Dan,

That was obviously a pretty tongue-in-cheek post. It's an enormous leap to assume that I think being paid for hard work is a "bad and evil idea."

But, yeah, I definitely take Nick's comments with a grain of salt. It's kind of like HBO blaming PBS for flooding the market with free programming.

That said, I don't want to step on any toes here. I think we can all agree that if anything, free fonts are important because of the sheer number of people out there using them. I'm unconvinced that giving those people nicer fonts is going to hurt anyone's bottom line.

Well, except mine when that first hosting bill shows up.

I would have to agree with those who say that folks who use free fonts don't actually buy fonts. Why would they? What do they actually use them for?

I've bought a lot of fonts and I have a lot of free fonts. I'm mainly interested in historical renditions (mainly as specimens) and I think the free font folk have been much more adventurous in this area. I do think that some of the more serious of the free font movement folk have long ventured into areas that the commercial world would not. The commercial folk seem vicim to a provable market and that market seems continually based on trend and fashion.

I've never used a free font in production because, quite frankly, they don't function very well technically. Not that a lot of commercial fonts do either but one does learn after a while who you can trust. And if you buy a font you damn well better consider it a tool rather than just another pretty face if you want your money's worth. As Lewis Allen said about metal typefaces, "select carefully, for inferior tools corrode the spirit."

I would think the commercial font folks would be paying close attention to the members of Typophile since they are likely the only significant font buyers around. Which makes me wonder why seller Nick continually does the prick act on everyone here.

i'm a fan of free fonts. it's true. i guess it's kinda fun to sift through the junk and find some gems. i have way too many free fonts on my computer, most of which i've never used. i HAVE used more often commercial fonts that i've bought for a specific project. maybe most free font afficionados don't opperate like this, but i think people that really care about good design are going to be willing to purchase quality commercial fonts despite the presence of free fonts on the web.

I think that the Great Western Railway Band (an unpaid collection of musicians who play on the concourse of Paddington Station down the road from where I live) are the sworn enemy of Brittany Spears.

Gerald, I had the pleasure of talking with Nick briefly at Typotechnica, and what is missing from his posts is his impish smile and twinkle in the eye, which cold electronic mail doesn't convey.

That being said, 'rival' would be more appropriate than 'enemy'. Nick is, as he says, very consistent in seeing the buying of fonts from living, professional designers as 'right' and everything else - bundled fonts, free fonts, old revivals - as 'wrong'.

I am baffled as to why they are 'wrong', though. It just seems to be a fact of life that everyone has to compete, and I don't see why bundled fonts, free fonts, or old revivals are unfair in themselves.

Although I can understand Nick's disagreement with the practice of bundling fonts with applications,* I don't agree with it. What I have trouble understanding is his distaste of the continued sale of fonts from deceased designers, or of new revivals of old styles. I just don't get it. If I try to sell someone a Baskerville revival instead of a totally new font by a living designer, what is wrong with that? Sometimes, the big foundry Baskerville is just the right font for the job. Sometimes, something new and contemporary is. Plurality is better than the alternative.

Nick, I hope that designers will still be using your fonts in 100 years!


*Bundling does not always equal bundling, either. When Adobe bundles their own fonts, which were designed at Adobe by Adobe, with their own applications, I don't see how that is hurting the business. When Adobe does that, what they are doing is practicing the business well. Adobe's fonts are part of what made the company what it is today. Monopoly or no, I can bet that [almost] all of us are glad that Adobe products are on the market. Imagine going back to the days of mecanicals and photo composition!

Here's a non-typographic example:

Consider gaming (PS2, Xbox, Computer games). Gaming is a
huge industry and people spend lots of money on gaming.
Unlike the rest of the economy, the gaming sector didn't see a
huge downturn. Some companies (EA, Bungie) saw strong gains.
But there are still people who enjoy games and play games
frequently that will never buy them. Think about all those people
that play solitaire, minesweaper or bowling on their mobile
phone. They may never buy a game, but they enjoy games. I
don't think the gaming industry looks at these people as leeches
or as freeloaders. Are they trying to 'convert' them into game
buyers, absolutely.

If all a type designer creates is one-dimensional, one-off
typefaces, then he/she may be right to be concerned about
competing with free fonts. And to finish the analogy, if games
are of the 'free' quality don't expect people to pay for them
when all that means is they'll stick to solitaire.

>But, yeah, I definitely take Nick's comments with a grain of salt. It's kind of like HBO blaming PBS for flooding the market with free programming.

Not really. Cute to compare yourself with PBS, rather than some other, commercial channel which comes "free" with basic TV service. Whether basic or pay-per-view, the norm is that content is paid for by subscribers. (It may also be subsidized by advertisers, volunteers, fundraising, or government). The staff of public service TV stations are paid for their work, and the stations pay a fee to movie & TV producers/distibutors to broadcast their movies/programs.

>I believe most of those who frequent Fontleech are not font buyers. The font market isn't losing sales when these people surf Fontleech.

These are two different points. There is a distinction between individual behavior and mass markets. Sure, any given freeloader may not be a buyer, but it's absurd to say that the widespread availabilty of free fonts doesn't impact the market for font sales.

>people that really care about good design are going to be willing to purchase quality commercial fonts despite the presence of free fonts on the web.

I have no idea what you mean by good design or quality fonts. These are meaningless, subjective terms. This discussion is about hard cash: either a font is paid for, or it is not. I don't see why my business is expected to restrict itself to a niche market of elite typographers who really, really care about "good" design and "quality" fonts, while the vast majority of computer users have their font requirements provided for at no charge by those who don't need to make money from fonts.

As an independent designer of original typefaces, the behavior I am up against is:

-piracy
-free fonts
-bundled fonts
-legacy fonts

If people are using pirated, free, bundled, or legacy fonts, they are less likely to buy my wares. This has nothing to do with how "good" the fonts are.

The larger issue is that all these practices represent a commodification of design, where the main criterion is The Cheaper The Better.

As Marlene J. Horne puts it in her recent report on the struggling UK design industry:

"Design has become a 'commodity'. Agencies are competing purely on price rather than on expertise & market sector experience especially in the 0-5 [company size] bracket. This is upheld by results which show that the 0-5 share of turnover has decreased even though in terms of percentage they make up the larger part of the industry."

http://www.icograda.org/web/feature-past-single.shtml?pfl=feature-single-2.param&op2.rf1=209

It's not a good idea to encourage the perception that any part of the design industry, such as font design, can be good and free, which is what you are doing Stephen, by supporting Fontleech. Didn't the name tip you off that it was a bit dodgy ;-?

> I don't see why my business is expected
> to restrict itself to a niche market of
> elite typographers

Simple: Because you expect to make good money at it. A necessary humble realism precludes persistent complaining about the natural results of human nature. It just makes you look bad (not to mention feel lousy), with no real benefit.

BTW, William, your Dubya has an impish smile and twinkle in the eye too... But Nick is no criminal.

hhp

W has a sneer, not impish at all. And he's not mine any more than he is yours. I didn't vote for the SOB.

But you approve of the system that put him in place, and I don't - so he's less mine than yours.
But at least we can agree on Nick.

hhp

Bill, Dan, thanks for the kind words.

>What I have trouble understanding is his distaste of the continued sale of fonts from deceased designers,

Dan, it's not about taste. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't dominate the market. I love and respect the classics as much as the next guy, but my argument is about solidarity, not aesthetics. We should support today's creatives representing today's local cultures, in every way possible, because they are us.

>or of new revivals of old styles.
I don't mind that so much, and I've done a few meself.

>It just makes you look bad
Don't care.

>(not to mention feel lousy)
Feel fine

>with no real benefit.
So what the cause is lost?

> Don't care.

Then expect to make less money.

> So what the cause is lost?

Your "cause" is getting people to buy more fonts?
Even PETA makes more sense.

hhp

>Then expect to make less money.

I never expect to make any money. Everything I do I do for love.

>Your "cause" is getting people to buy more fonts?

Actually, no. The cause is lost because design is becoming a commodity. Work it out.

I imagine that members of the world's oldest profession have a dim view of marriage.

(Sorry for the tasteless metaphor.)

But, what can you do about it? I gave up on type design for a long time because the whole system seemed to be set up like those "honor" boxes you see in company break rooms.

Then I discovered a few years ago that, in spite of all that, with a little luck, talent and perseverance, it's possible to earn enough to make it worthwhile to the point that it's become my main source of income, something I never seriously expected to happen.

Has all the piracy, bundling, free fonts, and existing fonts caused people to stop creating new typefaces? It seems like just the opposite has happened, that there's more activity in this field than ever before. It's no way to get rich, for sure, but still way more than a hobby for a large number of people.

Let them have their "free" fonts. There seem to be enough people who appreciate the good stuff and know where to find it.

>>I don't see why my business is expected to restrict itself to a niche market of elite typographers...while the vast majority of computer users have their font requirements provided for at no charge

Your business isn't expected to do anything, by anybody except yourself.
Do Perrier ask why their business is expected to restrict itself to the niche market of water connoisseurs, when most people have all the water they want on tap?

I'm no particular fan of the market, but if you're going to get involved, then it just seems plain common sense that if the customer can't tell the difference between what you're selling and what someone else is giving away for free, then they'll take the free option.
That's why you're business is restricted to a niche market, because they're the ones who can tell the difference.

>The cause is lost because design is becoming a commodity.

I once did a very interesting interview with Aaron Feuerstein, the owner of Malden Mills, which produces Polartec fleece. He is famous as a model of an ethical boss.

When I asked him why he didn't flee New England when everyone else was moving their factories to get cheap labor, he said this (paraphrasing):

"I never wanted to produce commodity goods, because I would then have to compete just on price. I wanted to produce quality, and for that labor costs were less critical. When everybody left the area, I saw the pool of skilled labor left behind as a great opportunity."

So even in cloth there are both commodity and value goods. The fact that some design and typefaces are becoming commodity goods doesn't mean that all have to be. It is clear that an independent designer is only going to be able to compete on quality.

I'm not sure what you are advocating for, Nick...that the type industry should collude and establish some price fixing and threaten the free font folks with some lead pipes? ;o) ;o) ;o)

I'm actually a professional designer who has a need for free fonts. Well, not a need, but I sure appreciate the odd nice one that comes along. I work in a government agency and trying to convince folks that a good use of taxpayer money is to invest in a new typeface for me to use in this year's PDF annual report just isn't a very viable battle for me to fight.

I also think that a blog of this sort can easily show those 'free font fans' out there that spend most of their time scrapbooking what makes for a good font vs. a bad font and, likely, may actually encourage sales over time.

In the end though, it's a free market, and digital markets are about as free as you can get in terms of low barriers to entry. I'm all for commercial-ware, freeware, and open source projects living together peacefully.

For most of type's history it was near impossible for just anyone to get a typeface to the market. Those who controlled the technology controlled the selection of typeface designs. This continued into the digital era but the change begain with Adobe's unlicensed PostScript Type 3 format.

When Adobe unlicensed its PostScript Type 1 format it was not because they were nice folk but rather it was a move to squash the competitions' proprietary formats. Through the use of software programing that took advantage of these unrestricted formats, such as Fontographer, anyone could start making fonts. By piggybacking on the formats some folks were even able to start profit making companies, such as Emigre. Only a few years prior this would have been near impossible. The beginning of free fonts coincides with this.

I would think that any indy foundry would have walked into this with full knowledge of the situation and eyes wide open. To hear complaints from these folks about the economic environment they operate in is almost pathetic. When passed pie, take pie, but don't complain about it afterward.

I thought the OpenType format was actually an attempt to rectify the situation in that is is far more complicated to make an OT font than a TT or PS1 font. The vast majority of the free font stuff that is lingering around is early to mid 90s in creation. With the exception of the output of the die hard free font movement folks there are less and less free fonts coming onto the scene. This also has to do with the fact that tastes have changed. The grunge movement is dead. It is much harder to produce a face of classic letterform proportions than to just pop off.

With FontLab's capability to create OT fonts we certainly will not see the end of the free font era (though it is a tad more expensive than FOG was), but I suspect in the next go around or two we might. I would think that it is in the best interests of those who actually supply the technology to do so.

Strange... a post where I agree with Gerald Lange, William
Berkson and Hrant Papazian. =)

A former boss of mine once told me that price is not a good
differentiator because someone can always beat you on price.
I've found those good words to live by. Free fonts, then are the
ultimate low price and I can see how it would be frustrating,
but I can't see how it's 'wrong.'

>When passed pie, take pie, but don't complain about it afterward.

I'm very thankful for what the digital economy has made possible. But that doesn't mean it's beyond criticism. We all know how it devalues intellectual property.

The market is not beyond influence, either, which is why there are all kinds of industry organizations which promote the interests of their members.

There are design organizations, but nothing for the relatively new profession of type designers. SOTA and ATypI have independent type designers on their boards, but also educators, marketers, publishers, and engineers.

I'm concerned that creatives in the graphic arts don't earn as much as others in less skilled professions.

According to Horne, speaking of UK designers, "Today fees rates are at 1993 levels despite annual increases in salaries and all other operational costs."

She is on the same track as Stephen, recognizing the need for creatives to convince clients/users of the value of high quality work. As I said before, I don't believe that endorsing "Fontleech" will do that, in fact it will do the opposite. I mean, the name is a total diss, implying that anyone who pays for fonts is a real sucker, right?

Nick

I suspect there are enough power players around to make a type design organization a possibility. But, my god, what a horror that would be!!!

If you think graphic arts folks are underpaid, imagine what it is like in the printing/book arts sector. Adequate pay is a mute issue.

I finally took a look at Fontleech. Maybe half a minute or so. Enough to form an initial impression. I did note a sporadic concern for quality or at least an apparatus in place. I can't say I've ever seen that before on any other free font site. Maybe its not such a bad thing. On the other hand, I complain a lot about the lack of quality in the book arts and folks are always insistant that the grass roots efforts provide the path to "the road." I tend not to think so, and am not popular for that opinion.

I don't believe that the free font movement is your enemy. Trying to forge a living out of anything that is off course from the norm is extra ordinarily difficult. No matter how talented and skilled and knowledgable, it still takes incredible survival skills and pure circumstantial luck to establish any sort of niche. One can turn quite bitter, but that won't help, I can vouce for that. All you can do is forge on. Maybe, maybe not. If its worth doing though, and you think so, its worth doing.

I run a business - a graphic design studio. We have similar issues, as we have to deal with amateur designers who work for free, freelancers who practically work for free and so on.

I am not focused on what they are doing and how it hurts my business. I have instead identified my market segment. I have identified what value they are looking for in my services. (By value I mean what they want to get out of using my firm and what they are willing to pay for.) And I have identified what my firm can do batter than anyone else - what we are great at.

With all that I just stay focused. I don't react to the others. I let the freelancers wrestle over crappy clients with no cash and high expectations. I do not even worry about competitors of equal size. I know ahead of time that not everyone is going to want what I have to offer. That is OK.

The deal is, if I treated my offerings as a commodity I would worry. But, I have learned how to sell it as something other than a commodity. I sell value. People love value.

So, maybe Nick is thinking about his fonts as a commodity that he manufactured? Nick, have you done any marketing research on your ideal customers? Do you know why they buy from you and your competitors? Do you sell to those reasons?

Think I am making it all too simple? Look at our pals over at House Industries. They know their target market. They sell to them in a way that communicates the value the customer wants. It is all over designed, cool, pop culture flavor - they sell to designers.

You see what I am saying? If you are throwing some fonts out there with a steep price (relative to free fonts, mind you) and just hoping people find you, well then you should be angry about Fontleech.

If you have done your marketing homework and have a real plan and are walking it out - then don't sweat it, yo.

I bet you can tell that unlike Steve P, I love the market.

;)

Mike

For the record, I'm doing OK with the foundry, though not as well as when I was an art director. Those were my peak earning years (early 40s), so that might have something to do with it. But as Mark and Gerald have said, it's amazing even to be able to make any kind of a living designing type, which is something many of the greats couldn't do. Reason enough to be humble, as Hrant requested.
I enjoy being in business for myself, so yeah, the market is endlessly engaging. And I'm not bitter.

Mark, combaticus, I love your attitude, and everyone else with the live-and-let-live, and thanks for the constructive suggestions.

My beef with free fonts, and Fontleech, is a social policy issue. Sorry to keep harping on this. My argument is most with Stephen Coles. That may seem crazy, because we're both "typo activists". So really, we're two people heading in the same direction, with different opinions on the best way to get there. It's no big deal. Stephen, I hope this discussion helps you refine your strategies.

Long ago I've enjoyed a General Discussions thread so much...

Nick, you are a gracious man. What a nice follow-up. And, I am glad to know that you are making a decent living doing what you love.

Mike

>Those were my peak earning years (early 40s), so that might have something to do with it.

It's great that you were able to make money during the war. Was it a government contract? ;-)

I've checked out Fontleech further and it seems that in a number of instances there is a search for free fonts given away as promotions by commercial foundries. I have to think that this in itself is a good thing, that there is a portal here. Maybe Stephen's initial post was right on. God it hurt to say that. :

>I'm concerned that creatives in the graphic arts don't earn as much as others in less skilled professions.>
Hey Nick, if I knew then what I know now, I would have gone into the building trades, carpentry, house painting, etc., a long time ago, Make a decent living from graphic design or type design? You can't be serious. Few do.

Jordan - when you say few make a decent living at graphic design are you referring to freelancers or those working at a firm?

Mike
>Jordan - when you say few make a decent living at graphic design are you referring to freelancers or those working at a firm?< Actually, both. As an "art director" for magazines I never made more than a barely living wage, and as a freelancer, it was hand to mouth, some months good, some crummy. And with more and more people working for firms creating their own stuff with "standard" software, everyone is a "graphic designer" so why bother hiring someone?

Usually a lurker here, but i had to register and respond to this trhread. I came across joey's site - fontleech, earlier this week and look forward to it growing.

For the record I publish a few independent magazines and spend between $500-$1000 a year on type. That being said I do enjoy coming across a good frrebie now and then, although they are far between.

I was struck by Mr. Shinn's comments as being overtly harsh and negative. Type design is as much a hobby for many as itr is a profession.

Like any professional you will have a certain clients who will buy most of your product. Period. Type sales is not a mass market. And there are plenty of people out there who try their hand at creating type to various degrees of success and offer their work for free. Good for them, and good for type. Who knows where inspiration is going to come from.

The people that know know that you get what you pay, especially with type.

As a consumer of fonts I love professional founderies that offer freebies. Maybe it's human nature, but I like that they are willing to give something extra - and even intice new clients that way. It's called market capitalism.

I am not talking about piracy or frree rip offs of commercial fonts, those thihngs are plagues on type design - professionally and otherwise. What fontleech seems to me is someone who is generally interested adn knowledgable about type sharing his enthusiasm for it, and also provding a good resource.

I have to say I was unaware of District from Garage fonts, that he highlighted yesterday. I downloaded rthe free weight available from the resource he cited, and can you guess what my next purchase will be? Yes, District.

I think it will, wirth care, grow into a valuable resource for the type community, one that foundries and designers should work with as a marketing and news tool.

Mr Donnelly, I'm not against hobbyists, nor do I deny Fontleech's right to hype free fonts. This thread is about whether its wise for commercial foundries to get into bed with a free font agency.

From the perspective of the independent foundry, it may be good business, a way to tap into a new market.

But from the perspective of the designer's role in society, it's not good.

With the digitization of the graphic arts, design software has swelled the ranks of those making a living as "graphic artists" some 25-fold. But as Mr Davies points out, part of the deal is that for many, it's not a very good living. Too bad, some would say, let free-market Darwinism winnow the chaff.

This is a similar issue to that of graphic designers doing speculative work as part of a sales pitch. Why work for nothing? Why give stuff away? Why make good quality free fonts easily available? In the short term, it may get some foundries some business, but in the long term it will, to some degree, impoverish the industry.

What would the type business have been like if Adobe, Microsoft and Apple didn't bundle fonts with their applications? More of a mass market.

>one that foundries and designers should work with as a marketing and news tool

Somehow, I don't think that's what Mr Nelson had in mind when he named it after a parasite.

Nick,

The name is a self-deprecating joke. It doesn't imply that "anyone who pays for fonts is a real sucker" as you suggested.

You chose to overlook something pretty important in Brian's post: someone plans to buy some commercial fonts based on one of the freebies we pointed them towards. If that doesn't pull the rug out from under you argument, I'm not sure what does.

But you are right about one thing: I'm not interested in working as a marketing or news tool for commercial foundries. That's not the intention of the site. Obviously, if a commercial foundry or font seller is offering a nice font for free (like FontShop does every month), I will cover that. With any luck it might even result in the sale of a commercial font or two. That seems like a no-lose situation.

I'm not sure which aspect of that scenario that victimizes you. But I'm sure you'll point it out.

Joey

Mr Shinn,

I am not following your logic. You talk about market forces adn then talk about the technology behind a revolution in the art of graphic design and business.

Coming from a musical background, is Pro Tools a good thing or a bad thing for the music industry? Has it allowed more real artists to make a living producing and selling there art? Yes, absolutely. Has it allowed more and more talentless hacks to flood the market with bad music. Yes. The business and the market will adjust accordingly.

Yes, a revolution in the technology of graphic design has changed everything. Fontleetch seems to ba an outgrowth of it. You can't grow forward and hold onto the old suppositions of the market and technology.

I am not a "graphic designer", but I work with graphics enough to put together professional independent magazines. I learned in the digital era. I am 38 years old and came late to the field. When I was 19 I dated a Parsons student and was bored to tears by her discussions of serif and san serifs and type. The technology now available has brought that world to me, and I have some facility in it. Will I have your talent and dexterity in it? Probably not.

But I had a vision to publish amagazine and hve the tools and dedication to do it singlehandedly. The revolution in technology has allowed this.

I have the utmost respect for the time, talent and dedication and sacrifice neccessariy to make a living by creating, regardless of the field, but one cannot stand onthe sidelines and tsk tsk that technology radically changes every artea of human endeavor.

I am sure blacksmiths tsk tsk the loss of livelihood and craftsmenship when industrialization started. Warriors lamented the beginning of the gunpoweder era. Ceratinly we lose some things, we gain others. The fact that you put "graphic artists" into quotations seems to me you have an outdated notion of what a grpahic artist is - that it needs to meet certain technical reqiurements and not be judged by the end product.

I put "graphic artists" in quotations because that is the term Pamela Pfiffner used in her book on Adobe, where I got the 25x figure from -- I think she/Adobe derived the quantity partly from sales of their software, and it covers users of Photoshop, who may be photographers/digital retouchers/image manipulators, artists who use Illustrator, as well as graphic designers using illustrator/InDesign, who do not really consider themselves artists.

I'm not standing on the sidelines, thank you very much.

One doesn't have to be against new technology to be concerned about its effect on society. One doesn't have to be against capitalism to be concerned about the way the market is regulated.

The laissez-faire economic philosophy is naive, and was superceded in the 19th century, although it has made something of a come-back with neo-conservatism.

If people don't stand up for their rights, they will be trampled by market forces. This is why politicians run for office, workers unionize, pressure groups agitate, and why professionals form bodies like the AIGA and the GDC. Society moves forward, as does technology.

<em>If people don't stand up for their rights, they will be trampled by market forces. </em>

I agree completely, but you're sort of asking for a regulation of hobbies. Runaway capitalism is bad, but I'm not sure if runaway open source software, or creative commons licenses really are the same level of 'evil'.

I'm not asking for regulation of anything. (We have regulations, but they are ignored; companies will do what they can get away with.) I'm suggesting that it's not a good idea for commercial foundries to give away free product, and encourage Fontleech.

It's not a big deal, compared to the huge manipulation of the font marketplace effected by Adobe, Apple, and Microsoft with their bundling of free fonts, but it is the subject of this thread.

Nick, I'm definitely sympathetic to your goals. However, I think that on balance things like fontleech can be good for independent type designers.

To me, the thing that makes fontleech rise above the banner ad-infested "one billion free font" sites is its emphasis on quality. Like it or not, free fonts are very popular. The vast majority of them suck big time, which is bad in all sorts of ways.

By focussing on good fonts, fontleech has the potential to teach free font enthusiasts that quality makes a difference. Good free fonts are still very scarce, so regular visitors will undoubtedly get the message that if you want quality, you should be prepared to pay for it. This is a very different message than you get from the trillion-font download sites.

The other thing that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about fontleech the care it takes to attribute fonts correctly. To me, that is one of the most important ethical considerations, and an area in which even the largest and most mainstream foundries could stand improvement (cough, Segoe, cough).

When I finally get around to my free releases, I will happily spam them to fontleech. I'd also love to figure out a licensing strategy that would keep them from being piled in with the rest of the crap on the scammy sites, and hopefully preserve the use and distribution of the fonts with free software. I'm not sure whether such a thing is even possible, but I'd like to try.

I think that free downloads as teasers, like what FontShop USA has been doing, may be a good thing for larger-sized foundries or for font distributors, but Nick's gut is probably right that it is bad for small, independent type designers., especially in the short run.

While the world will always need more fonts

Raph - Nice post. Thank you for making a very good point that I
overlooked: due credit. It's something that is scarce or poor on
most free font sites.

Dan, FontShop's a good example of the teaser thing. I'm going to license Absara for a job because I was able to work with one weight for free. It really is effective marketing.

Yeah Chris, I agree. This is the interesting point. If I were FontShop, I would keep doing just that. But if I were Nick, I probably wouldn't! Both viewpoints need to reconcile somehow