3 ms·

Sounds quite a lot like "They're just PNGs on the Internet. Why would you pay for that when you can just copy it for free?" The article is interesting from a t

Sounds quite a lot like "They're just PNGs on the Internet. Why would you pay for that when you can just copy it for free?" The article is interesting from a technical point of view but feels yucky from a fairness point of view, regardless of legality. I may not have a ton of respect for the large corporation that owns the copyright on the file, but I do have respect for the creatives who make fonts (and other things) for a living.

dzek69 3y ago
The author of the article claims to not actually support piracy and ask to support the font makers. But from a technical point of view it's still somehow interesting It's like learning about some security tools like shodan - here is how you can mess something up, but don't do it
codedokode 3y ago
Big corporations shamelessly digitize old fonts and claim copyright, take Microsoft as an example [1]. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/typography/font-list/bookman-old-style https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/typography/font-list/bookm...
denton-scratch 3y ago
TFA's author is arguing that it seems to be possible to do this, but as a font-author he finds it disreputable (you have to read to the end). He's arguing, I think, that fonts only became copyrightable when font files came along, with the arrival of PCs with GUIs. And that what became copyrightable was a font file. He argues that this is a weird anomaly; and I agree. But I draw a different conclusion; the introduction of copyright on font files was seriously annoying to me at the dawn of the PC age, because fonts were among the first digital objects that were copyrightable (that I had access to). With the exception of fonts, I could copy and re-purpose anything I found. I suspect fonts may have been the battering ram that led to the present situation of copyright maximalism. I don't mean to talk down the effort, judgement and skill that goes into creating a typeface; but I've never had much time for maximalists. I'd go back to author's lifetime, and I wouldn't allow immortal "persons" (corporations) to have copyrights.

dzek69 3y ago

The author of the article claims to not actually support piracy and ask to support the font makers. But from a technical point of view it's still somehow interesting It's like learning about some security tools like shodan - here is how you can mess something up, but don't do it

codedokode 3y ago

Big corporations shamelessly digitize old fonts and claim copyright, take Microsoft as an example [1]. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/typography/font-list/bookman-old-style https://learn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/typography/font-list/bookm...

denton-scratch 3y ago

TFA's author is arguing that it seems to be possible to do this, but as a font-author he finds it disreputable (you have to read to the end). He's arguing, I think, that fonts only became copyrightable when font files came along, with the arrival of PCs with GUIs. And that what became copyrightable was a font file. He argues that this is a weird anomaly; and I agree. But I draw a different conclusion; the introduction of copyright on font files was seriously annoying to me at the dawn of the PC age, because fonts were among the first digital objects that were copyrightable (that I had access to). With the exception of fonts, I could copy and re-purpose anything I found. I suspect fonts may have been the battering ram that led to the present situation of copyright maximalism. I don't mean to talk down the effort, judgement and skill that goes into creating a typeface; but I've never had much time for maximalists. I'd go back to author's lifetime, and I wouldn't allow immortal "persons" (corporations) to have copyrights.