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

[Eric Seppanen <eds(at)reric.net>]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 10:44:02AM -0400, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> Remember we were having discussions as to whether or not a single bit flag
> was an 'effective technical protection measure'.. Well, it seems that at
> least one organization believes that two bytes is a protection measure.
> 
> True Type Fonts have a couple of flags that indicate in what and how they
> may be embedded into a document. Most programs for editing them set those
> flags to 'not embeddable'.
> 
> So, a lounge-rat here wrote a program that would reset those flags to
> allow him to mark his fonts as embeddable.. He has recieved a DMCA
> takedown letter (which is on its way to ChillingEffects.org) from a font
> house ordering him to remove the program.

Weird coincidence: I just needed this program an hour ago.  I created a 
document with some weird fonts that are available as freeware over the 
net.  Then I tried to create a PDF from my document using Acrobat 
Distiller, which said:

%%[ Warning: Concielian cannot be embedded due to licensing 
restrictions.]%%
%%[ Warning: ConcielianJet cannot be embedded due to licensing 
restrictions.]%%
%%[ Warning: DieHund cannot be embedded due to licensing restrictions.]%%
%%[ Warning: NeverSayDie cannot be embedded due to licensing 
restrictions.]%%
%%[ Warning: Obliviousfont cannot be embedded due to licensing 
restrictions.]%%

The program mentioned allowed me to use these fonts in my PDF file.  
Otherwise, the guy I wanted to send this document to would have to 
download the wierd fonts too, which is kinda what I was trying to avoid 
by using PDF (_Portable_ Document Format).

Eric