeps book and music publishers from getting royalties on resale. This is not the case in some countries—in Japan, for example, resale of video games is illegal (although it still happens). With software the publishers have the option of requiring acceptance of a license before use, so they can effectively block resale of the product. I expect that we’ll see the details of all this set in precedent soon, because video game companies are taking big hits from restailers who purchase new games in limited quantities and then rely on used game sales to boost margins. At some point there’s going to be a game company that decides this is violating a EULA, and the lawsuits will start flying.

Whether it’s fonts, music, or books

But for fish and loaves, Jesus is still the Man :-)

But I reiterate, reselling (and thus making money off someone else’s work) is different than sharing. Are both considered piracy?

And here’s something else: I have three computers in my home/office. But I am one person, as opposed to three people, each with one computer in an office. Should I really have to pay for a license for three computers? That seems unfair, and this is what I mean by EULAs being at times unnecessarily restrictive.

>I have three computers in my home/office. But I am one person, as opposed to three people, each with one computer in an office.

Most fonts are licensed per device, not per person, and most font licenses cover five devices (at one location). Tiff and others have argued for a laptop clause to get around the lcoation issue.

As for the other software on those machines, did you pay three times for the operating system? How about the apps, once or three times? Do you feel apps and OS’s should be paid per machine or per person?

I think per user. No I did not buy three licenses of each software. I can’t bloody well afford that. CS2 I know gives you two machines per license (altho I haven’t bought it yet). Actually one machine still runs OS 9 so it doesn’t use the same software/version anyway.

My OS came with the iMac. My neighbor bought a multi-user Tiger installer and gave me one of them for my laptop.

It would seem as if it’s easier to “stay legal” with fonts than with other types of software.

Do you mean from a cost standpoint, Si?

I have two machines, my regular OSX iMac and a little old Compaq laptop that runs (please don’t laugh) Win95 and that I use for portable note-taking needs. I don’t even get the possibility of being able to buy once and use twice....

But I reiterate, reselling (and thus making money off someone else’s work) is different than sharing. Are both considered piracy?

Sharing in what sense? For example, it could be said that you and your neighbor are sharing an OS X multi-user license pack, or that the employees of a print shop are sharing all of the font licenses installed on a prepress machine, both uses are probably legitimate. But if you mean sharing in the sense of filesharing, that’s piracy unless you’ve been given permission to do so.

It’s still expensive, especially when you’re in business for yourself and have low-budget clients.

I know I’m boxing myself into a hole here, but I feel like the restrictiveness of a lot of EULAs makes it hard for the little guy to stay honest. And by the same token I care more about an independent foundry getting its deserved dollars than Linotype or Adobe.

>Do you mean from a cost standpoint, Si?

No, from the 5 device standpoint,

It certainly doesn’t favour folks like Patty and me who run independent businesses; by the time we upgrade the apps and the OS, nevermind the hardware end of things, there ain’t much left over, even when one considers that sort of thing being a legit business expense.

I know I’m boxing myself into a hole here, but I feel like the restrictiveness of a lot of EULAs makes it hard for the little guy to stay honest. And by the same token I care more about an independent foundry getting its deserved dollars than Linotype or Adobe.

It seems to me that the little guy has a better chance of staying honest than a corporation. For a freelancer, or a small shop, keep track of licenses is easy. Maybe you don’t have customers with bottomless bank accounts, but you’re in a better position to just get a font purchased than someone who has to deal with a corporate beauracracy. Sure it might cost you a client now and then, but that’s the price one has to pay for integrity.

Regardless of the pros and cons and all the debate in-between, the bottom line for many of us is that we can no longer use one of our favorite foundries, and that’s a real shame.

Here’s what I think would be a better approach than unworkable, proprietary protection schemes. Put a face on the company. Let people know the man they’re buying from. Let customers know that every purchase makes a BIG difference. Have new customers sign and fax a pledge that they will not make unauthorized copies. Let people know that you are counting on them, trusting them to help you keep the business going. Let them see the face of the person they’d be stealing from. Personalize the experience. It won’t stop piracy. Nothing will. But it’ll discourage.

Maybe too Chuck should have a policy whereby if you want an “unlocked” font, instead of $29 you pay, say, $99 or more ... a premium price.

To show you the futility of Chuck’s technology, let me share this true story. A few months ago I was at The Magic Castle in Hollywood and I noticed a lovely flyer typeset in LHF’s Boston Truckstyle. I complimented the designer, and he said, “Yeah, we had no budget for type, so I just traced the letters from the site.” (Abbreviated the story, but that’s the gist of it.) Mind you, we’re talking a $29 font here, if memory serves. So one way or the other, people who dont want to pay, won’t.

Chuck’s technology will seriously injure or kill his business, you wait and see. It is absolutely non-customer centric. Maybe Chuck doesn’t care. Maybe Chuck somehow believes this will actually stop thieves from stealing. Maybe Chuck hates piracy so much that he’s willing to take a big hit in sales. Maybe Chuck is so pissed-off that he is no longer willing to work with those of us who are his biggest supporters and fans. If so, I wouldn’t blame him at all.

Bummer for me, though. I’ve designed a 600-page book and was planning to use many of Chuck’s fonts throughout.

Well, there’s still his terrific client galleries to enjoy. And when the day comes that Chuck finally realizes what a bad idea this was, I’ll be the first in line to pony up my cash. Hopefully it’ll be before this damn book needs to get produced.

My, my, my...what an interesting, yet difficult to follow thread. We is quite the opinionated bunch, ain’t we? I have a few points I wanted to address.

1. EULA, SCHMULA...we read ’em when we have to. But no busy person or firm is going to sit down and read every one of them if they make many font purchases from many different foundries.

2. There’s a lot to be learned from Heron’s Quark story, as it seems Adobe has learned from Quark’s “piracy paranoia” and makes their software (and EULA) less restrictive. Witness Quark’s ever shrinking market share.

Sii (and everyone as a whole), something I think a lot of people who work for large companies don’t realize, is how faceless companies can be perceived by consumers. This does not go just for the big ’uns— the small ones too. We visit a webpage, we make a purchase. Who are we talking to exactly when we’re buying fonts? There’s no follow-up call with purchases, just an icon that appears on our desktop and e-mailed invoice. Not very personal, no evidence of a human being involved in the process. Phoning the company is plausible to us because many of us here on Typophile actually know someone (or are that someone) who works in the type industry.

As the sole “graphic designer” for the company I work for, I have to play the role of both the Font Congress and the Font Police. Purchasing fonts is a cold business transaction. The type industry as a whole has a serious PR problem to creative types in general and very few people in the industry seem to be willing to address this.

To Chuck directly:

3. Piggybacking my last statement— Malbright’s more positive points are right on the money I think. I would pick up the 12 Immutable Laws of Branding if you haven’t read it already. You’ll learn a lot from that book. Your brand is important, put a face with it.

4. A spin on this discussion— fine tune the installation software and then patent it. If you get it right, I’d bet many, many type companies would pay you for a standardized application and you could end up revolutionizing the type industry as a whole by finding a way around the font piracy issue. You could recoup losses from there. (But that’s aiming high.)

You’re in the software business, so start selling that sh!t! Good luck to you! :)

Your point 4 is creative, and normally I would agree. But let’s be honest. It’s a horrible, non user-focused protection scheme that I predict will stop more customers from buying than pirates from stealing. A more realistic business strategy would be for Chuck to give all his competitors the software for free, hence insidiously killing their businesses and leaving the spoils for himself. Be realistic. The industry will never adopt this as a standard—it’s an unworkable solution and only punishes the honest customers. Great book you recommended by the way—please Chuck, I hope you’re reading all this!

>Sii (and everyone as a whole), something I think a lot of people who work for large companies don’t realize, is how faceless companies can be perceived by consumers.

Can you blame me/us for trying to change that, at least in this ’industry’?

FYI

I just went over to Letterhead’s website (by the way a beta version of Chuck Davis’ LHF Cafe Corina is in the free downloads) and I noticed that on the Home page there is an announcement:

Notice
Letterhead Fonts are now offered in Postscript Open Type, etc.

if you click on that - Chuck is giving full details of the change, what to expect and even if you need to call him after you purchase. It just takes some time to look and read...

http://www.letterheadfonts.com/support/changes.shtml

Can you blame me/us for trying to change that, at least in this ‘industry’?

Absolutely not, Simon. By even mentioning it and showing up so frequently on Typophile you’re inadvertently doing a nice PR job for Microsoft.

“European copyright law has recently changed, to allow artists “commission” on works when purchasers resell them.”

Scary! What next? Ford demanding $100 from every used pickup sold and lawyers flocking to garage sales to collect ’royalties’ on that 20 year old blender you are selling for $.50?

It’s not for mass-produced objects.
I think there is a limit on print-runs for etchings, etc., for those to qualify.

“European copyright law has recently changed, to allow artists “commission” on works when purchasers resell them.”

This “Bruxelles measure” is quite controversial — apparantly a lot of art dealers in Europe plan to move or already have moved their operations off shore, eg to Switzerland.

BTW The compensation is capped — 12500 euro’s max.

>if you click on that - Chuck is giving full details of the change,
>what to expect and even if you need to call him after you purchase.
>It just takes some time to look and read…
>
>http://www.letterheadfonts.com/support/changes.shtml

Yes, this information was all there when I bought one of the new just-released LHF fonts before starting this thread (as I pointed out in an earlier post). But as I’ve noted a couple of times before, the information offered is limited and in my opinion less than honest because it withholds other facts needed for full disclosure. The main three things we are told is the fonts are not put in the system fonts folders, they won’t work with font managers, and they won’t embed in PDFs and have to be converted to outlines first.

But the URL above withholds telling the buyer they no longer get a regular OpenType .otf file they can manage, or that the entire scheme is a black-box operation so the fonts are locked down and the user can’t touch them outside of use within DTP applications. We also aren’t informed fonts cannot be packaged for output to a service bureau, though perhaps one should be able to surmise this from the fact fonts aren’t imbeddable in PDFs, but it certainly isn’t noted. The site info also doesn’t mention that LHF fonts are now either all on or all off with no ability to load them individually.

The user is simply left in the dark about these critical facts and to discover them on their own *after* they have already paid their money and started using the font(s). As Chuck said, he has the right to implement whatever scheme he wants. But by the same token users have a right to be fully informed before making a purchase too. That’s not the case right now.

Also, on the LHF site, this is all framed in the context of being better technology. Nothing at all is said about Chuck being fed up with piracy (other than a vague passing allusion in his “About LHF” bio on the site) and that this was the real reason for the change, or at least the reason for the lockdown aspect of it that is never divulged.

And I think this is because Chuck is probably afraid of what would happen to sales if he were to be completely forthcoming about it. Understandably, I guess. I mean, I like Chuck. I understand the dilemma. But it’s also understandable that many users will need and want to know. If it’s a serious rather than casual or uninformed type user, you’re going to have a seriously annoyed customer on your hands if you make them buy first only to find out the real “gotchas” later.

“I don’t see how a small company could muster the forces to pursue legal action—”
If a small company’s business IS intellectual property represented in digital form, then I’m of the opinion that they must do something. I mean, all such companies are based on the laws that have been enacted to make such property possible. So, it’s only a question when, if you are going to directly license and thus police, you beat a quick path to three stages; send licensing agreement, send cease and desist, file suit. And nevertheless, as this 3-staged legal path making must be done with or without an installer/hider, no?

“most of those doing the stealing would never be customers anyway.”
Exactly. You pick and choose. Maybe it’s different for signage fonts and especially good display faces, but I think it’s not, in fact, I think they are much easier to spot, track and trap, skin and license. I think, we have never made it to stage 3, which is where the real money is to be spent. Either way, I wish them luck with an installer, and if it works, all the better to cut down on policing, maybe?

off shore, eg to Switzerland

Technically correct, but geographically bizarre!

David, how do you know whether someone using one of your fonts is a licensed user?
They might not have licensed it directly from you, but they may have have got it from a distributor who doesn’t pass on the names of purchasers with sales reports.

Another scenario: an advertiser uses one of your fonts in an ad campaign. They haven’t licensed it, but their agency has (or hasn’t). It’s not practical to keep tabs on which companies are using which agencies.

> “European copyright law has recently changed, to allow artists “commission” on works when purchasers resell them.”

I wonder whether the writer is able to specify the would-be paragraph of the would-be “European copyright law”, and I wonder whether he can specify what he means by “recently”.

Two months ago, in the Scangraphic thread, I asked Miss Tiffany to delete my account. But she didn’t. Today, by chance, I stumbled upon this Letterhead thread, which might be used as a supplement to my German documentation

“The mentally deranged graphics designer as font buyer”
(see http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/brendel.pdf)

In my documentation I came to the conclusion that graphic designers who buy “rights” (“licences”) to fonts must be regarded as mentally deranged for various legal reasons, e.g. because they buy “rights”, which do not exist at all.

Graphic designer who buy “rights” to these Letterhead fonts although these “rights” do not exist at all, and who buy “rights” to “Open Type” fonts, although they are “Closed Type” fonts which cannot be located in fonts folders, which cannot be embedded into PDF files, which cannot be backed up, which cannot be used with font managers, which cannot be etc. etc. etc., must be regarded as mentally deranged. Consult your psychiatrist, if you don’t believe me.

I wonder whether he can specify what he means by “recently”.

vor kurzem

In my documentation I came to the conclusion that graphic designers who buy “rights” (“licences”) to fonts must be regarded as mentally deranged for various legal reasons, e.g. because they buy “rights”, which do not exist at all.

Or maybe we do it because it’s less deranged than dealing with letterpress or photolettering.

Why am I looking forward to the impending ’who is more deranged’ flame war?

I must be really deranged :)

No flame war is necessary. What he meant by “must be regarded as mentally deranged” was “I disagree”.

Chuck stated that due to poor business decision(s), he was forced to live in a van. Seems to me, he hasn’t learned anything in terms of sharpening his business acumen. Alienating his loyal/honest customers by having them perform a dog and pony show just to use his typefaces seems a poor business strategy. It could very well lead him right back to skid row.

I can’t stand unethical business practices - never have, never will. Stealing is plain wrong. I don’t read EULA’s anymore only because I don’t copy/steal software or fonts and in the end, that’s essentially what the EULA’s are trying to avoid. My coworkers call me a boy scout. I believe you take people at face value, honor your word and do what is right.

This thread sucks. What’s this, public spanking for Mr Davis? For trying to protect his work in a similar way as do software companies? (At is was mentioned already, Adobe’s implementation of product activation is a real obstacle for backing up &c. Better write the same emails to Adobe — for example.) Come one ...

Karsten

Karsten,

I think you missed the point of this thread.
This is not a bashing of anyone.

Letterhead fonts has changed their practice of how they release fonts to their customers. They have made this as a business decision to protect themselves from piracy.

However, they haven’t taken into account how their customers actually use their fonts. And because of their new policy, they may lose more of their customers. The “lock” on these fonts does not allow a designer to show their work in a way that has become familar to all of us over the last 10 years.

We are worried that this new business plan may hurt Letterpress — more than help.

The issue of piracy has always been discussed thoroughly, the conclusions have always been drawn that those that steal fonts were never going to purchase them. Some foundries therefore keep providing new ideas, fonts, programs, etc. to keep their loyal clients returning for more purchases, helping their ever-shrinking bottom line.

No bashing, just logic.

I agree with Heron here. I mean, take a listen to Type Radio — one question often posed is “Do you have a lot of illegal fonts?”. Take for example Fred Smeijers’ response to this. I can’t quote him exactly, but it came down to that he did, but simply to see if it’s useful, and if he can find a use for a font, he buys it with the money you have then (e.g. the money from the assignment), thus actually boosing font sales with piracy. Now, of course, “piracy” is a bit of a sharp word, but I know countless people who have downloaded, say, a font called ‘Eurostibble’, an imaginary one-weight, unkerned font that is actually a weight of Eurostile from some “Free Fonts!!!” site. Is that piracy? How about downloading Helvetica from Kazaa and then buying it when you need it for some commercial assignment? I find it difficult to draw a line.

And, as has been said before, just give some oppurtunistic coder some time with such an installer, and I am willing to bet that he will be able to extract the fonts. Remember that a lot of people who ’pirate’ fonts actually don’t care if it’s not kerned, or lacks punctuation, or is in any way broken. If it slightly resembles a font, they are happy with it. And they wouldn’t have bought it in the first place. So it could very well be just like DRM on music; the consumer expiriences trouble using a legitly acquired product (a CD that you can’t play on a computer, for example), but the ’cracker’ can simply put the line-out of his CD player into his computer’s line-in to record the music anyway and then share it. So who are you really prohibiting use? If the intent is there, you can bet that one way or another, the goal will be attained.

“This thread sucks. What’s this, public spanking for Mr Davis? For trying to protect his work in a similar way as do software companies?”

What’s this? Someone defending annoying anti-consumer DRM-schemes just because other companies use it?

Anyways, it’s less of a spanking and more of an attempt at bringing awareness to consumers.

“At is was mentioned already, Adobe’s implementation of product activation is a real obstacle for backing up &c. Better write the same emails to Adobe — for example.”

Many do. I haven’t ordered an Adobe product upgrade in about 3 years. I’m holding out as long as I can hoping a few of the open source options get up to speed soon. We’ll see how long I can manage waiting for that. ;o)

> What he meant by “must be regarded as mentally deranged” was “I disagree”.

When I say “mentally deranged”, I mean “mentally deranged”.

Any psychiatrist who studies this case will confirm that graphic designers who buy “rights” to these Letterhead fonts although these “rights” do not exist at all, and who buy “rights” to “Open Type” fonts, although they are “Closed Type” fonts which cannot be located in fonts folders, which cannot be embedded into PDF files, which cannot be backed up, which cannot be used with font managers, which cannot be etc. etc. etc., must be regarded as mentally deranged.

As regards “Open Type” versus “Closed Type”, let us remember why the “Open Type” font format was invented:

The Adobe PostScript fonts from the mid-1980s until the early 1990s were “Closed Type” fonts, because the internal format was kept secret by Adobe and because the fonts were encrypted so that these “Closed Type” PostScript fonts could only be used in conjunction with Adobe’s own special “decrypting” programs, e.g. “Adobe Type Manager” etc.

Later in the early 1990s, after Apple and Microsoft had invented the TrueType format, Adobe revealed the internal format and the encryption scheme of PostScript fonts.

In mid-1990, a really open “Open Type” font format was developed with full documentation and without encryption and with the big advantage that such “Open Type” fonts could be installed on various operating systems (Windows, Mac OS, etc). At that time in mid-1990, the following was proudly and jointly declared by Adobe and Microsoft:

“OpenType fonts and the operating system services which support OpenType fonts provide users with a simple way to install and use fonts”
(see http://www.microsoft.com/OpenType/OTSpec/otover.htm)

Now look at these crippled Letterhead “Open Type” fonts. Do they “provide users with a simple way to install and use fonts”, as defined above by Adobe and Microsoft? Definitely not! These crippled Letterhead fonts are technically “Closed Type” fonts, because the internal format is kept secret, the fonts are hidden and presumably encrypted, and you need a proprietary “installer” without which you cannot use these “Closed Type” Letterhead fonts.

Therefore any psychiatrist will confirm that those graphic designers who suffer from the delusion that they buy “Open Type” Letterhead fonts, while in fact they buy crippled proprietary “Closed Type” fonts rendered useless by various technical restrictions, must be regarded as mentally deranged.

We’re all deranged, as we go about our business surfing the internet, scrolling down web pages, and licensing fonts from type foundries.

For those who are keeping score, Adobe’s protection activation scheme is actually much easier and more workable than Letterhead Fonts’ protection, which is virtually unusable in the professional world of design. Apples to oranges.

At is was mentioned already, Adobe’s implementation of product activation is a real obstacle for backing up &c. Better write the same emails to Adobe — for example.

Adobe’s type licensing though, in my opinion, is about the best in the business because in allows in-house modifications. I think they get away with this because they know their fonts are robust and well made. If someone needs to make adjustments for language support or something they can do it. At any rate, it shows respect for how customers actually use their tools.

@ aluminium

I think I got the point of this thread.

@ Sebastiaan

Yes, I listened to Type Radio — not only to Mr Smeijers’ answer.  ;-)

@ heron2001

No sympathy for current DRM solutions. Partly because they are badly implemented and cause us troubles. Partly because the underlying conception is of yesteryear — the more serious issue. An example: Adobe’s DRM links apps to the computer’s harddrive. But today it does not make sense any more to tie user-identity to the heavy machine on or below the desk, since you can already put your OSX or other Unix on a CD, DVD, external harddrive and possibly (this is really exciting) even flash drive and work from any computer you have access to. (I don’t like carrying a laptop around, as light as it may be.) Within this scenario, why not let the user decide which hard disk or flash drive best serves to identify ’me’ as the paying licensee of the OS, app, fonts, documents? (Today, if I want to use my CS license on many computers, I have to de-activate and re-activate each time, which requires web-connection of each of these computers which is not necessarily given. Just plugging in a flash drive would be so much easier.)

I don’t defend DRM in this case because others use DRM too. My logic is exactly the other way round:
This thread is now 100+ posts, most of them more or less repeating the initial one. However, it is ’just fonts’ which are the least expensive part of designers’ tools, compared to: computer, printer, scanner, s