Font Raid Spells Trouble for Publisher

rs232 writes to tell us The Register is reporting on a publishing firm that got fined for using unlicensed fonts. The firm claimed to only be actively using one font, but was found to be using approximately 11,000. In addition to their font headaches, the firm was also found to be unlicensed on 95% of their Adobe software and 75% of their Microsoft software — talk about a bad week.

the beast of the nature

[yagu]

FTA:

The publisher was the subject of a BSA enquiry after an ex-employee tip-off, said the BSA, which is funded by software companies.

, and:

"For many companies fonts are an integral part of their branding, and none more so than publishers who rely on them to produce many distinct publications."
The problem is complicated by the fact that some fonts can arrive as part of other people's documents and can sometimes stay, unlicensed, on a network.

So, if:

• you own or are part of a company that has ex-employees OR
• you receive documents from other people/companies

I'm sure this is just a partial list but it illustrates nicely the pitfalls of software narcs. I won't deem whether this company is off the deep end on their violations -- it looks like they were less than careful, but these "violations" can appear in bizarre and unexpected ways. I'd not even thought of the possibility one could be harboring illegitimate payload by dint of receiving someone's documents.

I have however experienced it in other ways. I one time found an installation of Excel on one of our company computers with MY NAME, and MY LICENSE KEY! To this day I have no idea who or how that was "pirated".

The BSA (ironic acronym matching a possibly more wholesome organization, n'est-ce pas?) is a snarky pest, generating ill will from C to shining C++. I'd be interested to know their bottom line, for all of the dollars spent running the BSA how many dollars are returned in generated revenue.

Then, if it is even a positive number (I doubt it), I wonder if anyone would spend the dime and time to discover what the loss in sales from ill will spawns. Of course it's only speculation on my part, but I'm pretty sure I read an article in the last year where an organization switched proprietary purchasing gears after being ratted out, and skewered for some pretty honest mistakes.

Someday, they should consolidate... just call them: MRB (MIAA/RIAA/BSA). Every new article I read about any of these pushes me further from commercial offerings (not that that is any great deal anymore).

(After visiting Camden Publishing's website (I won't give URL, suspect they've got enough without slashdot) it appears to be a small to modest size company, and while they're a publishing company, I'd be surprised to see a company their size able to sustain large budgets for auditing (though it seems BSA has finally accommodated them). And even though the numbers are 95%, and 75% for "pirated" Adobe and Microsoft products, what are the real numbers? I'd be surprised if they were big, and I'd not be surprised if it's a case of a small staff cloning (technically illegally of course) software for convenience and under audited guidelines probably would not have purchased more copies.)

Re:the beast of the nature

[bluekanoodle]

You've got a good point. Sure the BSA proclaims that 75% of their Office licenses were "pirated" but how many really is that? 4 PC's? 400?

marketing

[nurb432]

But for marketing purposes, % makes more of an impact.

Re:marketing

[bky1701]

I think you mean for propaganda purposes.

Re:the beast of the nature

[thesandtiger]

I'm sure that it was actually some small number of machines - could be 3 - so "3 machines had unlicensed software" vs. "75% of their Office installations were pirated" does make sense.

BUT!

I have no problem with individuals pirating software for their personal use. I, personally, have pirated just absurd quantities of software throughout the years - everything from Visual Studio and Office on to every Adobe and Macromedia app out there, and then into some really esoteric and freakishly expensive 3D software. And I learned how to use most of the tools I used professionally on pirated copies. However, if I found something useful and wanted to make it into a business, I bought a legit copy.

To me, using pirated software to make money is just flat out wrong. Not an acceptable practice at all. Even if it's "only" a couple of copies of Office (and, after all, MSFT is the devil) - still not acceptable. I am sure that Camden would be pissed if people stopped paying them for their work, or if people simply took their copyrighted works and re-published them to sell as their own. It's just not kosher.

If a business can't afford the tools they need to do a job, then they either need to find cheaper tools, change the way they do business, negotiate with the vendors, or get out of their field.

I don't like the bullshit tactics that the BSA uses, but I also don't think that anyone they stomp on is automatically on the side of the angels, either.

Why is "pirating for personal use" OK?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

You sir, are the reason why DRM is really needed and why everyone will get stuck with it. Thank you fucking very much.

And speaking as someone who currently works on code that ultimately goes into those ludicrously expensive 3D applications the GP poster mentioned, I'd like to thank that poster personally for ripping me off. After all, like all software developers, I am ludicrously wealthy as a result of the software I make. My employer being ripped off doesn't in any way impact the profit-sharing scheme that pays my rent and that of my equally ludicrously overpaid colleagues.

I imagine those who spend months designing high quality professional fonts feel much the same way. Font design is one of those crafts where very few people are genuinely good at it, but using good work has a subtle but very real effect. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect those benefitting from the hard work of skilled craftsmen to pay fair compensation in return, and I fail to see why it matters whether they're doing it for personal financial benefit or for some other reason.

I find it tragic that the GP's position is so acceptable around here that it actually gets modded insightful.

Re:Why is "pirating for personal use" OK?

[thesandtiger]

I'll tell you why I feel it is OK:

Because I'd absolutely never have bought the software otherwise. The "personal use"/"learning" installs of pirated softwares allowed me to assess a tool, learn how to use it and then make an informed choice as to whether or not I would buy it.

When possible, I have obtained legitimate demo versions of software - unfortunately, the demo versions are frequently crippleware, and most usually the features they cripple are ones that it is absolutely essential to test. So, when the demo is not simply time limited, I tend to pirate to test and then make a decision.

So, what it comes down to is:

I pirate, evaluate and then some companies make money from my purchases.

vs.

I don't pirate, I don't get to evaluate, and then nobody makes money from my purchases.

But, you know, you want to get righteously indignant - I suppose that's perfectly fair.

Now, to speak directly to you:

You said:

And speaking as someone who currently works on code that ultimately goes into those ludicrously expensive 3D applications the GP poster mentioned, I'd like to thank that poster personally for ripping me off. After all, like all software developers, I am ludicrously wealthy as a result of the software I make. My employer being ripped off doesn't in any way impact the profit-sharing scheme that pays my rent and that of my equally ludicrously overpaid colleagues.

Given my argument above, do yo see that you aren't getting ripped off? And, in fact, how in my particular case, the piracy may have lead to a sale that your company otherwise would not have made? Or would you rather continue with your angsty sarcasm and ignore the realities of the situation?

You also said:

I find it tragic that the GP's position is so acceptable around here that it actually gets modded insightful.

Yes, yes - it's a real tragedy. The sad violin music is making it really hard to concentrate. I find it tragic that so many businesses that produce otherwise great software don't have any kind of useful evaluation/demo version available for people to test-drive before plonking down their money, and yet their developers want to bitch people out who often eventually become paying customers, rather than bitch to their own management who makes piracy a viable option in the first place.

I have no problem what-so-ever paying whatever the going rate is for a good and useful tool, but you can bet your ass that I have a BIG problem with buying a pig in a poke.

Re:the beast of the nature

[GGardner]

Every new article I read about any of these pushes me further from commercial offerings (not that that is any great deal anymore).

I'm sorry, but this is an unlicensed thought. Please change your mind or pay up.

Re:the beast of the nature

[bunions]

The BSA (ironic acronym matching a possibly more wholesome organization, n'est-ce pas?)

The motorcyle people? I dunno, a friend of mine broke his ankle kick-starting one.

Re:the beast of the nature

[kurzweilfreak]

Wow, I was way off, as I was thinking of the Bull Shit Association, which could also be construed as a possibly more wholesome organization, or at least an equally wholesome one, as the other BSA.

Eh, 6 of one, half dozen of the other; it all smells like crap.

Re:the beast of the nature

[spun]

In the publishing business, managing your fonts is an important part of doing business. Technically, I'm not even sure that customers are allowed to include fonts, but they do it all the time. Typefaces are not copyrightable, but computer generated fonts count as programs, and so they are copyrightable. Generally speaking, if I bought a page layout program, "PageFoo," and my printing house did not own a copy, I could not include a copy of PageFoo with my files to enable that printing house to print them out. Is it technically legal to do the same with font files unless the license permits this? I don't think so. Does everyone do it anyway? Yes. Do publishers keep customer font around in case the customer forgets to send it in? All the time.

Re:the beast of the nature

[TheGavster]

It's interesting you should mention it that way. When I installed the Windows Vista Beta, there was a segment in the EULA expressly saying that you can't copy the fonts, except for copies made solely for the purpose of printing output (ie, you can send them to a printer, or in the more complicated case to another computer that is acting as a print server, as long as they go away when the print job is done).

In a more similar vein to your 'PageFoo' example, Autodesk at one point had a viewer application for its various drawing formats so that you didn't need a $5000 seat just to print.

Re:the beast of the nature

[Phillup]

When I installed the Windows Vista Beta, there was a segment in the EULA expressly saying that you can't copy the fonts

Easy to figure out why [google.com]...

Re:the beast of the nature

[BrynM]

When I installed the Windows Vista Beta, there was a segment in the EULA expressly saying that you can't copy the fonts
Easy to figure out why...

Funny that the core web fonts have been discontinued [kottke.org] by MS as well. Sadly, the font industry is riddled [typophile.com] with companies stealing each other's fonts all the time.

Go get some free [fateback.com] fonts and leave the "trendy" fonts to the companies willing to eat eachother and their customers alive. There are font creators out there who want you to use their fonts without their pound of flesh, but they are being driven away from a very controversial and cruel industry.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:the beast of the nature

[NulDevice]

That's never stopped people.

I used to design shareware fonts as a way of generating beer money in college. Some were decent. A lot were flat-out crappy. To this day, nearly 15 years later, I STILL see the downright crappy fonts used in high-profile places - TV ads, action figure packaging, porn sites...

"Cheap/free" seems to be a very powerful motivator for a lot of designers.

(One of them is ludicrously popular. And yet I can count the number of people that paid the shareware fees for it on one hand.)

High Quality Free Fonts

[gr8_phk]

Not sure what these look like yet, but people should be aware of the Stix Fonts [stixfonts.org] project. They are professionaly produced and cover a large number of glyphs (several thousand). I submitted a blurb to slashdot when they were having public comments on the license, but it got rejected. Anyway, they are intended to be free (of charge) for a lot of use. Not sure if they can be included in a Linux distro.

"Discontinued" Fonts Still Available

[Chris Tyler]

Some would call them butt-ugly (MS Comic? Arial?!?!), but the MS core web fonts are still available: http://fontconfig.org/webfonts/ [fontconfig.org] -- MS licensed them in a way that makes it hard to put the Genie back in the bottle.

Marketing loss leader

[coyote-san]

Remember why these fonts were published in the first place. It wasn't a generosity of spirit, it was so their for-profit products would be useful enough to get marketshare.

Printed material is fully rendered and doesn't depend on anything held by the user other than a good light source.

Images are fully rendered and only require an appropriate viewer.

But HTML pages (among other things) require that the specified fonts actually be available on the viewer's system. MS could put out the best HTML designer in t

Re:the beast of the nature

[Anonymous Coward]

"Typefaces are not copyrightable, but computer generated fonts count as programs, and so they are copyrightable."

Yet another of these "...but, it's on a computer!" exceptions. Why should computer fonts be copyrightable, when everyone accepts that typefaces are not?

Re:the beast of the nature

[Mr. Shiny And New]

The thing is, it's not the typeface that the computer font represents that is copyrighted; it's the font file itself, which is a program. It is an implementation of an idea; like other software and like written works the idea itself can't be copyright but the expression or implementation (as software) of it is.

Re:the beast of the nature

[NulDevice]

This is in fact a huge problem for font designers.

It's even easier for font pirates than that. They just take a file and swap formats a few times. They can strip the copyright information, tweak a curve or two, et voila, it's a "new font."

Those discs you can buy that advertise "10000 free fonts!" are generally filled with shareware fonts ganked from the internet, slightly modified (if at all), stripped of their original information, and resold. I spent the $9.99 on one once, on a lark, and gosh was I (un

Re:the beast of the nature

[pr0t0]

Whether a font can be included for a print file, or embedded in a PDF is solely at the discretion of the font publisher. That said, most tier-one font foundries do allow for both. Adobe and Linotype for example both allow this. Most publishing software like Adobe InDesign and QuarkXPress will gather the fonts upon request so the customer can take the file to the printer to be printed.

Someone also commented that this is why printers ask for fonts to be converted to vectors. Actually, this in order to avoid f

Re:the beast of the nature

[WoodstockJeff]

The problem is complicated by the fact that some fonts can arrive as part of other people's documents and can sometimes stay, unlicensed, on a network.

And the fact that several Microsoft and Adobe applications will "helpfully" insert font files into documents and even emails so that you can have a proper "presentation" with the end user (who might not have the same fonts installed) doesn't do much for anyone trying to keep things legal. If I open a PDF with embedded fonts, am I now a pirate?

Re:the beast of the nature

[AvitarX]

Most fonts allow embedding as part of the liscense.

Re:the beast of the nature

[johneee]

Absolutely. And the ones that don't allow this notify you when you try to embed them in any program I've used recently. It takes a concious effort to send someone a font that has usage guidelines that don't allow you to do so.

Re:the beast of the nature

[johneee]

I guess the answer to that is I don't know...

Although you usually physically cannot embed fonts in at least any of the Adobe formats if they're not allowed to be, they'd have to be sent separately and installed by the user (someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think I am). Can you embed fonts in Word files? I didn't think you could...

I suppose it's kind of the same thing as if someone gave you a CD-R of AutoCad and said, "here's the software you'll need to open up those drawings I sent you".

Re:the beast of the nature

[PhunkySchtuff]

If I open a PDF with embedded fonts, am I now a pirate?

No, you're not. Adobe designed it this way. In fact, Adobe put font embedding into PDFs for this very reason - so you can open a document, and have the right fonts, but not be a pirate.
You can't do anything with the fonts in the document, other than use them for viewing that document - the fonts embedded in a PDF don't magically activate themselves for the rest of the system, or even for other PDFs, it's purely for the document in question that you'

Re:the beast of the nature

[pla]

You can't do anything with the fonts in the document, other than use them for viewing that document

Sure you can [blogspot.com]. Granted, it doesn't happen "automagically", but any coder worth their salt can fully automate the process with about half-an-hour of one-time work.

Ouch.

[Kid Zero]

Unlicensed software is always font of trouble in the business world, it seems.

Simple solution

[Foobar of Borg]

The simplest solution is to use Courier or Courier New. Noone uses typewriters anymore, so it will confuse everyone and set you apart from everyone else.

Re:Simple solution

[Tribbin]

Nobody uses it you said? I had to type my homepage on a typewriter because my server shut down and I lost all my information!

http://tribbin.nl/ [tribbin.nl]

Re:Simple solution

[anaesthetica]

The simplest solution is to use Courier or Courier New. Noone uses typewriters anymore, so it will confuse everyone and set you apart from everyone else.

Why isn't your post in courier new then?

Re:Simple solution

[MadCow42]

Actually, if you EVER submit a document in Courier to a printer, it'll really fuck them up. Most RIPs (Raster Image Processors, which convert vector documents to halftone dots for printing) substitute missing fonts with Courier by default.

Seeing this, printers will automatically assume that there's a missing font and send your job back to prepress as they normally would... and prepress will probably scratch their heads for a while trying to figure it out.



MadCow.

Wha...?

[Reality Master 101]

The publishing firm had claimed to be using just one font but in fact was found using 11,000.

How is it even possible to use 11,000 different type faces?? They have to be adding up all the fonts on all the PCs. 500 PCs with unlicensed Adobe Garamond = 500 fonts.

Re:Wha...?

[Rob T Firefly]

How is it even possible to use 11,000 different type faces??

Ever read Wired Magazine in the 1990s?

Re:Wha...?

[Ryan Amos]

It'd probably be an interesting magazine if the editors were eating acid.

I think the tons of font faces were something some aging designer thought approximated leetspeak (it hurts my eyes to read it, its gotta be cool!)

Re:Wha...?

[Daniel_Staal]

It's not that hard, actually. Remember that high-end fonts (which is what I'm assuming we are talking about here) have seperate faces for bold, italic, bold-italic, smallcaps, 'light', 'display', 'caption', and any and all combinations of the above. One font-family can easily include thirty or so fonts, all of which are sold seperately. (Or, of course, you can buy the bundle. But if you don't acutally need the caption-oblique version and a few others it might not be worth the whole bundle.)

So, a couple hundred font-families is several thousand actual fonts. For a publishing house, where you need the right font for every occasion, that's a small collection.

Re:Wha...?

[DragonWriter]

A "font" and a "type face" aren't the same thing. While modern computers can do "good enough"mdash;for casual use, at least—extrapolations of different sizes and styles from a single font, professional publishers are going to use a distinct font (with appearance tweaks) for each different combination of face, style, and type size. Times-12pt-Roman isn't the same font as Times-12pt-Italic, Times-10pt-Roman, etc. It doesn't take a whole lot of different faces, sizes, and styles to get up around 11,000 fonts.

Re:Wha...?

[NMerriam]

Correct, except for size. Professional publishers use PostScript typefaces, as they scale to any size. Loading different sized screen fonts (to see things rendered somewher correctly on screen for proofing) hasn't been an issue since the early '90s and Adobe Type Manager.

Well, not really. Most high-end faces do have multiple "sizes", because just scaling a face won't work correctly for all possible sizes. A type family will have specific fonts optimized for small type or large type, or book settings. A Disp

Re:Wha...?

[CaptKilljoy]

>How is it even possible to use 11,000 different type faces?? They have to be adding up all the fonts on all the PCs. 500 PCs with unlicensed Adobe Garamond = 500 fonts.

Bzzt, wrong. As TFA says, the audit was conducted by a representative of Monotype, which alone lists 2230 [fonts.com] distinct fonts in its catalog. I'd think they would properly know how to account for usage. And there are a lot [fonts.com] of foundries.

Re:Wha...?

[Rorschach1]

How is it even possible to use 11,000 different type faces??

You've never been on MySpace, have you?

Re:Wha...?

[Farmer Tim]

How is it even possible to use 11,000 different type faces??

Font management software. I have over 2,000 myself (collected over the last 20 years and properly licensed, of course), which I can browse and activate as needed with Linotype FontExplorer. I also know a tiny company that uses a single computer for their layout work that has 5,000 fonts, so 11,000 for a larger publisher isn't surprising.

Re:Wha...?

[Bogtha]

How is it even possible to use 11,000 different type faces?

One overenthusiastic manager and a copy of Powerpoint.

Re:Wha...?

[Intron]

Unfortunately, he recently committed suicide [theonion.com].

Re:Wha...?

[2nd Post!]

Linotype claims over 6,500 fonts available.
Adobe claims over 2,200 typefaces available.
Bitstream claims over 1,400 fonts available.

If you look at MyFonts.com you will see that the list over 49,105 fonts available from 282 font foundries, out 574 known foundries listed on that site.

Re:Wha...?

[SatanicPuppy]

Big printers have a copy of every commonly used font, and a great number of uncommonly used fonts so that when their client sends in a rush order with "Bob's slightly altered version of Arial" they don't have to try and dig it up while on deadline. You need a copy of the font accessable to your RIP to make sure the text renders correctly.

Promotion of Science and the Useful Fonts?

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Many do not recognise that fonts are intellectual property just like any other kind of software and must be paid for,"

*Sigh... I know creating fonts is a lot of work and pretty-much an art form, but still... sigh.

Re:Promotion of Science and the Useful Fonts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government is one organization that does not recognize that fonts are intellectual property. Font names can be trademarked, but the actual letter shapes cannot be even copyrighted. Reference: wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

Re:Promotion of Science and the Useful Fonts?

[DragonWriter]

That's true about letter shapes. But it is a nontrivial effort to go from a set of letter shapes to a digital (non-bitmap) font, which is a computer program and rather clearly subject to copyright. Since what is at issue here is the computer program and not the letter shapes...

Re:Promotion of Science and the Useful Fonts?

[ogrizzo]

But it is a nontrivial effort to go from a set of letter shapes to a digital font.

This is, by far, the simplest part of creating a font; so simple that an autotracer does a pretty good job. What's difficult is properly hinting a TrueType font (indeed, there are almost no properly hinted such beasts; hinting a Type1 font is much easier) and choosing the right spacing between characters. The only parts of a font that I would consider a program are the TT hinting and the OpenType contextual sostitution instr

Actually, typefaces cannot be copyrighted...

[msauve]

unless things have changed since the US Copyright office [ssifonts.com], stated

Both the Congress and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Eltra Corp. v. Ringer decided that analog typeface designs are not now copyright subject matter. The Copyright Office concludes that typefaces created by a computerized-digital process are also uncopyrightable. Like analog typefaces, digitally created typefaces exhibit no creative authorship apart from the utilitarian shapes that are formed to compose letters or other font characters.

Nope.

[msauve]

You really should read the citations before commenting. It is you who are ignoring the context.

The Copyright Office specifically addresses fonts which are defined algorithmically:

Although the master computer program used to control the generic digitization process is protectible and may be registered, if original, this protection does not extend to the data fixing or depicting a particular typeface or typefont or to any algorithms created as an alternative means of fixing the data.

So, a program with which

Re:Font files are computer programs

[advocate_one]

in the context of TFA... the company in question is British... American law doesn't apply... yet...

Nope.

[msauve]

What they're referring to as a "font scaling program" is the command interpreter which executes the instructions in the font - i.e. a TrueType interpreter, or in the case of Postscript typefaces, the Postscript interpreter itself. That is, any code which may be used to draw scaled typefaces, but is not itself part of a typeface. Any instructions which are specific to a typeface are not copyrightable in the US.

Actually, only computer fonts have IP protection

[LionMage]

You can't trademark, patent, or copyright a traditional typeface -- at least, not in the United States. For those who don't know, a typeface or font used to be a collection of metal blocks with raised edges which, when used in a printing press, would impress the images of the corresponding characters onto a page.

There is absolutely zero protection for the distinctive look of a typeface, which is why you can go out and buy "look-alike" fonts and why you can even download clone fonts.

The intellectual property protection for computer fonts comes from the idea that fonts are computer programs -- because a computer font is a file consisting of a set of instructions that tell the computer how to render the characters that make up the font. So copyright applies.

However, there's nothing stopping you from printing out each of the characters at some large point size (say, so there's one character filling each page), painstakingly tracing those characters with graph paper, and creating your own knock-off font. In fact, this technique is used a lot. What you won't be able to do, unless you're a master craftsman or engineer, is determine and duplicate the hints that make a font legible at small point sizes.

Now, I can't speak for the IP laws in the UK, but it is at least true that in the U.S., only computer fonts enjoy legal protection, and only because they are considered software.

Re:Promotion of Science and the Useful Fonts?

[avalys]

Are you really suggesting that only tangible things have value? Don't be stupid.

Re:Promotion of Science and the Useful Fonts?

[DragonWriter]

I know this is a silly semantic point, and maybe a bit off topic, but copyright-able material != "intellectual property".

Its not a "silly semantic point", its an ideological crusade dressed up in semantic clothing. While technically, perhaps, correct (insofar as, pedantically, copyrightable material isn't necessarily intellectual property, copyrighted material, however, is, and all copyrightable material not expressly placed in the public domain is also copyrighted material), its inaccurate in its message.

Intellectual property is an ideology that implies that ideas should be treated like physical goods in that they can have one owner that controls it.

No, "intellectual property" is not an "ideology" of any kind. "Intellectual property" is a class of actual, existing legal rights (a component of the somewhat broader category of "intangible personal property".)

In the "natural order of things" there is a differece: ideas can be easily reproduced or shared among people and physical goods cannot.

Physical goods (and even moreso real property) can be easily shared among people as well; the existence of propietary rights, whether in tangible personal property, intangible personal property, or real property has nothing to do with whether or not they can be "shared" or "reproduced" in the "natural order of things", but with the social judgement that protection of a proprietary interest in those things enriches the community by encouraging the development of wealth that would otherwise not be developed.

Further, except for patents specifically, the subject matter of IP rights aren't "ideas".

So in the last few centuries many governments have granted creators of works abilities to control copying of their ideas, but with a limited time span and scope.

Both tangible personal property and real property being held for more than a limited time and with the free control we associated with modern ownership is also fairly new; grants for a period, or for life, of land from the government (some overlord) were common, and even personal property returning to a governing authority on death who had some practical discretion on whether or not to allow it to be inherited for a fee were not uncommon.

And when land wasn't granted for a period of time, it was often granted in fee tail where it was designated by the grantor to fall to the grantee's natural heirs and to revert to the grantor if the natural line failed.

Most people that take someone's physical property deprive them of it, which is why for millenia stealing of physical goods has been illegal in many societies.

Since "property" is merely an exclusive power over some thing, someone who takes your "intellectual property" deprives you of it no less than someone who takes your "physical property".

Using the term "intellectual property" conditions people to think of ideas like property.

Using the term "intellectual property" conditions people, if it does so at all, to think of the rights people possess over the subject matters of "intellectual property" (generally, not "ideas") as similar to the rights owners possess over other kinds of property, which they are.

They forget the limitations of copyright law and they forget that naturally ideas can be shared. That copyright came to be not out of a desire to protect the rights of creators but to promote the advancement of arts and sciences.

You seem to fail to realize that all property rights are social inventions to protect, and thereby encourage, the development of wealth on the presumption that its accumulation and development will redound to the common good.

Re:Promotion of Science and the Useful Fonts?

[Oligonicella]

Apparently Webster's does not agree with you.

property

5. something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public: The secret of the invention became common property.
6. an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing: the chemical and physical properties of an element.
9. a written work, play, movie, etc., bought or optioned for commercial production or distribution.

Note that 6 would also include the property of pleasing aesthetics.

What the heck is the BSA?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Is it a police organization? A government agency charged with protecting the virtue of copyright? What company in their right mind lets some schmuck come in and do an audit without a warrant?

Unless this is a normal occurance in England...

Re:What the heck is the BSA?

[merreborn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_All iance [wikipedia.org]

The BSA is pretty much completely analogous to the RIAA/MPAA

Re:What the heck is the BSA?

[taniwha]

Th Boy Scouts of America are a paramilitary organization known for tieing their opposition up in knots ....

Sounds voluntary

[PCM2]

Is it a police organization? A government agency charged with protecting the virtue of copyright? What company in their right mind lets some schmuck come in and do an audit without a warrant?

The article is a little unclear and more than a little inflammatory. My read of it is that the publisher actually wanted the BSA to come in and do the audit. The £80,000 they ended up paying wasn't a fee or a fine paid to the BSA; it was the cost of buying all the software licenses they needed to get fully int

Good!

[drinkypoo]

They should get busted. I'm wishy-washy on the idea of copyright (and how far it should extend) but one thing I do believe is that businesses should pay for software with which they make money. It's one thing for the hobbyist who uses photoshop to make desktop backgrounds not to pay for it; it's another thing when it's a world-class photographer who supports themselves based on their photoshop output.

A question, though - why exactly is this in the YRO section? It has nothing to do with someone's guaranteed rights being violated or abridged. In fact, it is just the opposite; Adobe's rights (and those of the font distributors) are being protected. Someone broke the law, and got turned in by an ex-employee, probably somebody they crapped on. Fuck 'em, let them pay the full fines, and then some. Personally, I suggest collecting the fines from the employees of the company that made the decision to use unlicensed software and fonts. Why should they get off scott free? They're the ones who actually broke the law, the company charter didn't fly its ass up out of the file cabinet and insert the CD in the drive.

Re:Good!

[Red Flayer]

Personally, I suggest collecting the fines from the employees of the company that made the decision to use unlicensed software and fonts. Why should they get off scott free? They're the ones who actually broke the law, the company charter didn't fly its ass up out of the file cabinet and insert the CD in the drive.

If they were independent contractors, sure. But I think you're missing the definition of the employee-employer relationship. The company is responsible for the actions of its employees while the

Justifying piracy?

[MarkByers]

It's one thing for the hobbyist who uses photoshop to make desktop backgrounds not to pay for it; it's another thing when it's a world-class photographer who supports themselves based on their photoshop output.

It sounds like you are trying to justify piracy. Good luck!

Re:Justifying piracy?

[drinkypoo]

It sounds like you are trying to justify piracy. Good luck!

Nope, sorry. I don't believe it's ever right to attack another ship at sea and steal their posessions.

Now, if you were talking about copyright infringement, sorry. Personally, I refuse to use the word "piracy" when I'm talking about that, because I believe that words should mean what they mean. I'm not Humpty Dumpty.

Anyway, it's not an argument I would use when talking to the BSA, but since the BSA attacks businesses and not individuals it

Re:Justifying piracy?

[jb.hl.com]

Now, if you were talking about copyright infringement, sorry. Personally, I refuse to use the word "piracy" when I'm talking about that, because I believe that words should mean what they mean. I'm not Humpty Dumpty.

This has not and will not ever amount to a decent defense. Piracy is a recognised legal term. Maybe somewhat loaded, but a term nonetheless.

Re:Justifying piracy?

[Farmer Tim]

It is important that we not give currency to such misdirections

I'd say you'd missed the boat on "piracy" (pardon the pun). You're battling against a usage that's already well entrenched; even more pointlessly, you're doing it on a site with a very narrow appeal, where you're practically guaranteed that at least 50% of other readers will support your view.

But how precisely is it "misdirection"? Everybody understands this usage, even you, and nobody with any sense equates "software piracy" with boarding ships

Re:Justifying piracy?

[stubear]

I really wish I had bookmarked the comment but someone dug up a quote with the term piracy used to describe copyright infringement. The quote was from a couple hundred years ago or so. If the term was used that way back then then it's certainly just as relevant today. The point is the word was not recently "hijacked", it had been in use long before the current copyright battle.

Re:Good!

[jeffasselin]

The BSA is akin to a racket organization: Instead of "You pay us up or we get fat Tony to break your legs" it's "You pay us to do an audit and pay whatever licence fees we decide you should pay or we sue you". Same tactics, but in better suits.

Also, as others mentioned, 11,000 fonts is absurd. They probably counted each and every copy on every computer whether it was used or not. A normal audit would have deleted unused software and fonts, possibly replaced a few with FOSS where more appropriate. The BSA wi

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Would you extrapolate that?

[mangu]

one thing I do believe is that businesses should pay for software with which they make money

So you think Novell, Red Hat, etc should pay for Linux? Do you believe everyone should pay for anything with which they make money? Let's say an industry sells bottled oxygen, extracted from air. Should they pay the farmers whose plants produce the oxygen that's found in the atmosphere?

I do believe this: it's wrong to take something away from someone without permission. Stealing is stealing, the thief needs not sell

Licensing woes

[totallygeek]

I used to work for a bank that did a fair job keeping track of licenses, or sort of. They purchased licenses for all employees for Microsoft products, eventhough a decent percentage of employees did not have it installed. They also purchased a copy of Photoshop and Corel Draw for every marketing person, eventhough only two people used the products. However, they loaded and never registered many pieces of software which would not have been a big deal to cover monetarily: Winzip, PDF printer, Winlpr, fonts, etc. It just boggles the mind that they go through so much trouble for boxed products, but just never did anything about other software. I told them that it would be better that Microsoft find out they were 20% out of compliance than for some shareware author to find out they had been using software for years on 100% of their machines without paying a dime.

Re:Licensing woes

[voice_of_all_reason]

lol... "Oh shit, it's the WinZip police! Hide!"

It's all about cost versus risk. In this case, the risk of WinZip stormtroopers crashing through the skylight and throwing flash-bangs is so low as to be laughable. Microsoft, not so much...

Re:Licensing woes

[totallygeek]

It's all about cost versus risk. In this case, the risk of WinZip stormtroopers crashing through the skylight and throwing flash-bangs is so low as to be laughable. Microsoft, not so much...

I would have thought the same thing about fonts.

Re:Licensing woes

[ximenes]

I don't agree with your reasoning. Microsoft is much more in a position to care about that bank being even 1% out of compliance than some random shareware author is for 100% compliance. Winzip has got to be the least paid for and most commonly installed program for Windows, and I have never heard of them going after anyone. Microsoft, on the other hand, does (as per this article).

New Font Released soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Sans Licence.

Widespread

[Ohreally_factor]

A graphic designer I know (an ex-gf, actually) has not paid for either software or fonts for the last decade. She has rationalized that because once, in a staff position, she authorized the purchase of approximately 20 seats of adobe software for a graphics department, so Adobe owes her. She uses cracked copies.

I've often wondered what would happen to her and her clients if Adobe got wind of this. (Yes, it was a spectacularly bad break up.) =)

Re:Widespread

[Anonymous Coward]

Do it. You know you want to do it. DO IT.

Re:Widespread

[Ohreally_factor]

Janice, is that you?

YRO

[NitsujTPU]

Pirating fonts for use in for-profit activities falls under YRO?

I didn't realize that this was a right.

Good for them...

[penguinstorm]

If this crackdown is accompanied by a corresponding drop in the cost of licences for some of these overpriced apps (Hello...Photoshop?) I'm all for this.

I application companies can defray the costs across more copies sold, prices should drop. Unless you believe Adobe is LOSING money on those educational copies of Photoshop (which don't come with support or upgrade options, of course) software should and could cost much less than it currently does.

There's a pretty basic rule: if you're using an application every day, and you're making money with it you should pay for it.

I'm especially disgusted by people who DEVELOP and SELL software who use...um...liberated copies of applications. I worked at a place that charged substantial licensing fees for their apps, but had not a single licenced copy of Word around. Stolen text editors, stolen backup software, stolen operating systems.

Unfortunately, all too typical.

Fonts = Typefaces = not protected in the USA

[StateOfTheUnion]

Though the situation from the article happened in the UK, I think that US law differs in that fonts or typefaces have no legal protection. Because of this, in the US one would be able to copy fonts to their heart's content . . . Ironic that the home of the MPAA and RIAA and DMCA has no protection for typefaces . . .

Re:Fonts = Typefaces = not protected in the USA

[avalys]

In the US, you can copyright the program that draws a font: i.e. the Truetype font definition file.

However, you cannot copyright the font design itself: meaning, if someone wants to design their own font that looks exactly like yours, they're free to do so.

I'm guessing what this company did falls into the former category, which would still be illegal in the US.

Oh, in Britain...

[SpectreHiro]

I was a little dismayed when I first read the blurb. I could swear there wasn't any type of legal protection for typefaces in US law... One of the reasons that Adobe et al. made a push towards programmatically described fonts (Type 1 and Type 3). Although they couldn't protect the typeface itself, they could protect the copyrighted code that generated the font.

Then I remembered where the register.co.uk was located. Thank god... I was almost forced to RTFA. Phew.

Re:Oh, in Britain...

[Detritus]

To legally copy a typeface in the USA, you have to print a sample and digitize it yourself. You can't just copy the postscript or truetype font files. Those files do have copyright protection. The name of the typeface is probably trademarked, so you have to choose a new name for your copy of the typeface.

I told you! :-)

[writermike]

Gahdammit. I am one of hundreds of thousands of /. users and NO ONE listened to my prophetic vision back in April? Dammit. I called the cops. They wouldn't listen either. I am just too darned potent! ;-)

Uh... Oh... maybe the didn't listen to me.

--

I've worked with and on computers for nearly thirty years and I'm frequently surprised by the amount of piracy in workplaces. Oh, I'm not talking about out-right piracy like bittorrented copies of cracked Photoshop, but lots of little things.

For instance, I've worked in commercial printers that literally had thousands of typefaces. Let's say you have a job you need printed on a printing press. You collect all the images, layout files, typefaces, etc., and you send that to the printer. The printer is supposed to delete those fonts when the job is complete. They don't, of course, so you have millions of pirated typefaces out there.

Another example: images that are only supposed to be used once, logos "retouched" and used in other publications, templates you're supposed to pay for obtained from non-traditional (i.e. free) sources, trials that miraculously seem to go on forever, etc.

Stuff like this happens in all kinds of offices all over the planet. There are so many companies out there who, if they took a real and honest accounting of the software and tools and plug-ins they have, would find that if they did actually purchase everything they own, they'd likely not have half of it. And if they did, they would have spent themselves into bankruptcy. But they rationalize that it's all necessary, it's something they need to do in order to do business. Indeed, many companies couldn't perform some of their services without the stuff they obtained.

I dunno. I think that, one day, someone really large with lots and lots of locations and chances to pirate stuff is going to get slammed with a huge fine and it's going to open a very large can of worms. If Best Buy really did use Winternals products illegally, it would not surprise me in the slightest, and it would be very, very typical of most companies, large and small.

P.S. And, yes, I can't claim my hands are completely clean.

P.P.S. Don't copy that floppy.

I'm shocked! Shocked, to see this abuse!

[boyfaceddog]

11,000 fonts? come on. At a normal pub firm 11,000 is probably what they found just on the FONT SERVER. At a printing firm you'd find way more than that, because every job comes in with its own fonts and each font is unique.

Each. Font.

I have seen two jobs from two different clients use the SAME font from the same provider but with different creation dates and the fonts were just different enough that we couldn't use one font for both jobs.

Please, for the love of all that the BSA holds dear to its little black heart, don't start checking font licenses or we're ALL DOOOOOMED!

BSA and Monotype

[smbarbour]

Does anyone else find it amusing that the fonts were audited by Monotype (the company frequently accused of making similar but slightly different versions of popular Linotype fonts)?

(i.e. Monotype's Arial to Linotype's Helvetica)

Other side of coin

[Nom du Keyboard]

On the other side of the coin, I wonder how much software is paid for but never used?

Windows licenses on computers running Linux.
Software purchased, but never installed.
Software lost or stolen and identical replacements bought.
Software purchased and installed on computers that are no longer in use because either the computer was replaced with a newer one, or the company has gone out of business.
Volume purchases that over-buy the actual amount needed or used.
Other causes.

I never hear figures given on excess and redundant software purchases.

Help please.

[CristalShandaLear]

I've been considering starting my own home desktop publishing business. I keep doing things for people for free and it's gotten to a point where I've gotten pretty good and could actually make a bit of money for what I do.

Would this font issue affect someone like me? What if I create a small brand for myself, even in a tiny market? What if it gets bigger? Will I have to pay someone just for using a certain font?

I never thought of such thing.

This is YRO?

[Tim C]

So, let me get this straight - the company was caught using unlicensed fonts, Adobe software and MS software, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them?

You want to use software, you abide by the terms of the licence. You don't want to abide by the terms of the licence, you don't use the software and seek out an alternative with a more agreeable licence. End of story.

Re:What gives them the right?

[Todd Knarr]

Read the software license you agreed to when you installed most any software. Almost all of them have a clause in there that says you agree, at your expense, to let the software maker or their appointed agent come in at any time and audit you for license compliance. Note that you get to foot the bill even if they find you're 100% in compliance. If you don't agree to the audit, you're automatically in violation of your license agreement.

And you won't be in compliance, that's a guarantee. Remember that, by the BSA's rules, merely having all the original media, license certificates and product keys for every single copy you've got installed is not sufficient. Only an original receipt or invoice made out to your company proves legal ownership, and your company probably threw those away long ago.

Its cool

[Woy]

Read the software license you agreed to when you installed most any software. Almost all of them have a clause in there that says you agree, at your expense, to let the software maker or their appointed agent come in at any time and audit you for license compliance.

Its cool. Linus is welcome in my house anytime!

Re:What gives them the right?

[Phillup]

Read the software license you agreed to when you installed most any software.

Just wondering... does the license apply if the software is pirated?

I mean, isn't the customer signaling their intent to pay zero for the product and basically saying "I don't intend to follow your license. If I push this little button will you install for me anyway?"

Seems to me that the software industry is trying to show "intent to consent" to the license where no such thing exists.

I know that the ONLY reason that I push the button is that is what I have to do to install it.

Seems to me that a "contract" or "license" has to be agreed upon BEFORE accepting payment for the product to be legal... not afterwards.

Re:What gives them the right?

[asuffield]

Almost all of them have a clause in there that says you agree, at your expense, to let the software maker or their appointed agent come in at any time and audit you for license compliance.

Clauses like this in contracts of adhesion (meaning a contract where you did not get a chance to negotiate terms with the other party) are typically invalid and regularly struck down in courts. Basically, if a clause would not have been accepted by a hypothetical 'reasonable person' who had a chance to negotiate, in the op

Re:Um... we're the ones who wrote that code...

[Icculus]

I write code most every day of my life, as do many others here, to make a living. My open source code I'm happy to give away, it was fun to write! But please, let me eat with the boring, soulless code I have to write at work.

I suspect it's because the vast majority of us that write code at work aren't selling it to anyone. Does anyone really want an illicit copy of some data entry application I've written around here for our sales people? Probably not. How would they even get said copy? No, the only o

Re:Um... we're the ones who wrote that code...

[Jherek Carnelian]

It really surprises me that people in the IT industry can be so apathetic to theft. We all know how many millions (billions ?) get put into software development each year, and how thankless a job it really is. Just as important, we're in this industry! I write code most every day of my life, as do many others here, to make a living.

It does not surprise me in the least. The reason is very simple - only a tiny minority of coders get paid for each copy of their software that is sold. Most of us are not selli

Re:Everyone does this in the print industry

[ewhac]

The briefest Google on my username should quickly reveal my views on the disaster that is the modern copyright regime, but your post makes me seriously question the ethics of your boss.

Quark is over $1000, and Freehand is about half that. The CEO said the company cannot justify the cost of these programs for just a few customers.

Yet your CEO is able to justify accepting jobs from customers he cannot, technically, support. This analogy is admittedly imprecise, but if a customer came in with a job on eight-inch floppies, would you accept it? Or would you turn the customer away, saying, "Sorry, we don't have the facilities to read your job data?"

And I don't even pay attention to who owns what fonts, because I know my company would never spend one cent on a font.

Let's assume computers didn't exist, and you were still using cast lead type. If a customer came in requesting a job in Garamond, and you didn't have a case of Garamond, would you turn away the job, or suggest substituting a typeface you do have?

If we make the analogy more precise, and the customer walks in with their own case of Garamond type, would you return the type to them when the job was complete?

It's my personal view that computer software and data, once it's been created, is essentially valueless, since it can be infinitely duplicated at zero cost. So I don't see unsanctioned copying ("piracy") as a problem, but merely an inevitability that all software authors and vendors must acknowledge and learn to live with. However, even I am taken aback by the rather cavalier attitude your CEO seems to show for the economic realities facing those who created the tools he uses to conduct his business and satisfy his customers.

Our civilization stands at a crossroads in our social and economic evolution. The computer heralds a day where even physical goods can be duplicated infinitely and effortlessly (assuming we survive the rising seas), and copyrights and patents as we conceptualize them today truly will become meaningless. But we're in a transition period, and that future is in peril. Physical artifacts can't be freely duplicated -- a fundamental assumption of the old economy -- but digital artifacts can, which the old economy can't cope with. It will take an exercise of good character and strong ethics by many people to carry us through to the real New Economy.

Your CEO may care to participate in this transition, and acknowledge the good work he is able to do by rewarding the good work of others.

Schwab