Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.fonts Subject: Re: Are fonts illegal to copy?? Message-ID: <1990Jul6.092719.18438@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 6 Jul 90 09:27:19 GMT References: <1990Jul1.205518.12783@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Jul2.180307.1697@ico.isc.com> Distribution: usa Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 69 In article esf00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Elliott S. Frank) writes: >In article <1990Jul2.180307.1697@ico.isc.com> >>rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) follows up to an article in which: >>xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> >>> Sadly, there is a huge and probably irreconcilable conflict between the >>> quite understandable desire of a font foundry to protect their fonts' >>> designs, and the rights guaranteed under the first amendment. >> >>No, there is absolutely no conflict. If I produce a work (any work) which >>can be copyrighted, that does not deny you freedom of speech or of the >>press. It only denies you the right to use the work I have copyrighted >>without my permission. > >To misquote A.J. Leibling: > "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one." > >Back in the days of movable type, if you couldn't find a printer willing >to print your manifestoes ("prior censorship"??) you had to buy, build >or borrow your own press and type. If the manufacturer/distributor of the >press/type you wanted was not in agreement, you cuold go away empty >handed. The most important posession of a political party is its >presses. Read the stories coming out of the USSR: the Communist Party >is willing (in various degrees) to give up its monopoly on power, >the special privileges for its members, even the various mansions (dachas) >that it owns, but not its presses and its newspapers. > >It would be a pity if you couldn't print your diatribe in a particular >Old Style if no one will sell/rent/loan you a copy, but there's >always T*ms R*mn or H*lv in almost every laser printer sold. Probably not safe to assume the "existing art" will remain available; here's a snippet of a letter from some email I got, and my reply: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | >Well, for Roman fonts, the argument doesn't hold, of course, since there | >exists a large number of public domain fonts. I agree, however, that because | >of the fundamental importance of written language, protection for fonts | >is a particularly sticky issue. | | Yeah, and as the computerization of printing continues until all the lead | presses are in museums, all the fonts will eventually be ones out of font | foundries, which means all computer designed, and thus, at the code level, | all copyrightable or patentable. Now the protection supplied would mean | nothing if it did not protect against unlicensed _use_ of the fonts (else | I could purchase one code copy and release a million font instances to | spoil the market for the foundry's product), and that will wipe out all | the public domain designs, since if they _are_ protected, then the license | question arises again; if they are _not_ protected because public domain, | then there will be no market motivation to make them available in computer | usable form in the first place. | | Thanks for your note! Now back to rn to see the public reactions! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I say it again; the power to license is the power to destroy! If you don't believe me, come see all the adult book stores being driven out of business locally because the newly enforced licensing restrictions and zoning rules happen not to match any real existing piece of property available for lease or purchase within the city limits, and no variances are being granted. Coincidence? Just happens to be a business with an unpopular viewpoint? Right. Want to buy a nice piece of Florida real estate? Bone dry. ;-) Kent, the man from xanth.