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

[Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Charles Ballowe wrote:

> 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

What if I create, say, a flier and send it off to a print shop? There, the
print shop has turned into my agent, because I lack the appropriate
presses and other material for duplication myself. In this case, I
absolutely require the ability to embed fonts into my document.

(Or will we get into silliness where there exists a document that I can
print and duplicate becuase I bought the fonts, but if I give it to a copy
shop acting like my agent, I suddenly cannot? Yet, I wrote and produced
the origional document.)

> 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

Everything is going online. It is far cheaper to compose a document, then
email it to someone to print locally than to print it, and ship the
finished product.


> 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.

What I find far more interesting is that that program is *5* years old,
and the DMCA is being used as a club to try to retroactively declare that
his program is illegal.

Scott