|
.....
|
¶
On October 23, 2002, Anna McCullough
is alleged to have posted a bunch of Red Rooster (ITF) fonts
on alt.binaries.fonts. ITF reacts by sending a letter
(via their lawyers, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll) in which they threaten to ask 22,500 dollars in damages per download.
Case closed? No, read on.
|
|
Anna McCullough
|
¶
Anna freaked out, the anguish plainly visible through her messages to the newsgroup.
At one point, she wrote:
I'm so scared I can't think straight.
A bit later, she posted this message:
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.fonts
Subject: A copy of this is being sent to ITF
Lines: 10
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:20:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.201.110.16
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 02:20:06 EST
To make it official:
I will not be posting any fonts. I have deleted the Red Rooster fonts
and no longer have any in my possesion for any use whatsoever.
Thank you for your understanding.
Anna McCullough
|
|
My analysis
|
¶
I hope Anna realizes that no one has been convicted yet for posting fonts on newsgroups.
Not one.
Also, the lawyers' mail reads more like a hypothetical threat.
Any lawyer will tell you that this is just a standard letter.
What irks me is the sums mentioned.
The font company sets the price of a font.
If it sets it at 1 million dollars, and does not sell one copy, but lets it leak out via the underground web, it only has to wait for one poor soul to post it on a newsgroup to cash in and have a party.
That just does not make sense.
The laws in the United States do indeed state something about penalties being equal to the the cost of one copy of the software multiplied with the number of (allegedly illegal) downloads, but this multiplication of goods is not like a multiplication of cars or cans of tomato.
One can multiply software by just clicking, and thus, there should be different laws governing the value of software that is passed on in this way.
This is a case in which the law is wrong, very wrong, and ITF, while legally probably right, is morally corrupt.
I wonder what it will take for consumers in the United States to see that they are being taken on a really bad ride by the businesses in their country?
|
|
Apostrophe's reply
|
¶
Don't be [scared].
They really don't have a leg to stand on.
Everything in the Red Rooster library is somebody else's letters, mostly old European stuff that is either out of protection now or didn't have any in the first place.
Also, whatever claim they have to ATF library has been invalidated by the fact that the ATF library itself has been entirely DONATED to the Smithsonian in the early 90s.
However, given that you are in Pennsylvania and all, there's a slight possibility that they might want to take it to court, but I wouldn't even worry about that.
You really don't need money to fight such claims.
All you need is a little logic and the will to fight for your right.
If you send them an apology and a plea of pre-threat ignorance, they have nothing to work with.
We've all witnessed here how you are attempting to cancel the posts and rectify whatever error you made.
I'm willing to testify for you if it ever comes to that, but I don't think it will ever happen.
Keep your nerves.
Don't lose sleep over it.
|
|
Mike Yanega reacts
|
¶
Actually, the cost of Red Rooster's complete collection (from Phil's Fonts
this past February) was $3,750 for 635 fonts. I hate to rain on this
righteous parade of self-justifying indignation, but what other products
would you help yourself to this way, and think it was all right? Yes, I
suspect you do it with other software, videos and music as well, ignoring
the fact that almost none of your font excuses apply in those cases.
¶
I know I am risking being flamed over this, but I hear such a constant
stream of rationalizing about why it's OK to steal fonts. As Shakespeare
said "methinks thou dost protest too much". That fact is you do it because
it's so easy, and because you have all hidden your identities, because you
know (at some level) that you are violating ethical business practices, if
nothing else, and risk harassment, or prosecution, from the individuals and
companies who try to earn money from the development, licensing and
distribution of their font designs and digitizations. (And whose prices are
higher than they would be if piracy wasn't so widespread, even if you'd
rather deny it.)
¶
Do you think farmers should give away food? Do you think a doctor's services
should be free (and I don't mean state funded)? How about TV's, stereos,
cameras, VCR's? What about automobiles? They are all expensive things that
you would like to have, but you must pay for them, right? When you all go
out to work for a living, would you expect to give away your hard work and
talents?
¶
Somehow, in your minds, a font designer, or a company that develops its own
font collections should make them free to everyone. The reason you believe
this is so you can collect fonts forever and not feel any guilt about it.
¶
There are plenty of excellent free fonts out there: those that come with
your computers, and those distributed by such talents as Apostrophe, Nick
Curtis, Ray Larabie and others, so why must you rip-off licensed fonts?
¶
Probably you feel I should just stick to font identifications and keep my
mouth shut about all this. I know I am against the whole trend of the
majority of folks who subscribe to this newsgroup. That's fine. I have a
right to express my point of view too. I think I have participated in this
group long enough to have shown that I contribute to it in other ways. I
hope you will respect my right to have my say, and express my opinion.
¶
Have a nice day,
Mike Yanega
Bowfin Printworks - "Finding Just Your Type"
http://bowfinprintworks.com/FontSpotting.html
|
|
Rejoinder
|
¶
So, we have views from both sides of the aisle.
The reason I am posting this page, and the only reason,
is because the lawyer's letter asks for 22,500 times "X"
dollars in damages. This is indecent, indefensible,
and virtually criminal.
The entire collection can be had for 3,750 dollars,
and some sources quote even prices between 2,000 and 3,000
dollars, a tenth of the price quoted by the lawyers.
It is so easy to make this point in a court of law,
and win, that I think this letter was written
hastily, just as a scare tactic, with no intention
whatsoever of going forward.
¶
Should there be a court case [the likelihood of this is nil,
but let's just pretend], Anna should contact Apostrophe
and ask how he managed to get out of a MUCH larger case
in which he was accused by many foundries together, a consortium,
of posting 10,000 fonts. He spent virtually no money
on this, by the way. One basic part of such a defense
is to ask the accusing party for all proofs:
- Proofs of sales, with all details and totals.
If a particular font sells two copies per year,
it is difficult to argue that more than the annual
intake was lost by one post.
Many vendors are reluctant to reveal these figures,
and I suspect some may have two sets of figures, those
given to their type designers, and true "internal" figures.
- Proofs of downloads. It is for them to identify
individuals who downloaded the files and who would
otherwise have bought the font.
- Proofs that the fonts posted were indeed the alleged
collection.
- Proof that all fonts are indeed copyright of the
accusers. [This is not as simple as it sounds!]
The lawyers' bills will mount rapidly (for them, not you),
and things will become very interesting after that.
¶
But when one gets really down to it, it is a matter
of the criminalization of a whole society by a few,
the music industry, the software industry, and all those
dealing in electronic wares. By the letter of the law,
most people have committed an electronic crime in their
lives via some download or exchange of files.
Is this a way the society should be run?
Do people ever get to vote on this in a referendum?
Why are issues like this never put on a ballot?
Why are politicians not gutsy enough to propose
decriminalization of file downloads for personal use?
If everyone breaks the law, then prosecutions become
"random", and the selection of victims of lawsuits
may be called harassment. Either prosecute everyone or
no one.
Is it not logical, once the majority in a democratic society
has settled on a certain view of what is ``acceptable'',
to change the law according to that view?
The trouble is that our democratic societies may not be
as democratic as we think.
|
|
One last word from Apostrophe
|
¶
Still, the difference between $22,500 and $3,750 is enormous (x6!), and the
higher-hand harrassment model is not going to help resolve whatever problem
happened. Also, what Anna posted was nowhere near a "full set" like both
Jackaman and his lawyer claimed. And this whole "we reserve the right" thing
is so old now. I reserve the right to act like an idiot any time I want. I
reserve the right to sue you for speaking my name, and it's up to you to
defend or panic about defending my claims.
I reserve the right to reserve all rights and state so anytime I feel like
reserving one or more rights to do anything.
¶
Regardless of whether or not font piracy is kosher, communication is where
the system fails. You saw how Anna reacted to the lawyer's letter. That's a
very natural reaction on anyone's part, whether guilty or not. But the
question is this: is this the reaction that people should be looking for? Is
this what Jackaman wanted? To make Anna panic, lose sleep, fry her brains
groping for something to do? How about a nice personal email, signed by
Jackaman, telling Anna that what she did caused more damage than good? I'm
quite sure she would have felt guilty as hell and stopped posting, which was
the desired end result. But no, we had to scare the hell out of her to make
sure that a lesson is learned. Let's burn our 6 year old's penis every time
he pees in his pants, and this way he will learn to go to the bathroom on
time. Let's also reserve the right to do that any time we want.
¶
Now I'm going to write something that I've never written before, and let
hell or high water come and get me.
How did commercial font developers get in this boat in the first place (the
boat being society considering fonts as valueless)? We can blame every
pirate and every font collector for the death of the craft all day long. We
can even sue every pirate and every font collector for unspeakable amounts
of money, just to try our luck with the legal systems. But all this is not
going to change the fact that fonts ARE valueless if society considers them
so, and society sure as hell DOES consider them so. Why though? What the
hell happened in all of 5 years (1990 to 1995) to destroy centuries of craft
grandeur? Two things happened: Microsoft made tons of money selling 25
excellently produced fonts for $99, and Bitstream went broke and was ruled
to sell 500 excellenty produced fonts for $49. That was the beginning and
end of it. Everything after that was due to those two facts and the ensuing
expansion of technology. Going after font posters will not help. Educating
the masses about the value of fonts will not help either (I can elaborate on
why, but not in this post). It's too late to save the day. The destruction
of the craft happened from within the craft, and it is very naive to blame
outsiders. If people were not posting fonts, commercial or not, those fonts
will not be used, because the alternatives out there are numerous.
¶
I don't buy the bit about fonts being overpriced because of piracy. Many
fonts were overpriced for years before being pirated. Examples in point are
Tiro and Emigre and Storm. In fact, one could argue to the exact opposite of
that theory, seeing how Adobe LOWERED their original font prices by almost
50%, which may or may not say something about whether piracy has any
relevance on pricing. Blaming piracy is easy, and blaming the trade itself
or market saturation is the last thing any font enthusiast wants to do I
guess.
¶
Why do we defend Anna in this case? I can only speak for myself here. As far
as I can tell, and I'm usually quite good in understanding this type of
behaviour, I could very much tell that Anna was very unaware of the possible
consequences of what she did. In fact, she was thinking she was doing a
service to people. You can laugh, but that's the reality of it. It is unfair
to jump on her as if she'd just slaughtered someone's favourite cat. And it
is VERY unfair to direct one's lawyer to threaten her before even trying to
talk to her nicely. Also, Jackaman's library is not the highest authority on
ethical behaviour (here's a fast one: check those Dungeon, Javelin and
Xctasy fonts, will ya? Do they remind you of anything?).
¶
As far as anonymity goes, what do we expect really? The way things are right
now is that if a person is anonymous the legal harrassers wouldn't bother
trying to find out who they are, because it's too much hassle and may not
come to fruition. Instead, they pounce mightily on the non-anonymous
posters. Well, what choice do we have? Would we rather be harrassed or not?
Of course there is always the option to stop posting commercial fonts,
however, as I explained earlier, if you or I won't post them, someone new
will come and do it, because society overall thinks fonts are valueless --
sometimes, and increasingly by the minute, justifiably so. If you and I stop
don't post them, someone else will, right or wrong, ethical or unethical.
¶
By all means, Mike, please don't feel that anyone wants you to stick to font
identification only. Your opinions are always welcome, even if some of us
don't like them. The strength of anything is usually in versatility and
variety. I sometimes wish I had the sort of courage you have, to try
defending a craft and bring out old glories, but I've lost that belief a
long time ago. I tried on a couple occasions to be righteous about some
designers, but in the end I felt like I was a lawyer defending serial
killers.
|
|
|
Copyright © 2002
Luc Devroye
School of Computer Science
McGill University
Montreal, Canada H3A 2K6
luc@cs.mcgill.ca
http://luc.devroye.org/index.html
|
