Use of illegally uploaded fonts

Laurentius's picture

Is it illegal to download illegally uploaded fonts? And is it illegal to use them?

EK's picture

Do you really need me to say that? Copyright in fonts is recognized to various degrees in different countries.

Uli's picture

EK:

> There is a fundamental flaw in your post

There is, unfortunately, also a fundamental flaw in your own post. For you as a professor of law, you should be able to supply more than unhelpful, tautological statements such as this one: "copyright exists in fonts, in countries where it does".

In my first post to this long thread I said:

"Even Chief Justice Roberts ... would never swear that fonts are computer programs ... No sane person believes this rubbish, let alone the American Chief Justice Roberts"

If you, as a professor of law, want to be really helpful, then specify a country (at least one country), where a person acting as was described here (www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/publicdomain.pdf, pages 2), is at this very moment a "computer programmer", who has just written a TrueType "computer program".

Thomas Phinney's picture

I believe that it is self-evident that in the USA fonts are computer programs, as computer programs are defined for US copyright law. Fonts may or may not be computer programs under various other definitions of "computer program," and that's an entertaining philosophical question, but those definitions are pretty much irrelevant to the situation under discussion.

I would be willing to bet $1000 USD with you, Uli, that if the question ever reaches the US Supreme Court, and the definition they are using has not changed, they will indeed hold that outline fonts are computer programs, and that whoever the Chief Justice is, he won't disagree with that point.

However, much as I would love to see it happen, I sincerely doubt that any such case will be considered and decided on by the US Supreme Court in my lifetime.

Cheers,

T

dberlow's picture

“Even Chief Justice Roberts ... would never swear that fonts are computer programs ... No sane person believes this rubbish, let alone the American Chief Justice Roberts”

Give sufficient practice, that man can swear anything to anyone, trust me.

Cheers!

EK's picture

I'll admit, Uli, that's my argument is unhelpful – to you. But then again, I am not your lawyer.

And when you quote, quote fairly: "The fact that copyright exists in fonts, in countries where it does exist, does not mean that the rights of the copyright holder are unlimited, but that the font is property to the extent the statute says so and no more." This sentence means exactly what it says, and it is not tautological in any accepted sense of the word.

Uli's picture

EK:

The word "tautological" (= tautologous") is defined by Merrian-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "true by virtue of its logical form alone".

In your unhelpful, tautological sentence:

“The fact that copyright exists in fonts, in countries where it does exist, does not mean that the rights of the copyright holder are unlimited, but that the font is property to the extent the statute says so and no more.”

the word "font" may be replaced by any other, e.g. by "negro":

“The fact that copyright exists in negroes, in countries where it does exist, does not mean that the rights of the copyright holder are unlimited, but that the negro is property to the extent the statute says so and no more.”

and your sentence will still be "true by virtue of its logical form alone".

If you want to be helpful, then specify a country, where a person acting as described here (www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/publicdomain.pdf, pages 2), is at this very moment a “computer programmer”, who has just written a TrueType “computer program”.

tupper's picture

While it may not be the case currently, fonts should be given some sort of legal protection that does not depend on them as being seen as computer programs. Control points and kerning data have value and take effort to produce. While I am no legal expert, I'd be quite surprised to see expert testimony (from comp sci. university professors or long-time programmers) giving uniformly strong support to the notion that control points and kerning data are computer programs. (Furthermore, fonts that do not involve computers or control points etc. should have some sort of protection.)

Uli's picture

> Control points and kerning data have value and take effort to produce.

Look at this excerpt scanned from a math book:

see www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/control_points.jpg

It shows many "control points", both as a table and as a graph.

But who would say that this is a "computer program"?

In a font file, "control points" are nothing but sequences of numbers:

see www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/computerprogramm.pdf (page 2 seq.)

If someone writes down the numbers from 1 to 100000:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 99998, 99999, 100000

or any other arbitrary sequence of numbers, e.g.:

... -10736, -5438, -2227, 0, 9358, 17559, 93457 ...

all this "takes effort to produce", that's sure.

But a sequence of numbers is not copyrightable.

paragraph's picture

Q.E.D. D as in delusion.

Thomas Phinney's picture

But who would say that this is a “computer program”?

Anybody who has read the relevant definition of "computer program" would say so.

For at least the second time in this thread: "A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result." So says the US Copyright Office document "Copyright Registration for Computer Programs," in its very first sentence, entitled "definition." http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf

Now, one could reasonably argue that the US Copyright Office has a bad definition of "computer program." But to argue that under the current law and policies of the copyright office, fonts are not computer programs... that's just silly.

Plus, we need a moderator to clean up Uli's post (again). Some people just don't listen.

Cheers,

T

Uli's picture

Mr. Phinney:

>“A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.”

I use the same definition

But a number, e.g. 7, is not a statement, not an instruction.

I have always said that TrueType hints are computer programs

see www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/computerprogramm.pdf (page 10)

but sequences of numbers are no computer programs.

Thomas Phinney's picture

They are programs (by that definition) because the use of those numbers brings about a result—in this case, the rasterization of the outlines.

Also, these are not "just numbers" but rather coordinates.

Cheers,

T

EK's picture

Uli, if you want to use a dictionary, I suggest you look up idée fixe.
The problem with tautology is that the logic is indisputable, yet the sentence conveys no useful content. My sentence did not fall into that category, because its purpose wasn't to comment about whether copyright does or does not exist in fonts, but to distinguish the type of proprietary protection capable of existing in fonts as opposed to tangible property. The sentence was a response to a comment made by another poster, who suggested they should be identical. If my point is valid (and I believe it is), then it goes to explain my reply to the topic of the thread: whether downloading and use of material posted illegally is permissible. Your "rebuke" was not therefore not only uncalled for, but also irrelevant. It is the product of your singular fixation with one aspect of the controversy to the exclusion of all others. I wish your own comments could be more helpful to this discussion.

Uli's picture

EK:

> "its purpose wasn’t to comment about whether copyright does or does not exist in fonts"

If I were a professor of law and knew so little of the law, I would hide behind the lecturer's desk, so that the students couldn't see me and ask questions.

Lawyers love to resort to pseudo-scientific psychiatric terms of the 19th century. I wonder, why you did not suggest that I should look up the word "drapetomania" in Wikipedia.

EK's picture

I, not you, decide what I comment on, and that doesn't define my knowledge of the law (although, I gather, no one knows anything about the law who does not read your web pages at your command and parrots your point of view).

I don't know what made you write what you did, other than your proclivity to making friends, but the exchange is archived here and speaks for itself.

dberlow's picture

Get a room.

Cheers!

Quincunx's picture

And go make a powerpoint of it.

tupper's picture

Look at this excerpt scanned from a math book:
see www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/control_points.jpg
It shows many “control points”, both as a table and as a graph.

I took a look, but I do not understand German. With that caveat, it doesn't seem to show control points. It seems to show a parabola along with sample points and a table of differences.

tupper's picture

But a sequence of numbers is not copyrightable.

If that's the case, that's yet another reason for copyright reform. Whether something is copyrightable or not should be resistant to encoding changes. If I choose to write poetry using decimal ASCII values, that alone shouldn't prevent my poems from being copyrightable.

Decades ago I, and others I knew, wrote the occasional computer program directly in machine code (by that I mean entering the numeric codes directly rather using an assembler). This was practical given the machine architecture of the CPUs of that day. Should these programs, by dint of their construction, be unprotected by copyright?

tupper's picture

For at least the second time in this thread: “A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” So says the US Copyright Office document...

Claiming that control points are either statements or instructions that bring about a certain result is more than a bit of a stretch. If they are, what sort of files on a computer are not computer programs?

Also, these are not “just numbers” but rather coordinates.

Herein lies the rub. Control points have even more structure than being mere coordinates. But by imposing this additional structure (that of being control points for a certain class of outline curve), they move further away from being programs.

tupper's picture

Come to think of it, I actually find it kinda funny to ask these kind of questions on Typophile. For all we know it the illegal fonts he is talking about were designed by one of the people posting in this thread. Which would basically change the question to “Hai gais, I found yer font illegally, can I haz it for free???/ I don’t care if u dont get money!!1”.

Yeah, I too find it kind of funny. I'd like to repeat that I think that those who have created fonts should have some legal control over their creations (or that society reward their efforts in some other meaningful way). From what I understand, this is the case here (in Canada, through the Industrial Design Act - although this too, should perhaps be amended).

bowerbird's picture

if the original poster is still listening...

i say download the font, and use it.

because nobody will ever catch you.

if they do, they will send a c&d letter,
in which case you should stop using it.

now, i'm sure that _someone_ here
will argue with me about my advice.

i submit that they would be better off
trying to find a way to _catch_ people
who will be using their font "illegally".

think about it...

-bowerbird

nina's picture

"now, i’m sure that _someone_ here will argue with me about my advice."
Yes. Because the "they" you're talking about ain't "them", it's us.
You're in the lion's den, dude.

"i submit that they would be better off trying to find a way to _catch_ people who will be using their font “illegally”."
I submit that you should stick around a while, read more than you post, and learn to respect and value the work that type designers do.

William Berkson's picture

>Claiming that control points are either statements or instructions that bring about a certain result is more than a bit of a stretch. If they are, what sort of files on a computer are not computer programs?

Tupper, if you read some of the above you will see that the US courts have ruled that fonts are software, and can be protected as such.

As to what are not programs, that's a good question. I would say an example are non-executuable text files, such as these you are reading.

I don't know if the court discussed that, but it seems to me that text files or data files have value from their meaning, whereas fonts are digital tools, which only create value when they are used as part of programs designed to produce the end result: type on the screen or on paper.

tupper's picture

Tupper, if you read some of the above you will see that the US courts have ruled that fonts are software, and can be protected as such.

Berkson, not all of us are under the jurisdiction of US courts.

You seem to be conflating software and programs. Are you?

Please note that copyright as applied to computer programs does not directly involve the relationship it effects between input and output. One person can write a program that behaves, from a non-programmer's perspective, identically to another without running afoul of copyright law (at least as regards to the source codes of the two programs). Is this the sort of "protection" you want for fonts?

My earlier comments were not on entire font files, but on control points and kerning data. While I don't see these (control points and kerning data) as computer programs, I do see these as valuable and that we, as a society, should encourage work on them.

As to what are not programs, that’s a good question. I would say an example are non-executuable text files, such as these you are reading.

Why? ~~The use of those numbers (in this case, numbers representing text) brings about a result-in this case, the presentation of the text on the screen.~~ (I don't see it that way, I'm just not sure why control points are so different...)

For a programming language to be universally accepted as a programming language by the relevant experts, it would need to have at least a hint of general computation. (Just how low in the complexity hierarchy one would need to hint at could be argued, but the complexity involved in rendering the low-degree curves currently used in fonts would be far too low for universal agreement.)

I don’t know if the court discussed that, but it seems to me that text files or data files have value from their meaning, whereas fonts are digital tools, which only create value when they are used as part of programs designed to produce the end result: type on the screen or on paper.

Well, the source code of many computer programs have definite value unrelated to whatever output they may produce when executed on a computer.

paragraph's picture

Tupper, it's only fair to warn you that if you post more than three times in a row, hair willl grow on your palms.

bowerbird's picture

altaira said:
> You’re in the lion’s den, dude.

right. i saw the signs outside. that's why i came in. :+)

> I submit that you should stick around a while,
> read more than you post, and learn to respect
> and value the work that type designers do.

well, i'll _probably_ stick around for a while...

and i've already read a _lot_ more than i've posted,
including every post in this ugly meandering thread.

as for "learning to respect and value the work" you do,
do you think your work is any different from the digital
product produced by creative artists across the board?

the advice i gave you is firmly and directly on-point...

it's also the same advice i give to other digital artists.

because, just like every other artist whose product is
digital, your work can easily be copied freely by people.

and because of that, it _will_ be copied freely and easily.
(if it's any good, that is.)

now, you can go on and on and on and on about how
"that's illegal", but guess what?, that is no deterrent...

you might as well tell people that it's illegal to disobey
the speed limit. guess what? you're wasting your time.
people are going to disobey the speed limit... and they
are going to copy your work freely and easily. accept it.
because there's _nothing_ you can do to stop 'em. nada.

first of all, you can't even _tell_ if someone is copying it.
and even if you _could_, what are you gonna do about it?
call the sheriff, and tell him someone is using your font?
i'm sure they'll get right out on that, with sirens blazing.

unless you want the "thieves" to laugh at your impotence,
i'd suggest that you tone down the rhetoric a few notches,
because your hard-line looks silly without _enforcement_.

so, like all of us other artists out there, you're going to
have to find a path that you can walk in this new world...

-bowerbird

Nick Shinn's picture

... your hard-line looks silly without _enforcement_...

No it doesn't.
Moral suasion is a viable alternative to coercion.
To think otherwise is to condone the police state, the warlord, the bully.

Thomas Phinney's picture

@tupper:

You wrote: Please note that copyright as applied to computer programs does not directly involve the relationship it effects between input and output. One person can write a program that behaves, from a non-programmer’s perspective, identically to another without running afoul of copyright law (at least as regards to the source codes of the two programs). Is this the sort of “protection” you want for fonts?

No, but it's the kind of "protection" we *have* in the USA, which was the point at question in this discussion. The professional type community is in no way lacking understanding of that, even if most of us think more/different protection would be a good thing.

@bowerbird:

Huh. So, your argument is that because lots of people are going to do "x" anyway, that makes it okay and you'll encourage people to do "x" if it is in their self-interest? Wow, not much you can't justify with that line of thinking.

But in any case, if you're going to encourage piracy, I for one won't have anything to do with you until/unless you stop. Don't expect any more helpful feedback from me.

Cheers,

T

Quincunx's picture

@bowerbird:

The fact that you can copy fonts illegally and use them, and alot of people do, doesn't mean that you should. There is also something like respect and morale. And professionality.

Clearly you like the fonts you copy, so why not let the designer know this by buying it? Otherwise you're just cheap and unprofessional.

hrant's picture

Bowerbird, to many of us it's not mostly about law, it's about ethics, which everybody needs even though it's not about getting caught or not. But you seem to be interested only in convenience, or perhaps clueless rebellion, which is weakness of character. Maybe one day you'll realize that culture (like this thing you're posting on) does not arise from convenience, but from people caring about ideas - caring enough to help others. Otherwise you will remain a base form of life, akin to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7928996.stm

hhp

nina's picture

Hrant, that's what I'd call citing the right source at the right time! :->

bowerbird's picture

nick said:
> Moral suasion is a viable alternative to coercion.

hey, good for you, you've taken the first step away from
"that's illegal" to a position that might be more effective.

of course, "moral suasion" might not be quite as cut-and-dried
as _you_ consider it to be, but at least you're making progress...

> To think otherwise is to condone
> the police state, the warlord, the bully.

it will take a police state to enforce our 20th-century view of
copyright in this 21st-century digital world we find ourselves.

is that the kind of world you want us to live in?

if not, then we need to create some alternatives that _work_.

***

thomas said:

> Huh. So, your argument is that because lots of people
> are going to do “x” anyway, that makes it okay and you’ll
> encourage people to do “x” if it is in their self-interest?

oh, c'mon, don't be silly, not if i should take you seriously.

i didn't advise the original poster to "just do it" because i
wanted to encourage him to think about his self-interest,
i said it so that _you_ would think of _your_ self-interest,
most specifically about the wisdom of your current path...

you invoke "the law", but you have no way to _enforce_ it.
you couldn't even get the "authorities" to enforce it for you!

don't you realize how impotent that makes you?

and yes, i certainly understand how utterly frustrated and
powerless that impotence makes you feel, because i feel it,
just like every creative artist today feels it, because we're all
in the same boat. people can "take" our stuff without paying.

but sticking your head in the sand won't solve the problem.
running away won't solve the problem.

what we need to do is to turn "the problem" to our advantage.

i think it's possible to do that. i firmly believe it's possible.

indeed, i think this "problem" is an opportunity in disguise.

i think it will turn out to be the best thing that ever happened
to artists, and to our fans, and to society, and to our planet...

i think we can finally overturn _greed_, and save the earth.

and we'd better hurry, because the way that i see the future,
we've only got about a decade left. so we better get to work.

-bowerbird

bowerbird's picture

hrant said:
> Bowerbird, to many of us it’s not mostly about law

but i notice that the first thing y'all say is "that's illegal!"

> Bowerbird, to many of us it’s not mostly about law,
> it’s about ethics, which everybody needs
> even though it’s not about getting caught or not.

as i said, ethics is a better argument than "the law".

but if you believe that "ethics" is clearly on your side,
you will soon find that some people disagree with you.

they will argue they haven't "stolen" anything from you,
since you still have everything you had, or have ever had.

if they steal your car, they will have it, and you will not...
if they "steal" your font, they have it, and you still have it.

they might even turn the "ethics" argument _against_ you.
they'll say that since the variable cost of copying your font
is next to nothing, the price you are charging is a rip-off.

whether you agree with any of these positions is irrelevant,
because they are the reality inside the head of the "pirates".
so if you can't argue against 'em, you'll never be successful.

there are other arguments too. some people see a solid
relationship between "piracy" and _increases_ in sales...

even if you don't buy that, it's fairly clear that "pirates"
won't become "buyers" even if you thwart their "piracy".
since they never will be customers, you didn't "lose" them.

but no matter what, if you want to purse the "ethics" path,
you're going to have to engage in _dialog_, in _education_.

you're gonna have to participate in some _communication_
with the "pirates", and they aren't gonna come to the table
if the first thing out of your mouth is "that's illegal, thief!"

> But you seem to be interested only in convenience, or
> perhaps clueless rebellion, which is weakness of character.

you're quick to judge, and to judge unfairly, and incorrectly.

and if you treat all of the so-called "pirates" so flippantly,
don't be surprised if they're unwilling to dialog with you...

and, because it doesn't seem to have soaked in quite yet,
i'll remind you again that you are impotent to stop them.

if you really want to use "ethics", you'll have to do dialog.

-bowerbird

p.s. i've never pirated a font in my life. or bought one.
i already have more fonts on my computer than i need
-- heck, all i need is one font, to be honest with you --
and they all came bundled when i bought it. i don't care
about fonts. never have. only sissies care about fonts... ;+)

Nick Shinn's picture

hey, good for you

Please, don't patronize me.

Like another recent new poster here, Eric Schrijver, you are laboring under a misapprehension.
But fonts are not "in the same boat" as music, literature and art.
A font is not a consumable cultural end-product.
It is a professional tool that adds value to work.
Certainly, piracy is an issue, but not in the same way as for writing, songs and pictures.

it will take a police state to enforce our 20th-century view of copyright in this 21st-century digital world we find ourselves. is that the kind of world you want us to live in?

Actually, that's why I was advocating moral suasion!
i.e. "Don't do it, it's illegal and therefore bad."
Not, "Don't do it, it's illegal, and you will be punished."

Digital media makes nonsense of traditional copyright protection.
But that's not a good reason to abolish intellectual property rights.

...alternatives that _work_.

Some of those alternatives are at MyFonts.
Such as non-commercial/professional licences and freemiums.

hrant's picture

> you’ll have to do dialog.

Which is of course what this is. But you should excuse people for giving up on hopeless cases, especially when all the arguments being presented are old and worn, and have already been largely addressed on Typophile, by the very people in this thread.

If you're only into self-interest, this should
be very relevant: for you, the problem is you.

hhp

EK's picture

There's a great deal of overlap between the idealistic approaches expressed here and the law. For example, it is quite clear that pirating fonts and using them commercially is both wrong and illegal.

At the margin, however, there's substantial ambiguity that requires legal clarification; what is fair or moral depends on which side of the line you're on (general sentiment here being important, but not the only valuable perspective).

It's important to clarify the rights of creators, but the rights of users, too. We've heard here EULA disputes, where a creator thinks a restriction is "fair" and the user does not. The typical reaction here is to tell the user, "take it or leave it", but legislatures may have something to say.

hrant's picture

Eran, well said. But first a person must care about more than himself. Otherwise he's doomed. And if too many people only care about themselves, we're all doomed (and I'm not talking about fonts). In fact one could say this is happening to the world right now, economically and environmentally. The cult of the self is taking us down with it.

hhp

EK's picture

"must care about more than himself." I agree.

bowerbird's picture

nick said:
> Actually, that’s why I was advocating moral suasion!
> i.e. “Don’t do it, it’s illegal and therefore bad.”
> Not, “Don’t do it, it’s illegal, and you will be punished.”

we will just have to disagree that "illegal and therefore bad"
constitutes "moral suasion". anyone so brain-dead to build
moral philosophy around "what's legal" is, um, brain-dead.
the law, as they say, is an ass.

what _i_ mean by "moral suasion" is a _logical_argument_
something is "wrong", one which convinces (or "persuades").

> Digital media makes nonsense of traditional copyright protection.

ok, good, i'm glad you can see that.

> Digital media makes nonsense of traditional copyright protection.
> But that’s not a good reason to abolish intellectual property rights.

maybe it's not. (or maybe it is.) but you'll need to _give_reasons_.
because a simple-minded assertion isn't gonna convince _anyone_.

***

hrant said:
> especially when all the arguments being presented are
> old and worn, and have already been largely addressed
> on Typophile, by the very people in this thread.

oh, i see, so all you have to do is get all the pirates
to come here to typophile and read all those threads!
i didn't realize you'd solved the problem. case closed!

-bowerbird

p.s. you guys don't work for the r.i.a.a., do you?

Nick Shinn's picture

Bye bye birdie.

Thomas Phinney's picture

I actually agree that the argument that something is morally wrong because it's illegal is a pretty dubious one.

On the other hand, bb's need to insult and offend as much as possible makes me disinclined to continue the discussion.

oh, c’mon, don’t be silly, not if i should take you seriously.

i didn’t advise the original poster to “just do it” because i
wanted to encourage him to think about his self-interest,
i said it so that _you_ would think of _your_ self-interest,
most specifically about the wisdom of your current path...

Urm, in which case, you are the one being silly. That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. You are a troll.

Worse for you, you're an increasingly unsuccessful troll. For instance, you are making all sorts of false assumptions: in fact, at this point in my life I have *zero* self-interest in discouraging piracy. I may think piracy is bad, but reducing or eliminating piracy will not help me in any way.

I'm out of this thread, though. Bye all.

T

Uli's picture

Who wants to talk about "ethics" should have read some books about it.

For English readers, I recommend

- G.E.Moore, "Principia Ethica" and "Ethics"
- P.H.Nowell-Smith, "Ethics"

Scholarly books on ethics reveal puzzling "naturalistic fallacies"
(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

Nowell-Smith wrote in 1954 in his "Ethics" on page 41:

"Yes, you have convinced me that it is the right thing to do;
but ought I to do it?"

I stated above: "It is my opinion that any work should get its adequate remuneration, and this also applies to designers of fonts", and I think that decent people such as Nick Shinn are above reproach and should receive our support. But this industry does not only consist of decent one-man-designer-foundries, but is infested with many companies which rip off the fonts designed by others on a large scale and sell them under their own labels.

Those who think that downloading is unethical should modify the question and ask: "Is it unethical to download the fonts of rip-off foundries?"

bemerx25's picture

Going without can also be an ethical choice. No need to "break" any laws.

bowerbird's picture

if i'm a troll, i sure came to the right place, didn't i? :+)

get it out of your systems, kids, so we can start work,
as i got a lot of questions you might want to answer...

-bowerbird

p.s. and just so the all-important communication is clear...

"we" above does not mean "me and you" for certain values
of "you"; nope, it means "me and the _other_ people here".

and "you" certainly does not mean _you_, at least not for
any _singular_ value of "you"; please do not, as the kids
say, "take it personally", since it refers solely to the _plural_
form of you, as in "the vast majority of you" and note that
it expressly does _not_ mean "all of you", as some of you
have already eliminated yourselves, of your own volition,
and i'm fine with that, and thank you for your fine decision. :+)

that is, to rewrite for those of _you_ who need such a rewrite...

"get it out of your systems, kids, so we (that is, me and the
_other_ people here) can start work, as i got a lot of questions
you (as in, not _you_, personally, but this self-declared group
and its status as lovers of typography) might want to answer..."

...or... to put it yet another way,
"hey, i have some questions for book-designers..."

as for solutions to people who "download and use illegal fonts",
you might want to think about finding a way to gently lead them
to an alternative path instead. ask yourself if this thread did that.

Nick Shinn's picture

bye_bye_birdie.

bowerbird's picture

nick, the first time it was cute, almost precious.

but the second time, it was merely repetitious...

however, if you do it _three_ times (or even more!),
it might start to be humorous, perhaps even funny!

-bowerbird

Nick Shinn's picture

Don't expect to get any more discussion after calling me brain-dead.
This site is for people who like type.
Bye_bye_bye.

hrant's picture

> we can start work

Didn't you say you were a slacker?
Go paint something.

hhp

bowerbird's picture

nick said:
> Don’t expect to get any more discussion after calling me brain-dead.

you'd be a lot more believable if you stopped posting messages to me...

-bowerbird

Syndicate content Syndicate content