[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical protection measure?



Yes but the problem here is that the business model for PRINT fonts and 
those for electronic communicitons are NOT the same be cause the medium is 
different.  If monotype wishes to enter the electronic communications 
market then they must adapt their business model to it rather than trying 
to change the nature of business communications. Of course, they are not 
alone...look at the RIAA, MPAA, APA and all the companies that have gotten 
powerful....my attitude is that since nobody forces them onto the 
internet, if they choose to be there they must accept the technical 
limitations and ramifications....but that's why they have Senators 
Hollings(wood) and Feinstein




Charles Ballowe <hangman@steelballs.org>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
04/24/02 01:38 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical protection measure?


On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:47:08PM -0700, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> I think the argument went beyond the developer of the fonts.....My 
> apologies if my comments were unclear. They were directed at Monotype 
and 
> others.  The tool is clearly supports fair use for the developer's 
fonts. 
> The issue is if it allows fair use of other's fonts. ... I think the 
> concensus is that it does. The concept of having a non-embeddable font 
> really contradicts the purpose of having an electronic font.

I'll accept that the buisness model is old, but the market for fonts grew
from print media, not electronic communications. (For that matter, font's 
that look good on screen aren't always the same as fonts that look good 
on paper). Fonts that are sold for print use can sensibly be marked 
non embeddable. It makes sense. If you specify at the time of purchase 
that you wish to use the fonts in electronic communication and they tell
you that you can, then you might have your argument for failure to meet
an implied warranty of merchantability. If the font vendor is assuming 
that you are purchasing the fonts for print work (which their buisness
model was built around and for a long time was a safe assumption) then
your case is hard to make.

I think this developer (tom7@cs.cmu.edu) has every right to produce and
distribute the "Embed" program. I find it amusing that the lawyers in
question are only calling on 1201(a)(1), at least in his threat, for 
which there is no evidence and no case.

-charlie

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 04/24/02 09:31 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical 
protection measure?
> 
> 
> You're all missing a basic point.  You're arguing as if the
> font creator WANTS the font to be non-embeddable.  According
> to the information, the person who created the "circumvention
> tool" created it so that he could embed fonts that he, himself,
> had created.  The font creation tool would not allow him to
> create an embeddable font ... the font tool was _preventing_
> him from excercising his own rights to his own creation!
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:45 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical protection
> > measure?
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm...
> > 
> > I could see them saying that copying the entire font is infringement,
> > whereas certain charicters may not be, but considering that in any
> > reasonably sized letter, all of the charicters are used...
> > 
> > But I can also see how they could say that your final 
> > communication will
> > be a specific size, etc., and rendered bitmaps should be sent 
> > instead of
> > the outline fonts.
> > 
> > But really, if you can't use the fonts, people will be likely just to
> > choose other fonts.
> > 
> >  -- noah silva
> > 
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > 
> > > Actually, I contend that it is NOT infringement if you 
> > "copy the ttf file to your receipient". I have paid to use 
> > the font in 
> > > communications. If the font cannot be used in 
> > communications to others 
> > > then it is failing the test for merchantability.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be another old business model that needs to 
> > be retired. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Charles Ballowe <hangman@steelballs.org>
> > > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > 04/23/02 08:34 PM
> > > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> > > 
> > > 
> > >         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > >         cc: 
> > >         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is 
> > a technical protection measure?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The market for fonts is developed around a model where 
> > documents are not
> > > distributed in electronic form. For electronic 
> > distribution, non-embedable
> > > fonts make no sense.
> > > 
> > > Of course, those 2 bits don't prevent somebody from taking 
> > the font file
> > > and dropping it in their fonts directory. They just prevent 
> > it from being
> > > embedded in a document. You could still copy the ttf file to your 
> > > receipient,
> > > but that would be direct infringement - but not circumvention.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 08:25:36PM -0700, 
> > microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > Yes but a NOT professional printer has PAID for the 
> > ability to use the 
> > > font. 
> > > > Privately it matter not to me WHat font I use for most of 
> > what I write 
> > > <I 
> > > > prefer Times Roman> but when I create something with a 
> > font, I want that 
> > > font 
> > > > used when I publish it albeit to the limited distribution 
> > that I do. I 
> > > have 
> > > > paid for it. Personally I have no need to use that font 
> > ONLY when I 
> > > distribute
> > > > it to others and I paid to do so-even when the printer is 
> > acting as my 
> > > agent. 
> > > > In the electronic age, printers are acting more as agents 
> > as they take 
> > > camera 
> > > > ready copy.
> > > > 
> > > > The whole notion that one can distribute a font for 
> > someone to use in 
> > > private 
> > > > but not for public distribution of the work is so stupid 
> > that I wonder 
> > > what 
> > > > disease affects their mind other than SchiessKopf Syndrome.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
>