Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!bschwart From: bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Barry Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.fonts Subject: Re: HP LaserJet Downloadable Fonts Message-ID: Date: 31 Mar 89 06:49:31 GMT References: <1736@trantor.harris-atd.com> <229800002@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <96281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <96538@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Organization: Rutgers Center for DSP Research, Piscataway, NJ Lines: 22 > This is the same as the story that the map is not the territory: you cannot copyright > where one street is in relation to another, but you can copyright the map > describing the relationship. When someone copies the map, even if there is some > format conversion (e.g., color to black & white, or reduction) that is copyright > violation. It is not the same as creating a new map. I imagine you are correct. I am NOT saying I disagree with these laws (and I am NOT saying I agree with them, either). But I think it is important to realize that the distinctions being made are arbitrary. Someone is saying, "I have to draw the line somewhere, so I am going to use *this* criterion." Consider: the font artist will be just as injured if I copy from the printed version as if I copy from the floppy disk, with transformations. And the jury may have to go on someone's testimony that I was seen doing the dirty deed, because one may not be able to tell the difference otherwise. And what if I do some hand tailoring after the perhaps illicit copy? What then?