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.
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'?
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:
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...
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…
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"
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”.
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 ...
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"
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.
I think I got the point of this thread.
Yes, I listened to Type Radio -- not only to Mr Smeijers' answer. ;-)
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, software, photo equipment, &c. The real problem is that we can, and thus most likely do, copy cheap non-DRM-ed apps and fonts, but not computers; and we can argue with one-man-foundries, but not with the larger corporations -- at best we end up with a student reading standard answers from a problem-solution database. My concern is that this 'awareness campaign' addresses the wrong one.
Apples to oranges -- true, though in a different way: You'll always find a foundry that offers similar fonts. But currently there are no real alternatives to Adobe/Macromedia's applications (which, I should add, I like).
>Adobe’s type licensing though, in my opinion, is about the best in the business because in allows in-house modifications.
Are you sure, I think the current Adobe EULA and hard-to-find FAQ are somewhat contradictory.
But for now, that option doesn’t exist. Personally, that would not prevent me from using original fonts. I too am a designer and I don’t use any font management program. I would rather spend the time designing than turning fonts on and off. If I don’t want a font, I don’t install it in the first place. Apparently several people must agree with me that having Letterhead Fonts with some limitations is better than no Letterhead Fonts, because sales are up. And people are still creating things with our fonts. But even if sales were cut in half as a result of this protection— I would still do it, because of the peace of mind it provides us. And that peace of mind translates into new fonts for you.
However when you're a corporation buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fonts, you need to have the ability to turn on these fonts for particular projects and books while working on others at the same time. We work on files that have grade specific fonts and have to QC files daily switching between grade levels. We need the flexibility of the font management software to allow us to do that. If the font is embedded into the computer's sytem, it causes font issues with files in Adobe and Microsoft products that conflict with that font.
Sad to say that we will not be able to purchase your fonts for our book publishers if that flexibility is not in place. We have enough issues with font conflicts in applications already. Allowing a font foundry to just install fonts willy-nilly into the system is dangerous and not a risk any large book publisher with thousands of users will take.
Good god I couldn't function without a font management program. I'd rather spend the time turning fonts on and off than scrolling through thousands of fonts every time. Plus I need my "playlists" to organize my fonts and narrow things down when I'm choosing fonts for a project.
"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."
This is only 1/3 ? of the conclusion, with all due respect:
The issue of piracy has been discussed thoroughly, the conclusions drawn are several. There are those who steal fonts, never to use or distribute them. We tend to leave these alone as they are either hard to detect or in the design business... Secondly, there are those who steal fonts and are going to license them as soon as they find out it's better to, and we have a net to catch them. Then, there are those who steal fonts and are going to require pursuit...(not that I miss the later, but did I miss anyone, anyone?).
The point I was trying to make to the letterheads at Letterhead, was that you don't find the legit clients amongst the thieves unless you have a net out to catch both the malicious and innocent cases of theft. Besides, there being nothing less useful to a steady hand than anger, except possibly lifting heavy objects, the whole issue is best left to others ASAP. Greg Thompson once called me from a CA Highway in 1990(!) where he'd just passed an immense highway sign using Bodega Sans for the film "Father of the Bride," "Did they license that?", he screamed above the incessant traffic...lol, I did — now too. A few years later he was wondering how much our licensing % had improved, and I said, "I don't know, why not put serifs on Bodega, and we'll see."
Nick asks: "David, how do you know whether someone using one of your fonts is a licensed user?"
I personally don't know who is and isn't a licensed user, and it never "bothers" me. I occasionally participate in the net mentioned above, i.e. when I see our's used by a fortune 2500 company, I ask further up our licensing chain. It was previously mentioned that good customers become uneasy when they see free use "across the street" — our discretion and well-known fondness for genuine admiration-driven theft, encourages both the aggrieved and grief-makers to call us, making another part of the net. Having urls in fonts, is yet another part.
>>Adobe’s type licensing though, in my opinion, is about the best in the business because in allows in-house modifications.
>Are you sure, I think the current Adobe EULA and hard-to-find FAQ are somewhat contradictory.
We'll here's the definitive answer... http://fontlab.wikidev.net/EULA_chart
The only modification allowed is format conversion for internal use. Makes pre-OpenType historical sense given the fact that (with only a few exceptions) Adobe didn't provide TrueType fonts.
We are not a charity. We are a business and as such, we reserve the right to operate as we please. If you do not like the way we conduct our business, I suggest you not purchase our fonts.
Wow. I guess sometimes you get what you ask for. What's happened to customer service these days?
You mean "customer disservice", don't you? :-(
>Wow. I guess sometimes you get what you ask for.
Well, we don't really know what Cathy asked for - we're only seeing the vendor's reply, not the mail/s that it was in response to.
>Well, we don’t really know what Cathy asked for - we’re only seeing >the vendor’s reply, not the mail/s that it was in response to.
You didn't read my post then, sii -- I stated in the sentence right before I pasted Chuck's reply to me what I emailed and asked for! I asked for a ZIP file rather than an auto installer. That's when he gave me the ultimatum that if I didn't like how his fonts were packaged, I didn't have to buy them.