Do they make any provisions for sending jobs to print including their fonts? That seems like another rather large issue.

Do you have InDesign? What happens if you try to package a job that uses their fonts? Just curious.

Like you, I find this offputting.

It's problematic for the legit user, but if Apple and Adobe can load their fonts onto your menus so that you can't get rid of the damn things, all power to an Indie foundry for strutting its stuff.

I don't think they're the first to use installers, Tankard and Hoefler have gone done this route, haven't they?

I have no idea how the Mac works with respect to this but it would seem that its totally possible for an 'installer' to enumerate fonts from memory or from a hidden file every time the machine is booted. After all this is how font managers work. I can't help but think that this, like most protection schemes, causes headaches for legitimate users, but would be quite easy to crack. But providing they're up-front about the unconventional nature of their product, then best of luck to them.

Can't say I blame them for trying. It doesn't keep their fonts off the internet, but it's probably good at keeping one design teacher from passing them on to a hundred students who will use them in commercial work for a decade after graduation. And it probably wipes out intra-office piracy in companies without technically adept designers.

I'm all for doing everything we can to prevent theft, and I can certainly understand why LHF would impose such a scheme. It's a real shame, though. I was about to make a sizable purchase of their fonts and the new policy has turned me off completely. It's unworkable for the creative professional. Maybe for the signmakers that use their site it doesn't matter, but for designers such as myself it's yet one more technology hassle that puts severe restrictions on my capabilities and workflow. I am praying they ditch it sooner rather than later. Are you reading LHF??? Pleeeeeease!

You could contact them directly, you never know they may be willing to bend the rules for a "sizable purchase" esp. if they feel you're trustworthy - can't hurt to ask.

Regarding the question about packaging an InDesign job with one of the new LHF fonts: No, InDesign's font packaging didn't work for me, nor does imbedding them in PDFs. LHF's suggested solution for PDFs is to convert the fonts to outlines first. Of course, without Adobe Reader's "Smooth line art" preference checkbox turned on, fonts turned to outlines in PDFs look quite cruddy except at very large point sizes. I don't know what the default setting is these days, but I remember a few years ago that was not set by default, and clients usually do not know or bother to change it. If this is still the case, previewing jobs for clients via PDF would be a problem.

About the comment whether LHF is "up-front about the unconventional nature of their product": I would say partially but not completely. They do say in their FAQ about the new OpenType fonts, and I quote:

"Q. My Letterhead Fonts aren't in the regular font folder!
A. Letterhead Fonts work a bit differently than normal fonts in that they aren't installed in the Fonts folder. But you will see them in your applications."

"Q. The fonts are not displaying in FontBook or Suitcase.
A. While you may see your Letterhead Fonts in font management programs such as FontBook or Suitcase, you won't be able to turn them on or off. And of course you won't be able to install Letterhead Fonts using your font management program since they must be installed using the Letterhead Fonts Installer. This has no effect on how the fonts function in your design applications however."

The FAQ does mention the fonts won't embed in PDFs and to convert to outlines first. However, despite the mention that fonts are not installed in the regular Fonts folder(s), it wasn't clear, at least to me, that you don't get a font file you can deal with at least *somewhere* on your hard drive as you wish, that activating any LHF font means all of them get activated, and that you can't turn a font off without completely uninstalling it. I mean, after years of dealing with fonts and being able to do all these things, your assumption is most likely going to be that you still will in *some* fashion, unless explicitly told you can't.

They also do not mention you can't package a job in InDesign for a service bureau, though someone knowledgeable could probably assume that from the statement fonts aren't embeddable in PDFs. And while they say converting fonts to outlines for PDFs "may add a bit to the file size, the end result is visually the same as if you had embedded the fonts," this will be true if Adobe Reader's preference for "Smooth line art" is set, but otherwise not. (Which it may or may not be by default. Someone else will have to weigh in on that.) All in all, less than full disclosure in my view.

Also, I went to LHF's online forums to see if others were commenting or complaining and found their forums are now gone. I don't know how long that's been the case or if it's a permanent thing or not. It does make one wonder whether the disappearance was intentional so they wouldn't have deal with public criticism on their site. Then again, perhaps they are busy now dealing with the new system in place and just wanted space.

Thanks for the further details. Maybe they'll comment here?

So does the Letterhead DRM system require an internet connection to use the fonts? I'm trying to figure out what's to keep someone from just redistributing the executables, aside from some watermarks and lawyers.

These fonts have to be *somewhere*… and if they are, they are extractable. OR there is some encrypting added, which would make the process of extracting the font files somewhat harder.
My guess: they are inside the application (control click on the icon and choose Show package contents).

While I realise that LHF fonts are (all?) display fonts, so quite not as much of an issue as if you were dealing with pages of text, converting fonts to outlines adds a considerable amount of effort to a PDF workflow from your DTP app.

Unless there's a way anyone's heard of to convert fonts to outlines 'on the fly' while printing to PDF, it means embedding all your text as graphics rather than being able to edit in the DTP app, and if there any changes, going back to an editable text version and saving a new outline copy.

'Anti-Piracy' is just a way to say 'anti-consumer'. Blech.

But I agree with Bert, open the package itself and see if you can grab the files.

The 'can't embed in a PDF' would be a show stopper for me, though. That's absurd.

>But I agree with Bert, open the package itself and see if you can grab the files.

I disagree. If you don't like the protection scheme just don't license the product. Someone might get their jollies cracking the product for 'fun' in the privacy of their own home, and although this is quite sad, providing they don't publicize the hack then no harm is done.

I had looked inside the application package cursorily earlier but not too closely, and didn't see anything that easily stood out indicating a font anywhere. Also had done a drive-wide search for any file containing the five core characters of the main font name without finding anything. This morning I dug a little deeper and first performed a drive-wide global search for invisible items. When that didn't turn anything up, I went back and did a "show package contents" on the LHF application package again to look closer.

Not counting the usual tiny little incidental files, there's just three files of any size there. In the "MacOS" folder of the package there's a file named "FontInstaller" at 316 KB in size. Then inside the "Resources" folder of the package there are two more, one named "FontInstallation.icns" at 56 KB and "FontInstaller.icns" also at 56 KB. Making copies of either file, then changing the file extension to .otf and opening with FontLab just to see what might happen gives nothing other than a blank new font.

P.S. (edit) Sii, I didn't know the font was going to be protected like this when I bought it. It was not clear to me from LHF's FAQ, and I feel like I was taken for a bit of a ride here. Glad it was just one font I purchased so I'm not out much money.

I hope we get more information.
I wonder if other manufacturers are going this route?

For someone like myself having every font opened would mean my system would slow down drastically and I'd never get any work out.

Also, the printer I use, who still won't get Quark 7, doesn't do Open Type - so to hand my work over to a professional - would be difficult. Would Letterhead expect my printer to buy everyone of their fonts so my work could be printed out professionally? Do they have anything in their guidelines (like URW) about being able to send the "font" with the job to the printer?

Isn't this what killed QuarkXPress?

Okay, it turns out I overlooked something and did end up finding the font on the drive, but I suppose it would be best if I do not say how or where. In the end, at least for a user at my level, it doesn't matter because the font is still not recognized by either FontLab or Suitcase, both of which I tried. I assume that must mean some type of compression or encryption (attempted expansion with UnStuffIt did not work, though), so we are still where we were before with the consequences of all this.

Zebra, thanks for the notification. I certainly won’t be buying anything from them now. I’m glad there are House Industries, Veer, Sudtipos and others… I think this is disrespecting towards almost all of the paying customers and not likely to stop pirating of their fonts. (If that’s been a problem, I don’t know.)

It would be nice to hear some of the reasoning behind this.

Chuck has expressed continued despair the few times I've e-mailed him in regards font piracy. His actions are his choice and I hope this becomes something he is happy with. However, just like a overly restrictive EULA, this will surely keep some people from licensing from him. People such as myself, for instance, (and others above) who really do prefer to control their fonts. He has some gorgeous stuff for license, but surely this is a sad day.

Hoefler and House both had installers, but you could still manage the fonts.

>Sii, I didn’t know the font was going to be protected like this when I bought it. It was not clear to me from LHF’s FAQ, and I feel like I was taken for a bit of a ride here.

Fair enough, but I'd suggest you talk to them. Also glad to see you support not turning Typophile into Typo-H@X0RZ-forum. ;-)

The ‘can’t embed in a PDF’ would be a show stopper for me, though. That’s absurd.

And, ultimately, bad business. If we can't show clients a pdf proof, or publish the document like that for the web, then I won't buy their fonts.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face....

These fonts have to be *somewhere*… and if they are, they are extractable.

Not necessarily. My guess is that the LHF app loads the font set into memory (RAM), in much the same way that "opening" an OT font file by clicking loads an individual font on-disk into memory.

For as long as the fonts are loaded into RAM they show up in DTP apps and can be used. When the LHF app is closed down the fonts would be unloaded from RAM and no longer available in DTP apps.

OR there is some encrypting added, which would make the process of extracting the font files somewhat harder.

In a way, probably, the LHF fonts are "encrypted" as code compiled as part of the LHF app's .EXE file (or whatever file(s) comprise the app). Extracting them would be implausible unless the user happens to have decompiler software capable of decompiling the LHF app files into constituant components.

Extracting the fonts from RAM while they're loaded is even more implausible.

What do the rest of you think about where LHF has gone with this?

They appear to have taken serious measures to prevent further piracy of their products, since illegitemate users are very keen on stealing LHF fonts. In that sense it's a measure of how desirable their fonts are, and a rebuttal to the immoral, cynical, interminably immature mindset of those who insist on stealing them.

LHF's hand has been tipped.

The user-end compromises entailed by the solution they've adopted seem impractical to me too, but the people who baulk at it should ask Chuck Davis or Richard Kegler what it's like and how it feels having to clean up the mess every time their fonts are ripped off and posted on the web for free. It's constant, ongoing, and a pain in the arse.

And all because their fonts are popular. The "reward" for making excellent artistically-crafted fonts is a heartache

Put yourselves in Chuck's shoes and see it from his point of view.

This also illustrates the basic fallacy inherent in the digital "media revolution". The bright new future of digital audio, video and graphic arts is open to wholesale abuse.

j a m e s

It is frustrating, indeed. But I fear Letterhead will see a decrease in sales, not the number of pirated fonts. The right anti-piracy method has not yet been developed, and until then, legitimate customers will suffer. It's best to continue to create and promote great type. Most of the pirates wouldn't buy the fonts anyway.

jpad, about an internet connection being required to use the LHF fonts. I reinstalled the font earlier today, and during the process Little Snitch did pop up an alert that the installer was phoning home, which I okayed as a one-time event only. The installation progress dialog box also put up a brief mention it was "checking license" or something to that effect during the process. Little Snitch hasn't indicated any further phoning home during use since then.

I have a question: Would it be possible in theory as an alternate antipiracy solution to have some sort of product activation process (like for Adobe's CS2 products) that ties fonts to a particular machine, but still lets you move them around and work with them on your hard drive as you see fit? (Even make backup copies, but your product activation would have to be transferred to another machine or drive if you decided you needed to use them there?) Something like that I could live with. Or does product activation depend on an installation's files remaining stationery on the drive where things were originally installed?

>I’m glad there are House Industries, Veer, Sudtipos and others…

>If we can’t show clients a pdf proof, or publish the document like that for the web, then I won’t buy their fonts.

Well, that counts out the standard House Industries license - where anything other than PDF to the bureau costs extra. What's better a software solution that stops you from doing things against the EULA, or the EULA you don't read and end up breaking?

...does product activation depend on an installation’s files remaining stationery on the drive where things were originally installed?

AFAIK, Adobe's activation scheme is tied to the hardware, and as long as you don't swap out the relevant hardware components you can move the software all over the place on a Mac. I've never tried moving software around under Windows (or any non-Mac *NIX OS) because complex Windows apps prefer staying put after being installed. Adobe's protection does, however, refuse to work if you screw around with the license management daemons, which are kept separate from the rest of the Adobe software. I once moved the management daemon library out of a directory when diagnosing a problem, and after moving it back I was unable to run any Adobe apps, even after reinstalling the entire suite. It's been a while, but IIRC I had to reinstall the OS to fix the problem.

"I disagree. If you don’t like the protection scheme just don’t license the product. Someone might get their jollies cracking the product for ‘fun’ in the privacy of their own home, and although this is quite sad, providing they don’t publicize the hack then no harm is done."

Nothing sad about a consumer actually wanting to posses what they purchase. I dislike the whole 'it's just a license...not a purchase' guise the media industries hide behind.

TRUST your customers. Be NICE to them. Give them a REASON to keep giving you money in the future.

Look at this thread here. They've already tainted their image through just one PAYING customer being annoyed.

"What’s better a software solution that stops you from doing things against the EULA, or the EULA you don’t read and end up breaking?"

It's better to not bother. Consumers don't read EULAs.

Darrel, consumers that care do read EULAs.

The font components are downloaded by the LHF Service and placed in:

/Applications/Letterhead Fonts/Contents/Resources/LHFService/Contents/Resources/fonts/

These files are still not generally functional. They might be modifying the data slightly just before making the ATS call to activate the font. It's not entirely clear what problems this might pose for FontExplorer or Suitcase users. Running two font managers at once has been problematic in the past. When a font is activated by ATS it is not entirely possible to hide it's location. The complete font may only exist temporarily, but it is possible to find it's location.

I think the other stated reasons are more important for avoiding these fonts. Really this is not flexible enough for professional design work. In most cases, a very similar font will be available from a major vendor without the potential headaches.

>Look at this thread here. They’ve already tainted their image through just one PAYING customer being annoyed.

If the paying customer had said "I spoke to the vendor and they said - tough luck, and sent me packing" then there may be some validitiy to this. So far no one has indicated that they've even spoken to the vendor.

>It’s better to not bother. Consumers don’t read EULAs.

That'll change, esp. once they get sent the invoice a few months after they've posted a PDF containing the fonts on their blog.

--Consumers don’t read EULAs.

--consumers that care do read EULAs.

Do you adhere to EULAs for typefaces that you purchase?

Going in a different direction here from the previous comments. Just out of curiosity, and maybe this is a naive question, but I'm wondering... How does LHF's new scheme of embedding a purchaser's font file with their account number and other identifying info work so as not to cause functional problems with the operation of the font?

I will say this about Quark and EULAs - if you Collect for Output in Quark it point blank asks you if you have read the license and are complying with its restrictions. Of course then it lets you go ahead and collect anyway, but I think it's cool they ask.

That said, I rarely read EULAs. Sorry. Doesn't mean I'm not aware of font piracy issues.

I would NEVER buy a font I couldn't turn on and off at will.

>Sii, I posted this here instead of talking to the vendor first because I did not want my complaint possibly being kept private.

It's unlikely they would have said "we'll provide unlocked fonts providing you don't publicize the fact" but you never know. Anyway thanks for providing us with the detailed explanation.

Cheers, Si

It's interesting that they're willing to bet their brand on this. If I were going to try to implement font DRM I would create a new brand. The reason is that the print/design community is very "sticky" with regard to their opinion of specific companies. If people who support Macs in education and publishing put up "No Letterhead Fonts!" policies, this sentiment could get stuck in consumers' minds. They may become affaid to use any LH fonts.

Also, I'm not sure it's been mentioned, but if LH decides to not to update their application to support new versions of Mac and Windows, font users could potentially lose their ability to use their fonts!

I am a consumer that reads the EULA, but cares less about it than consumer protection legislation. It's a contract? So what? A contract could be invalid, unconscionable, or unenforceable. And intellectual property rights are not natural law, but exist only to the extent that they are recognized by the state. So I respect a EULA only to the extent that it deserves respect.

>It’s interesting that they’re willing to bet their brand on this. If I were going to try to implement font DRM I would create a new brand. The reason is that the print/design community is very “sticky” with regard to their opinion of specific companies.

Do you think? People were quick to forgive Adobe when they tried and abandoned protection schemes. I don't think these guys have much if anything to lose by giving this technology a college try.

People were quick to forgive Adobe when they tried and abandoned protection schemes.

I think it's easier for companies who make multiple products, like Microsoft, Apple and Adobe. Just because I think the Zune's DRM makes it useless, doesn't mean I dislike SQL Server 2005.

Also, if it is something Adobe abandoned, then it is easier to forgive.

Who do the makers think they are kidding? If it's possible to outline it before making a PDF, the font can be "re-engineered", right?

Thanks for commenting Chuck.
As I said, all power to an indie foundry that wants to do things its way.

its fonts.

"Why would you want to rekern any font? If the font you purchased is so lousy that you have to rekern it, I would suggest you ask for your money back." See Bringhurst v3.0 at 203-06.

I wrote Chuck about this and he responded very courteously in a matter of minutes. I feel his pain. I absolutely hate the new protection scheme, but I for one will do everything in my power to try to work within it because I want to support Chuck. It's a good thing he has such wonderful fonts and such an obvious love for the craft or many of us might just decide it's not worth it.

I have purchased many LHF types over the years and have long been a big fan of their products and their customer support. Whenever I have encountered any sort of difficulty they have been helpful, prompt, and gracious. Unfailingly. And I have always been scrupulously diligent about not allowing my LHF files out into the wild, out of respect for the designers and for LHF. Plus, they're mine!
I'm such a big fan that I've even purchased types from them that I don't even need. To satisfy my collector's impulse, or some other irrational motive. Abject affection, maybe.

But I will not buy anything from them as long as they employ this contrivance. No way.

Chuck, I too want to thank you for your comments even though I am obviously unhappy with the new system. I do hope the increased sales continue to stay up. I don't know about others, but in my case buying one of the recent LH fonts was due to a feeling of pent-up demand for a choice new release from LHF because of the 2-year drought in font releases till your new system went live just recently. I would have bought more than a single font, but being unsure of what the new font installation system might entail, decided to play it safe.

I've wondered for some time what the reason was for the lengthy absence of new releases, and tended to assume LHF must have been busy converting the entire preexisting catalog over to OpenType, which had to have been a huge task. In any event, my feeling at this point is I will probably end up buying a few more LH fonts in the future on occasion but at a significantly reduced level compared to the past because of the impact of the new scheme on our workflow. (I.e., "must haves" but not the "like to haves" like before.)

As the previous poster said, however, I continue to have great affection for LHF's fonts, and I hope fortune smiles on you and your business.

Dear Chuck,

I have dropped out of buying fonts for a few years. I purchase to rarely, a client has to give me a pretty good reason to spend the extra money.

However, as a typesetter in New York City, when the Mac became the way, I plunked down more than $25,000 on a font library. Owning Letraset, Bitstream (Type 3, which they were kind enough to update to a Type 1 a year later), Monotype, Linotype, URW, Adobe (originally library was a mere $15,000 and talk about errors in fonts.), and many fine fonts from FontFont, FontHaus, etc. (BTW, do you have any idea how many Garamonds a typographer during 1989-1991 in New York had to buy to be legit?)

In my typeshop, I had a disgruntled worker. He made a copy of my entire library (including some original handtailored fonts) and gave it to his friend, a photographer, down the street. The friend decided to become a design shop, and you could imagine my face when I received a flyer from the "other" shop, letting my customers know that "his" library contained exclusives, and he could set the job better than who you are using today...

I contacted Adobe immediately. Yes, I called in the Font Police. I learned pretty quickly that one person stealing a library wasn't worth their time and energy in legal fees. They referred me to a person at QuarkXPress. That was an interesting story. Quark found a consultant in New York who bought 25 copies of Quark. He placed them in one of the companies he was consulting for. Then he placed them repeatedly in other companies -- all using the same serial numbers. He did it so many times, that eventually companies started to contact Quark on their own to get the upgrades -- all using the same serial numbers. I still wonder how that lawsuit worked out -- that is what Adobe wanted me to know, you have to go after the big fish.

It isn't like you've lost a customer in me, I do like your fonts, and maybe one day, I'll be able to have a customer who appreciates them and is willing to pay the price. I no longer am. But the fonts I own, all licensed and legit -- I do need to pass on to my printer when I am doing book, advertising and magazine work.

I am just sharing this. Maybe some would call it rambling. I do want you to know, I do know what it is like when one is stressed out in a business that is going nowhere, where your assets are being stolen - and worse, advertised against you. Sometimes you have to realize it is okay to move on.

Meanwhile, I am curious, if someone did want to give a printer a pdf or have the font to give their absolutely, legitimate printer so their job looks exactly like they expect it to -- is the new licensing of Letterhead Fonts opposed to this? Or must we make a PDF in Photoshop, flatten it like a graphic, and have no fonts -- which means, oh no, more time on making type corrections down the road...

And by the way -- I keep repeating myself lately, but I am amazed that a "newbie" can go on line, pick up tons of illegal fonts -- and have a better typography library than Photolettering did in 1989! Probably every typographer I knew, is rolling over in their graves... and most likely, laughing.

Heron you only have to turn the typefaces to outlines, you don't need to rasterize them. All of Letterhead's fonts are display. I suppose turning the headings to outlines isn't that bad. It is just a nuisance.

Being involved with information sharing in between foundries, I've seen a disgusting amount of font piracy. I don't want anyone to think I'm against a foundry doing what they feel they must to protect there work. It is a business decision and like any business decision there is an upside and a downside. It sounds to me like you, Chuck, did what you felt you needed to do.

"Darrel, consumers that care do read EULAs."

Care about what?

Consumers want a simple transaction: Here's my money, give me my product.

EULAs are only used to restrict the default assumptions of that transaction. They're bad, bad, bad. IMHO, of course. ;o)

"I am a consumer that reads the EULA, but cares less about it than consumer protection legislation."

Well said.

"For those that say that protection is a slap in the face to the consumer or even hint that we are less friendly to our customers now— You obviously have never purchased anything from us or called us."

It is a slap in the face. I love Apple. I think they are a great company. But DRM on their songs is a slap in the face. Period.

Piracy...the damaging kind...the ones where people are selling your goods...these aren't stupid people. They know how to get around DRM. There's a monetary reward for doing so.

The ones that aren't as damaging...the paying customer sending a font to the printer with the file or just wanting to make a PDF to send to a client...this just annoys them.

Chuck, good luck with it all. I hope that your protection scheme actually works as you intended. I have a strong hunch it won't, but would love to be proven wrong. Keep us posted. In the end, only you know your user base and perhaps this is the ideal solution for your target audience.

Thanks for the response, Chuck. It's rare for any vendor to speak out candidly about piracy; I'm used to just hearing the same old statistics spewing out of lobbying organizations. Sometimes I think that there would be a lot less IP theft out there if businesses tried a little harder to put a face on things. Good luck to you, and sink or swim, please let us know how it works out.

Chuck, I certainly feel your pain, but essentially breaking your customers' final product can't be the best way to do this. I wish I knew a better one, though ...

Converting to curves means that the content of your files cannot be searched/indexed/aggregated/copied&pasted, and essentially breaks the whole metadata point of a PDF. It also means that my entire proof process - which is 100% PDF based, now - would have to be abandoned on any jobs I used LHF fonts on. I doubt any art department that uses PDF workflow from proofing onwards can afford to completely re-engineer their procedures just to accomodate your type, no matter how well made and attractive it is.

My 2¢. Good luck,

JLT

---

jlt : http://www.hewnandhammered.com : rnrmf!

Thanks for your side of the story, Chuck. I appreciate the effort you made to explain your point of view at Typophile.

> From that point forward we began noticing increased cases of piracy.

Did you also notice any affect on sales?

My, my, my...what an interesting, yet difficult to follow thread. We is quite the opinionated bunch, ain't we? I have a few points I wanted to address.

1. EULA, SCHMULA...we read 'em when we have to. But no busy person or firm is going to sit down and read every one of them if they make many font purchases from many different foundries.

2. There's a lot to be learned from Heron's Quark story, as it seems Adobe has learned from Quark's "piracy paranoia" and makes their software (and EULA) less restrictive. Witness Quark's ever shrinking market share.

Sii (and everyone as a whole), something I think a lot of people who work for large companies don't realize, is how faceless companies can be perceived by consumers. This does not go just for the big 'uns— the small ones too. We visit a webpage, we make a purchase. Who are we talking to exactly when we're buying fonts? There's no follow-up call with purchases, just an icon that appears on our desktop and e-mailed invoice. Not very personal, no evidence of a human being involved in the process. Phoning the company is plausible to us because many of us here on Typophile actually know someone (or are that someone) who works in the type industry.

As the sole "graphic designer" for the company I work for, I have to play the role of both the Font Congress and the Font Police. Purchasing fonts is a cold business transaction. The type industry as a whole has a serious PR problem to creative types in general and very few people in the industry seem to be willing to address this.

To Chuck directly:

3. Piggybacking my last statement— Malbright's more positive points are right on the money I think. I would pick up the 12 Immutable Laws of Branding if you haven't read it already. You'll learn a lot from that book. Your brand is important, put a face with it.

4. A spin on this discussion— fine tune the installation software and then patent it. If you get it right, I'd bet many, many type companies would pay you for a standardized application and you could end up revolutionizing the type industry as a whole by finding a way around the font piracy issue. You could recoup losses from there. (But that's aiming high.)

You're in the software business, so start selling that sh!t! Good luck to you! :)

Your point 4 is creative, and normally I would agree. But let's be honest. It's a horrible, non user-focused protection scheme that I predict will stop more customers from buying than pirates from stealing. A more realistic business strategy would be for Chuck to give all his competitors the software for free, hence insidiously killing their businesses and leaving the spoils for himself. Be realistic. The industry will never adopt this as a standard—it's an unworkable solution and only punishes the honest customers. Great book you recommended by the way—please Chuck, I hope you're reading all this!

>Sii (and everyone as a whole), something I think a lot of people who work for large companies don’t realize, is how faceless companies can be perceived by consumers.

Can you blame me/us for trying to change that, at least in this 'industry'?

FYI

I just went over to Letterhead's website (by the way a beta version of Chuck Davis' LHF Cafe Corina is in the free downloads) and I noticed that on the Home page there is an announcement:

Notice
Letterhead Fonts are now offered in Postscript Open Type, etc.

if you click on that - Chuck is giving full details of the change, what to expect and even if you need to call him after you purchase. It just takes some time to look and read...

http://www.letterheadfonts.com/support/changes.shtml

Can you blame me/us for trying to change that, at least in this ‘industry’?

Absolutely not, Simon. By even mentioning it and showing up so frequently on Typophile you're inadvertently doing a nice PR job for Microsoft.

"European copyright law has recently changed, to allow artists “commission” on works when purchasers resell them."

Scary! What next? Ford demanding $100 from every used pickup sold and lawyers flocking to garage sales to collect 'royalties' on that 20 year old blender you are selling for $.50?

It's not for mass-produced objects.
I think there is a limit on print-runs for etchings, etc., for those to qualify.

“European copyright law has recently changed, to allow artists “commission” on works when purchasers resell them.”

This "Bruxelles measure" is quite controversial — apparantly a lot of art dealers in Europe plan to move or already have moved their operations off shore, eg to Switzerland.

BTW The compensation is capped — 12500 euro's max.

>if you click on that - Chuck is giving full details of the change,
>what to expect and even if you need to call him after you purchase.
>It just takes some time to look and read…
>
>http://www.letterheadfonts.com/support/changes.shtml

Yes, this information was all there when I bought one of the new just-released LHF fonts before starting this thread (as I pointed out in an earlier post). But as I've noted a couple of times before, the information offered is limited and in my opinion less than honest because it withholds other facts needed for full disclosure. The main three things we are told is the fonts are not put in the system fonts folders, they won't work with font managers, and they won’t embed in PDFs and have to be converted to outlines first.

But the URL above withholds telling the buyer they no longer get a regular OpenType .otf file they can manage, or that the entire scheme is a black-box operation so the fonts are locked down and the user can't touch them outside of use within DTP applications. We also aren't informed fonts cannot be packaged for output to a service bureau, though perhaps one should be able to surmise this from the fact fonts aren't imbeddable in PDFs, but it certainly isn't noted. The site info also doesn't mention that LHF fonts are now either all on or all off with no ability to load them individually.

The user is simply left in the dark about these critical facts and to discover them on their own *after* they have already paid their money and started using the font(s). As Chuck said, he has the right to implement whatever scheme he wants. But by the same token users have a right to be fully informed before making a purchase too. That's not the case right now.

Also, on the LHF site, this is all framed in the context of being better technology. Nothing at all is said about Chuck being fed up with piracy (other than a vague passing allusion in his "About LHF" bio on the site) and that this was the real reason for the change, or at least the reason for the lockdown aspect of it that is never divulged.

And I think this is because Chuck is probably afraid of what would happen to sales if he were to be completely forthcoming about it. Understandably, I guess. I mean, I like Chuck. I understand the dilemma. But it's also understandable that many users will need and want to know. If it's a serious rather than casual or uninformed type user, you're going to have a seriously annoyed customer on your hands if you make them buy first only to find out the real "gotchas" later.

"I don’t see how a small company could muster the forces to pursue legal action—"
If a small company's business IS intellectual property represented in digital form, then I'm of the opinion that they must do something. I mean, all such companies are based on the laws that have been enacted to make such property possible. So, it's only a question when, if you are going to directly license and thus police, you beat a quick path to three stages; send licensing agreement, send cease and desist, file suit. And nevertheless, as this 3-staged legal path making must be done with or without an installer/hider, no?

"most of those doing the stealing would never be customers anyway."
Exactly. You pick and choose. Maybe it's different for signage fonts and especially good display faces, but I think it's not, in fact, I think they are much easier to spot, track and trap, skin and license. I think, we have never made it to stage 3, which is where the real money is to be spent. Either way, I wish them luck with an installer, and if it works, all the better to cut down on policing, maybe?

off shore, eg to Switzerland

Technically correct, but geographically bizarre!

David, how do you know whether someone using one of your fonts is a licensed user?
They might not have licensed it directly from you, but they may have have got it from a distributor who doesn't pass on the names of purchasers with sales reports.

Another scenario: an advertiser uses one of your fonts in an ad campaign. They haven't licensed it, but their agency has (or hasn't). It's not practical to keep tabs on which companies are using which agencies.

> “European copyright law has recently changed, to allow artists “commission” on works when purchasers resell them.”

I wonder whether the writer is able to specify the would-be paragraph of the would-be "European copyright law", and I wonder whether he can specify what he means by "recently".

Two months ago, in the Scangraphic thread, I asked Miss Tiffany to delete my account. But she didn't. Today, by chance, I stumbled upon this Letterhead thread, which might be used as a supplement to my German documentation

"The mentally deranged graphics designer as font buyer"
(see http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/brendel.pdf)

In my documentation I came to the conclusion that graphic designers who buy "rights" ("licences") to fonts must be regarded as mentally deranged for various legal reasons, e.g. because they buy "rights", which do not exist at all.

Graphic designer who buy "rights" to these Letterhead fonts although these "rights" do not exist at all, and who buy "rights" to "Open Type" fonts, although they are "Closed Type" fonts which cannot be located in fonts folders, which cannot be embedded into PDF files, which cannot be backed up, which cannot be used with font managers, which cannot be etc. etc. etc., must be regarded as mentally deranged. Consult your psychiatrist, if you don't believe me.

I wonder whether he can specify what he means by “recently”.

vor kurzem

In my documentation I came to the conclusion that graphic designers who buy “rights” (“licences”) to fonts must be regarded as mentally deranged for various legal reasons, e.g. because they buy “rights”, which do not exist at all.

Or maybe we do it because it's less deranged than dealing with letterpress or photolettering.

Why am I looking forward to the impending 'who is more deranged' flame war?

I must be really deranged :)

No flame war is necessary. What he meant by "must be regarded as mentally deranged" was "I disagree".

Chuck stated that due to poor business decision(s), he was forced to live in a van. Seems to me, he hasn't learned anything in terms of sharpening his business acumen. Alienating his loyal/honest customers by having them perform a dog and pony show just to use his typefaces seems a poor business strategy. It could very well lead him right back to skid row.

I can't stand unethical business practices - never have, never will. Stealing is plain wrong. I don't read EULA's anymore only because I don't copy/steal software or fonts and in the end, that's essentially what the EULA's are trying to avoid. My coworkers call me a boy scout. I believe you take people at face value, honor your word and do what is right.

This thread sucks. What's this, public spanking for Mr Davis? For trying to protect his work in a similar way as do software companies? (At is was mentioned already, Adobe's implementation of product activation is a real obstacle for backing up &c. Better write the same emails to Adobe -- for example.) Come one ...

Karsten

Karsten,

I think you missed the point of this thread.
This is not a bashing of anyone.

Letterhead fonts has changed their practice of how they release fonts to their customers. They have made this as a business decision to protect themselves from piracy.

However, they haven't taken into account how their customers actually use their fonts. And because of their new policy, they may lose more of their customers. The "lock" on these fonts does not allow a designer to show their work in a way that has become familar to all of us over the last 10 years.

We are worried that this new business plan may hurt Letterpress -- more than help.

The issue of piracy has always been discussed thoroughly, the conclusions have always been drawn that those that steal fonts were never going to purchase them. Some foundries therefore keep providing new ideas, fonts, programs, etc. to keep their loyal clients returning for more purchases, helping their ever-shrinking bottom line.

No bashing, just logic.

I agree with Heron here. I mean, take a listen to Type Radio — one question often posed is “Do you have a lot of illegal fonts?”. Take for example Fred Smeijers' response to this. I can't quote him exactly, but it came down to that he did, but simply to see if it's useful, and if he can find a use for a font, he buys it with the money you have then (e.g. the money from the assignment), thus actually boosing font sales with piracy. Now, of course, “piracy” is a bit of a sharp word, but I know countless people who have downloaded, say, a font called ‘Eurostibble’, an imaginary one-weight, unkerned font that is actually a weight of Eurostile from some “Free Fonts!!!” site. Is that piracy? How about downloading Helvetica from Kazaa and then buying it when you need it for some commercial assignment? I find it difficult to draw a line.

And, as has been said before, just give some oppurtunistic coder some time with such an installer, and I am willing to bet that he will be able to extract the fonts. Remember that a lot of people who 'pirate' fonts actually don't care if it's not kerned, or lacks punctuation, or is in any way broken. If it slightly resembles a font, they are happy with it. And they wouldn't have bought it in the first place. So it could very well be just like DRM on music; the consumer expiriences trouble using a legitly acquired product (a CD that you can't play on a computer, for example), but the 'cracker' can simply put the line-out of his CD player into his computer's line-in to record the music anyway and then share it. So who are you really prohibiting use? If the intent is there, you can bet that one way or another, the goal will be attained.

"This thread sucks. What’s this, public spanking for Mr Davis? For trying to protect his work in a similar way as do software companies?"

What's this? Someone defending annoying anti-consumer DRM-schemes just because other companies use it?

Anyways, it's less of a spanking and more of an attempt at bringing awareness to consumers.

"At is was mentioned already, Adobe’s implementation of product activation is a real obstacle for backing up &c. Better write the same emails to Adobe — for example."

Many do. I haven't ordered an Adobe product upgrade in about 3 years. I'm holding out as long as I can hoping a few of the open source options get up to speed soon. We'll see how long I can manage waiting for that. ;o)

> What he meant by “must be regarded as mentally deranged” was “I disagree”.

When I say "mentally deranged", I mean "mentally deranged".

Any psychiatrist who studies this case will confirm that graphic designers who buy “rights” to these Letterhead fonts although these “rights” do not exist at all, and who buy “rights” to “Open Type” fonts, although they are “Closed Type” fonts which cannot be located in fonts folders, which cannot be embedded into PDF files, which cannot be backed up, which cannot be used with font managers, which cannot be etc. etc. etc., must be regarded as mentally deranged.

As regards "Open Type" versus "Closed Type", let us remember why the "Open Type" font format was invented:

The Adobe PostScript fonts from the mid-1980s until the early 1990s were "Closed Type" fonts, because the internal format was kept secret by Adobe and because the fonts were encrypted so that these "Closed Type" PostScript fonts could only be used in conjunction with Adobe's own special "decrypting" programs, e.g. "Adobe Type Manager" etc.

Later in the early 1990s, after Apple and Microsoft had invented the TrueType format, Adobe revealed the internal format and the encryption scheme of PostScript fonts.

In mid-1990, a really open "Open Type" font format was developed with full documentation and without encryption and with the big advantage that such "Open Type" fonts could be installed on various operating systems (Windows, Mac OS, etc). At that time in mid-1990, the following was proudly and jointly declared by Adobe and Microsoft:

"OpenType fonts and the operating system services which support OpenType fonts provide users with a simple way to install and use fonts"
(see http://www.microsoft.com/OpenType/OTSpec/otover.htm)

Now look at these crippled Letterhead "Open Type" fonts. Do they "provide users with a simple way to install and use fonts", as defined above by Adobe and Microsoft? Definitely not! These crippled Letterhead fonts are technically "Closed Type" fonts, because the internal format is kept secret, the fonts are hidden and presumably encrypted, and you need a proprietary "installer" without which you cannot use these "Closed Type" Letterhead fonts.

Therefore any psychiatrist will confirm that those graphic designers who suffer from the delusion that they buy "Open Type" Letterhead fonts, while in fact they buy crippled proprietary "Closed Type" fonts rendered useless by various technical restrictions, must be regarded as mentally deranged.

We're all deranged, as we go about our business surfing the internet, scrolling down web pages, and licensing fonts from type foundries.

For those who are keeping score, Adobe's protection activation scheme is actually much easier and more workable than Letterhead Fonts' protection, which is virtually unusable in the professional world of design. Apples to oranges.

At is was mentioned already, Adobe’s implementation of product activation is a real obstacle for backing up &c. Better write the same emails to Adobe — for example.

Adobe's type licensing though, in my opinion, is about the best in the business because in allows in-house modifications. I think they get away with this because they know their fonts are robust and well made. If someone needs to make adjustments for language support or something they can do it. At any rate, it shows respect for how customers actually use their tools.

@ aluminium

I think I got the point of this thread.

@ Sebastiaan

Yes, I listened to Type Radio -- not only to Mr Smeijers' answer.  ;-)

@ heron2001

No sympathy for current DRM solutions. Partly because they are badly implemented and cause us troubles. Partly because the underlying conception is of yesteryear -- the more serious issue. An example: Adobe's DRM links apps to the computer's harddrive. But today it does not make sense any more to tie user-identity to the heavy machine on or below the desk, since you can already put your OSX or other Unix on a CD, DVD, external harddrive and possibly (this is really exciting) even flash drive and work from any computer you have access to. (I don't like carrying a laptop around, as light as it may be.) Within this scenario, why not let the user decide which hard disk or flash drive best serves to identify 'me' as the paying licensee of the OS, app, fonts, documents? (Today, if I want to use my CS license on many computers, I have to de-activate and re-activate each time, which requires web-connection of each of these computers which is not necessarily given. Just plugging in a flash drive would be so much easier.)

I don't defend DRM in this case because others use DRM too. My logic is exactly the other way round:
This thread is now 100+ posts, most of them more or less repeating the initial one. However, it is 'just fonts' which are the least expensive part of designers' tools, compared to: computer, printer, scanner, software, photo equipment, &c. The real problem is that we can, and thus most likely do, copy cheap non-DRM-ed apps and fonts, but not computers; and we can argue with one-man-foundries, but not with the larger corporations -- at best we end up with a student reading standard answers from a problem-solution database. My concern is that this 'awareness campaign' addresses the wrong one.

@ malbright

Apples to oranges -- true, though in a different way: You'll always find a foundry that offers similar fonts. But currently there are no real alternatives to Adobe/Macromedia's applications (which, I should add, I like).

>Adobe’s type licensing though, in my opinion, is about the best in the business because in allows in-house modifications.

Are you sure, I think the current Adobe EULA and hard-to-find FAQ are somewhat contradictory.

But for now, that option doesn’t exist. Personally, that would not prevent me from using original fonts. I too am a designer and I don’t use any font management program. I would rather spend the time designing than turning fonts on and off. If I don’t want a font, I don’t install it in the first place. Apparently several people must agree with me that having Letterhead Fonts with some limitations is better than no Letterhead Fonts, because sales are up. And people are still creating things with our fonts. But even if sales were cut in half as a result of this protection— I would still do it, because of the peace of mind it provides us. And that peace of mind translates into new fonts for you.

However when you're a corporation buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fonts, you need to have the ability to turn on these fonts for particular projects and books while working on others at the same time. We work on files that have grade specific fonts and have to QC files daily switching between grade levels. We need the flexibility of the font management software to allow us to do that. If the font is embedded into the computer's sytem, it causes font issues with files in Adobe and Microsoft products that conflict with that font.

Sad to say that we will not be able to purchase your fonts for our book publishers if that flexibility is not in place. We have enough issues with font conflicts in applications already. Allowing a font foundry to just install fonts willy-nilly into the system is dangerous and not a risk any large book publisher with thousands of users will take.

~Saritza

Good god I couldn't function without a font management program. I'd rather spend the time turning fonts on and off than scrolling through thousands of fonts every time. Plus I need my "playlists" to organize my fonts and narrow things down when I'm choosing fonts for a project.

"The issue of piracy has always been discussed thoroughly, the conclusions have always been drawn that those that steal fonts were never going to purchase them."

This is only 1/3 ? of the conclusion, with all due respect:

The issue of piracy has been discussed thoroughly, the conclusions drawn are several. There are those who steal fonts, never to use or distribute them. We tend to leave these alone as they are either hard to detect or in the design business... Secondly, there are those who steal fonts and are going to license them as soon as they find out it's better to, and we have a net to catch them. Then, there are those who steal fonts and are going to require pursuit...(not that I miss the later, but did I miss anyone, anyone?).

The point I was trying to make to the letterheads at Letterhead, was that you don't find the legit clients amongst the thieves unless you have a net out to catch both the malicious and innocent cases of theft. Besides, there being nothing less useful to a steady hand than anger, except possibly lifting heavy objects, the whole issue is best left to others ASAP. Greg Thompson once called me from a CA Highway in 1990(!) where he'd just passed an immense highway sign using Bodega Sans for the film "Father of the Bride," "Did they license that?", he screamed above the incessant traffic...lol, I did — now too. A few years later he was wondering how much our licensing % had improved, and I said, "I don't know, why not put serifs on Bodega, and we'll see."

Nick asks: "David, how do you know whether someone using one of your fonts is a licensed user?"
I personally don't know who is and isn't a licensed user, and it never "bothers" me. I occasionally participate in the net mentioned above, i.e. when I see our's used by a fortune 2500 company, I ask further up our licensing chain. It was previously mentioned that good customers become uneasy when they see free use "across the street" — our discretion and well-known fondness for genuine admiration-driven theft, encourages both the aggrieved and grief-makers to call us, making another part of the net. Having urls in fonts, is yet another part.

At least he responded courteously to you. He was arrogant and exploited a very poor attitude in his reply to me! When I emailed him about auto-installing fonts on my system which I did not like and asking him if I could purchase fonts in a ZIP file, this is his actual reply to me:

All fonts are self-installing. We do not offer fonts inside of .zip files that you may install yourself. The fonts are protected within the installer and are not placed in your fonts folder. This was done to protect the fonts against piracy, not to make it easier to install (although it certainly does that too).

We are not a charity. We are a business and as such, we reserve the right to operate as we please. If you do not like the way we conduct our business, I suggest you not purchase our fonts.

Sincerely,
Chuck Davis
Letterhead Fonts
http://www.letterheadfonts.com
661-951-1939

Talk about arrogrance and POOR (at best) customer service! I ended our business relationship with him right then and there. When I found this thread on Typophile, I joined. I wanted to put this info into your thread and let you all know how arrogantly and with such a poor attitude Mr. Davis responded to me.

My firm has not spent as much money with Letterhead as some of you, I am sure, but as a small independent firm, we were still a paying customer! We had no problems up until now, but this has caused us to drop Letterhead from our vendor list. We can no longer do business with anyone who demands complete control of how we apply what we purchase for our business. We will be taking our business elsewhere.

>>Adobe’s type licensing though, in my opinion, is about the best in the business because in allows in-house modifications.

>Are you sure, I think the current Adobe EULA and hard-to-find FAQ are somewhat contradictory.

We'll here's the definitive answer... http://fontlab.wikidev.net/EULA_chart

The only modification allowed is format conversion for internal use. Makes pre-OpenType historical sense given the fact that (with only a few exceptions) Adobe didn't provide TrueType fonts.

We are not a charity. We are a business and as such, we reserve the right to operate as we please. If you do not like the way we conduct our business, I suggest you not purchase our fonts.

Wow. I guess sometimes you get what you ask for. What's happened to customer service these days?

You mean "customer disservice", don't you? :-(

>Wow. I guess sometimes you get what you ask for.

Well, we don't really know what Cathy asked for - we're only seeing the vendor's reply, not the mail/s that it was in response to.

Sii:
Adobe's font FAQ at http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/ff_faq.html says:

"Can I customize a font using font manipulation software?
You are allowed to use font manipulation software to modify the font software to produce “derivatives” of fonts licensed from Adobe, as long as you use the derivatives in accordance with the same licensing terms that accompany the original fonts. For example, you can use Macromedia Fontographer or Pyrus FontLab to customize an Adobe Font for individual usage, but you are not permitted to distribute, sell, or give away, the derivative work, and the derivative work counts as one of the permitted number of uses."

My point was that the FAQ is contradicted by the Adobe font license. I’m sure Tiff’s chart is based on the EULA. Here’s what the EULA says

4.2 No Modifications. Except as permitted in Section 14.7, you may not modify, adapt or translate the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted under applicable law to decompile only in order to achieve interoperability with the
Software.

14.7.4 You may convert and install the font software into another format for use in other environments, subject to the following conditions: A computer on which the converted font software is used or installed will be considered as one of your Permitted Number of Computers. Use of the font software you have converted will be pursuant to all the terms and conditions of this agreement. Such converted font software may be used only for your own customary internal business or personal use and may not be distributed or transferred for any purpose, except in accordance with Section 4.4 of this agreement.

Nothing in the EULA allows what most people would consider modification. The FAQ starts off clearly enough...

"You are allowed to use font manipulation software to modify the font software to produce “derivatives” of fonts licensed from Adobe, as long as you use the derivatives in accordance with the same licensing terms that accompany the original fonts."

But "in accordance with the same licensing terms" means format conversion only. But then the FAQ talks about "customization" too. Which does not appear to be allowed by the EULA.

Please let me know if I'm missing something. This came up in 2005 - http://typophile.com/node/16180 - so Adobe is aware of the apparent contradictions.

>Well, we don’t really know what Cathy asked for - we’re only seeing >the vendor’s reply, not the mail/s that it was in response to.

You didn't read my post then, sii -- I stated in the sentence right before I pasted Chuck's reply to me what I emailed and asked for! I asked for a ZIP file rather than an auto installer. That's when he gave me the ultimatum that if I didn't like how his fonts were packaged, I didn't have to buy them.

Cat

>You didn’t read my post then, sii —

Yes I did.

>I stated in the sentence right before I pasted Chuck’s reply...

The fact that you 'stated' your position and 'pasted' the reply was what made me suspicious. Maybe you were very polite in your original request and the vendor was just having a bad day, or maybe he just reacted to an over-use of exclamation points ;-) But to me the reply just seems out of character as a response to a polite inquiry - but if that's the "form letter" sent to everyone that complains then I'd agree it's not a good sign.

Cheers, Si

PS. I know the Saints are likely to win, but there's a rule that you should not be on typophile when your team is playing.

Lol, that mail-reply is almost laughable. Not a nice way to reply to a customer, even if the question would have been unpolite. A professional should just ignore it if that happens. Or reply in a decent way, anyway.

True, from my experience the shopkeepers in Groningen are always polite.

I'm not going to go as far as to say that the reply was acceptable, but I'm genuinely interested in what kind of mail would have prompted it - in particular what would prompt "we are not a charity" - anyway I hope Cathy posts the complete exchange so I can jump on the LH-bashing-bandwagon with a clean conscience. :-)

Hmm, the shopkeepers here suck, actually. ;)

Hehe, no, I agree. The complete exchange would be nice.

>The fact that you ‘stated’ your position and ‘pasted’ the reply was >what made me suspicious.
===

I posted my comment on the LH site so I didn't realize I had a copy. But alas, Mr. Davis did quote it when he replied to me - I scrolled down and found it for you. Here is my original inquiry to LHF...

Is there any way at all to download a zip file rather than a self-installing .exe file if I buy some fonts from you?

If anyone should know this, you should - installing too many fonts slows a machine down - I never install fonts! I click them open, minimize to my taskbar, use them, then close. I have ONLY what Windows installed actually installed and I would like to purchase a few of your fonts, but not if you must install them for me. That is about the worst thing you could do to us is install FOR US.

Thanks,

Cat

As you can see, I used no excessive exclamation points in my inquiry -and really nothing that would have warranted such an arrogant and nasty-sounding reply to a customer unless me saying the worst thing he could do is install fonts FOR US. Maybe challenging his decision to try to control our machines and how we manage our fonts got under his skin? Still -- that is not a way to reply to ANY customer - I certainly would never reply to my customers like that if they have a valid concern. Would you?

OT- I was watching the game about half. My husband was watching it enough for both of us. Birds lost. Poor birds. Tweet tweet.

Cat

Thanks for posting.

>Would you?

No

>Birds lost. Poor birds. Tweet tweet.

They should have gone for it on 4th and 15. But give them credit they nearly pulled off the upset.

There is a legal issue that has not yet been discussed.

At his website, Mr. Chuck Davis makes this legally relevant declararation:

"..... We've also decided to go full-force with Postscript Open Type and offer them exclusively ....... Letterhead Fonts are now available only in Postscript-flavored Open Type. This means that your software must support Open Type fonts. Open Type fonts work great in most Microsoft applications..........."

For full text see http://www.letterheadfonts.com/support/changes.shtml

Now there is this legal issue:

The Open Type font file specifications were defined by Microsoft and Adobe to warrant cross-platform compatibility such that the same identical Open Type font file can be used without modification on different operating systems (Mac OS, Windows OS, etc.). Exactly this is the meaning of "Open": For each font, there must exist one and the same open disk file usable by different operating systems. For more technical details please read the Open Type specifications published both at the Adobe and the Microsoft websites.

According to these Open Type specifications, Mr. Chuck Davis is not allowed to declare the non-open stuff he sells as "Open Type".

Mr. Chuck Davis may label his cripped non-open stuff by whatever other name he likes, but he must not label his crippled non-open stuff as "Open Type". Whosoever sells non-open stuff as "Open Type" commits the crime of fraud.

According to these Open Type specifications, Mr. Chuck Davis is not allowed to declare the non-open stuff he sells as “Open Type”.
==================

Thank you for this interesting insight. Another colleague of mine has recently purchased one of the LH "installers" and spent much time searching for the .OTF file on her system, which, of course, did not exist.

According to Microsoft, there MUST be an extension of .OTF or .TTF for any Open Type font to be called Open Type. So Mr. Chuck Davis is also in violation of Microsoft's Trademark.

This part right here:

Do Not Use the OpenType Trademark as Part of Your Product Name
Microsoft trademarks may not be incorporated as part of the name of another company's product or service. You may not include OpenType or any potentially confusing variation in the name of your product or service.

And he has used it and has NOT supplied customers with an actual Open Type font - he has only supplied his installer where you are DENIED the .OTF or .TTF file(s)

Now comes California Consumer Law. Mr. Chuck Davis resides in California, does he not? If so he is bound by California law. So he is in violation of that as well with his deceptive practices. From the California Consumer Protection site he is in violation by this rule alone, although he fits several other of the "rules".

(a) unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in the conduct of any trade or commerce;

Cat

A bit (more) support for letterhead:

Recently, I had a unique opportunity; to start my own business, selling my products on the internet. There is no other time on earth people have had the opportunity to create new products as the internet age. Companies can be formed without much of startup costs and risks involved with starting a new company and distributing products in the old era. Unfortunately, stealing their products is also much easier. Recently, I found a website that specifically asks to steal my typefaces.

I recently received a book from my sister, “The World is Flat.” It confirms what I have believed for some time. America’s role in the world is to create new and innovative products. Our main exports are weapons and entertainment, essentially products born from creative problem solving. We don’t do cars all that well, but we make some ripping airplanes.

Senator Feinstein, being from the state that is host to Hollywood and all, is supporting a bill called S.256, the PERFORM Act. It is a step in right direction for protecting digital music. Will it work? Probably not. There are too many ways to bypass DRM systems. It sends a message. Althrough digital property is easy to steal, it is still not right.

Some “evildoers” have created a site to urge senators to reject this bill. I have a different idea in mind. Using their website mechanisms, you can draft a letter urging your senators to confirm this bill.

Here is a brief little letter I have composed. If you would like, please use it as a base for your own letter.

As a constituent and creator of digital content, I urge you to CONFIRM the perform act. Those that oppose this bill are essentially asking Congress to put
a stamp of approval on their illegal activities. America needs its creatives and
entrepreneurs now more than ever. Rejecting this bill would cripple the creation
of digital content of all kinds and cause innovation to be stifled.

I find it shameful that some persons have created a website to convince Congress not to confirm this bill. Please send a strong message that stealing for content creators of all kinds is illegal and immoral.

I would love to see DRM incorporated into typefaces by Microsoft/Adobe/Apple. I plan to push for this as much as I can.

Lets see if the system works. Oh, and Cat, why are you splitting hairs over the .otf stuff? I deliver my product as a .zip file, just as everyone else. Am I in violation? No.

Jeremy Dooley
www.insignedesign.com

Y'know Jeremy, I'd take your plea more seriously if you had better spelling and grammar in your "model" letter. Having worked with politicians at the local, state/provincial, and federal levels in Canada and the U.S. for more than twenty years, I'm here to tell you that when they receive communications that lack basic language skills, they are ignored.

>when they receive communications that lack basic language skills, they are ignored.

Note this doesn't always apply to the highest ranking elected officials ;-)

Fair criticism, Linda. I need to work on that.

JDooley.

"Some “evildoers” "

Hmm...the EFF? You serious? Evil?

Damn consumer rights organizations. ALWAYS STICKING IT TO THE MAN!

Ranting about the EFF is akin to your plumber ranting about the Better Business Bureau.

Back to the thread, regarding the legalities of calling them Open Type when they truly are not...related to the issue is DRMed CDs. Apparently a CD must adhere to the established tech specs and the DRMed ones fail that test, and, as such, can not technically be called CDs.

Evildoers is a joke, hence the quotation marks. However, the EFF, in this case (Honestly, I don't know its overall track record), is standing against the protection of creative work, in essence stifling creativity. If everyone gets their product ripped off, there is no inducement to create.

"is standing against the protection of creative work"

No, it stands for protecting consumer's fair use and preventing the government from subsidizing poor business models via heavy handed legislation.

The problem is that DRM doesn't work. It does not stop 'piracy' and it does piss of consumers. Instead of coming up with better solutions, the industries that depend on sales of digital media would prefer that the government simply force the consumers hand.

As long as the media industries are private, the government (ie, us) have no business subsidizing them through overly restrictive legislation.

IMHO (and the EFF's) of course.

Interesting perspective. I normally would be all over the non-intervention of government aspect, but government is there for protection. Government makes laws to protect its citizens, from bodily harm, and in this case, theft.

I agree that the current implementation of DRM is not perfect. However, if designers/companies can't create products without someone stealing them, they stop creating. As Chuck said earlier, he almost quit producing. Ultimately, that hurts the designer by limiting creative output, harming the creator and the economy. Legislation can help clear up this semi-nebulous area of the law.

"and in this case, theft"

But is it really theft? Is copyright infringment theft? Is photocopying an article for a friend the same as shoplifing? Is grabbing a song to put in my kids home video the same as selling pirated DVDs on the streets of NYC?

It's important to remember what US IP laws were originally designed for. Too many people think it was designed solely to provide a monetary incentive for the creator to innovate. That's only half of it. The reason our country created IP laws was to provide that delicate balance between encouraging innovataion, and giving the masses access to the benefits of cultural and collective knowlege.

Many people allege (and I agree) that industries like the MPAA and RIAA have pretty much taken IP law to an extreme favoring mainly only the creator. These proposed laws do nothing more than to push that lopsideness even further.

I find something very wrong when an entire industry is convicted of price fixing (music industry) and their fine is essentially $15. An international corporation is shown to have installed virii on people's computers (Sony). Their 'fine'? Give a free CD to their customers. The richest company on the planet (MS) has been shown to have acted unfairly as a monopoly in countries throughout the world. Their 'fine'? Well, nothing worthy of actually penalizing them.

In turn, a 12 year old girl in Kansas who shares a Britteny Spears single? Legally, her family can be extorted out of 6 grand.

To me, the laws are already insanely anti-consumer.

"I agree that the current implementation of DRM is not perfect."

There likely won't ever be a DRM that truly works.

"However, if designers/companies can’t create products without someone stealing them, they stop creating"

Did libraries stop authors from writing? Did VCRs stop TV networks from airing shows? Has Adobe gone out of business due to script kiddies cracking photoshop so they could make a myspace icon?

That phrase has yet to be proven correct. It's also been used every single time a new technology has dared enter the market that has some facet of being able to duplicate something. From 8-tracks to photocopiers. ;o)

"Legislation can help clear up this semi-nebulous area of the law."

What's nebulous? Our copyright laws are fairly straight forward (well, as straight forward as laws can be).

The DMCA was not needed. THAT has only complicated things...mainly for the worse if you are a consumer.

To be fair, independant font foundries are caught in the crossfire of the truly evil industries that have really tainted DRM and the like. There is zero sympathy left for the RIAA, for instance.

That said, the argument the RIAA is using isn't too far away from what some of the people in this thread are using. THe reality is that music sharing really hasn't killed the industry. It'shurt it in some ways, helped it in others. Mainly, it's just CHANGED the indusstry and the industry really doesn't like that, as they had a pretty good racket going. Instead of ADOPTING to market forces, however, they prefer to use lobbyists and lawyers. Alas, crazy DRM on a typeface gets lumped more into that crowd than not.

Lets see if the system works. Oh, and Cat, why are you splitting hairs over the .otf stuff? I deliver my product as a .zip file, just as everyone else. Am I in violation? No.
============
But inside your .zip file, Jeremy, is an actual .OTF or .TTF or .PFB and .PFM - that ends up where I decide to unzip the files to on my system. When I have purchased your fonts, I have not had to worry that there was going to be some .exe file slung at me that opens and does its thing and doesn't let me know what it's doing and doesn't allow me to have the actual font that I paid for! You ARE delivering the actual .OTF (or whatever format) in the proper format that I am paying for. Mr. Davis is not doing this. He is "masking" the actual .OTF inside some installer" that did NOT install the font where it belongs in my Windows fonts directory. That is messing with MY SYSTEM. That is me paying out good money for some file that is not the actual .OTF that Microsoft's trademark requires it to be when it has been advertised to be so.

Cat

This discussion has officially derailed. Maybe we should have a mandatory Typophile three-page maximum and all future discussion should be spawned into separate, focused threads.

For Christ's sake, it's just a freaking font. Who forces you to buy it and talk to the supposedly unfriendly and professionally strayed man named Chuck? Who!? Maybe you should complain to that person.

>when they receive communications that lack basic language skills, they are ignored.

Note this doesn’t always apply to the highest ranking elected officials ;-)

Well, depending on the content, they might send the FBI to your door. :-(

Sergej - the reason its worth talking about here on Typophile is that type suppliers are interested in DRM techniques and their drawbacks.

My experience with Chuck was entirely different. On the two occassions he's written me, he was polite, thoughtful, gracious and took the time to write lengthy emails explaining his position. In several ways, he bent over backwards to help me understand his position. He shared with me some disturbing links that really opened my eyes up to how pervasive and insidious this piracy thing really is. And all the while, he treated me like a valued and respected customer.

I am disappointed to hear that MzCatzMeow had a different experience. I can only guess that by now, Chuck must be really sick of fielding questions, even harmless and polite ones! No excuse, I know. But the guy must be at wit's end to write such an offensive email. Surely he is frustrated by all of this—he must love having all of us biting at him—and if he had found a better way to more fully protect his fonts I'm sure he would've welcomed it.

Meanwhile, the installer scheme truly is unworkable. And I agree that it's a bit misleading to call the fonts OT when they are actually the opposite of 'open'.

>Sergej - the reason its worth talking about here on Typophile is that type suppliers are interested in DRM techniques and their drawbacks.

Likewise font customers are probably worried about the possible wide-spread adoption of these techniques by other mainstream font vendors. The complaints are as much a warning to other font makers as they are directed to LHF.

Exactly.

As a user I don't mind the idea of serialization or activation of fonts. If a foundry wishes to know that I've de-installed a font and am re-installing it again--for whatever reason--that is there perogative. As is what Chuck has done for that matter. However, the thing that really frustrates me is not being able to control the font. That seems a little heavy-handed. I have a very precise--read anal-retentive--way of organization and working with my fonts. If I can't do that it would drive me batty which would, in turn, make me want to not use the font. It kind of reminds me of someone forcing me to live my life in a certain way when I'd much rather make my own choices and arrive at my own destination. Sort of.

DRM doesn't bother me. I suppose. If they choose to do it they will, more than likely lose a few sales or perhaps gain more conversation with the customers who wish to upgrade their licenses in order to do what is they need to do.

I'd hope before DRM comes into play some of the foundries will really consider some of the more problematic clauses in their EULAs and give the user a little more rope. Specifically embedding into PDFs. The PDF workflow is how we do business now. Without it the fonts either become useless or we, the users, must choose which parts of the EULAs we ignore.

Well, I'm sure when font DRM is rolled out the font vendors will lower their prices and broaden the rights given to customers - in exactly the same way as the music industry did. ;-(

Yeah. I'm sure you are right.

Maybe this *should* go in another thread, but since it does seem material to this discussion:

how much has piracy hurt type sales? For those vendors that have been producing for many years, how much have their sales fallen with the increase in piracy? Would be interesting to know. I'd suspect quite a bit. I don't mean a falling off from projected numbers, but an actual decrease in historical sales.

---

jlt : http://www.hewnandhammered.com : rnrmf!

how much has piracy hurt type sales?

My gut feeling says that professional people, working with type, designers and so on buy their fonts. There are cases in the news in Finland, though, where some company (usually smallish a press) has had pirated fonts. There are only about one of these cases in two years or so.

About Letterhead Fonts, it’s a good thing you can still buy many of their best fonts from Myfonts. That is fonts by Charles Borges, http://www.borgeslettering.com/ .

What makes you sure piracy has increased? I think it's been around as long as computers have. At my old job (in the 90s) we dumped all the fonts we bought onto a big server and all had access to them. I'm sure they weren't paying for licenses for more than the standard 6 devices even tho we had at least twice that many. We shared them, used them on personal jobs, and burned CDs of them for our home computers. I'm more educated and responsible now and buy my fonts, but I still have alot of those old fonts I grabbed, including some that are no longer available like Fontographer fonts.

Not to mention we sent them off to printers along with the jobs.

Anyhow it seems misguided to go after a small press in Finland. I'm sure there are bigger culprits than that.

As a user I don’t mind the idea of serialization or activation of fonts. If a foundry wishes to know that I’ve de-installed a font and am re-installing it again—for whatever reason—that is there perogative.

I would sure as hell mind it. I buy software for my own use, not to do whatever makes the software vendor happy. I don't like having every different application vendor installing license daemons that eat up memory and slow down my boot times. I don't like software taking extra time to startup because it's checking for updates that don't offer anything especially useful and are just covering for secretly revoking keys that got leaked onto the internet. I don't like having to keep track of serial numbers or copy-protected CDs or dongles or whatever else it takes to keep my software running. And I really, really get ticked when I can't use a program if I'm not connected to the internet.

All DRM is good for is inconveniencing legitimate users and making money for the snake-oil salesmen who create the DRM schemes. Creating a DRM system that actually prevents piracy is only possible in fascist states whose government force DRM into all computer systems and actively police all users for violations. This has been proven again and again over the last twenty years; every license management tool, every music and video protection scheme, every game console has been cracked and it takes less time with each new scheme. Successive DRM systems attempt to become stronger by being more complicated, it hasn't worked, but it has created crazy DRM systems like Windows Genuine Advantage, which is notorious for not working right.

"how much has piracy hurt type sales? For those vendors that have been producing for many years, how much have their sales fallen with the increase in piracy? Would be interesting to know. I’d suspect quite a bit."

This is the big question that needs to be asked in all realms of DRM. Alas, it's a really, really hard question to answer.

While "piracy" may have increased with the internet, that isn't really the key question. The main question is 'have more people that traditionally have valued and purchased typefaces decreased because they have decided they'd rather obtain the fonts for free via other means?'

Personally, I think one way to combat increased 'piracy' by the masses is to price your product to appeal to said masses...provided that's who you want to market to. If that isn't your market, then I'd say don't worry about the 12 year old with Photoshop making his MySpace account. But that's just me. I don't sell type directly nor depend on it for a living, so what do I know? ;o)

Yes. Put that way, I don't like keeping track of serial numbers either. :^/

For those who are interested, Chuck Davis added a new page to the Letterhead Fonts website a few days ago explaining in somewhat more depth his thinking and views on the LHF antipiracy font installer and font theft:

http://letterheadfonts.com/chuckdavis/arefontssoftware.shtml

It is a thoughtful, well-written piece that probably represents, generally, how many type designers, foundries and vendors feel.

However, I think a few statements are gross generalizations and he forgets to mention something.

Chuck has gorgeous era specific typeface designs for display typography. He should be able to protect his work, all type designers should.

1. "More fonts and better quality for you" -- I think this isn't fair to the amount of type designers that are out there who are spending time on their fonts.

2. "Lower prices" -- I think this is only fair if he were to compare his pricing to other foundries that specialize in display type design. Even then his fonts aren't that much less expensive. The more expensive type families are those which are more complicated, offer more glyphs, and offer more weights. You cannot compare apples to oranges.

3. "No embedding in PDF files or other file formats" -- It is important to understand that his fonts aren't used, or at least in my opinon shouldn't be used, in large blocks of text and so it is easier to turn those few words to outlines. I would never recommend turning a brochure to all outlines. That is ludicrous. The PDF is a boon to the design industry and shouldn't be discounted for what it has done for the designer. With "print and preview only" embedding it has enabled those of us who do strive to follow licensing the ablity to NOT send our fonts to the printers and service bureaux.

I commend Mr. Davis for his transparency, addressing the issue head-on with a message direct to his customers. This is how a company should make any major change, with open disclosure.

Perhaps those customers who are inconvenienced will cut Letterhead some slack. Unfortunately, I find many of the arguments for his new font installer software tenuous, and often grasping at straws.

"I don't think it's fair to you, the honest designer, who pays for his fonts to be competing against Joe Blow down the street who gets all his fonts from Russian websites. Because Joe never pays for his fonts, he can afford to cut your prices and steal away your clients."

Graphic design clients are gained and kept for many reasons, chiefly due to reputation, quality of work, and the relationship between designer and client. Desirable clients don't jump from one designer to the next to save a few hundred dollars.

If the fonts can be protected against theft, more font designers will be willing to spend the time necessary to create quality work for you.

The font makers I know (and I know many, including those who are vehemently anti-piracy) do it because they love to draw type. Of course they should be paid for their work, but it's highly unlikely that any will suddenly spend more time creating type because they know there is a protection scheme.

The dirty little secret is that in order to make up for lost revenue associated with theft, font foundries pass the cost on to you.

If proponents of font software protection schemes want to make a convincing argument, they really must stop referring to font piracy as "lost revenue". The vast majority of pirates will not buy software, period.

Finally, I ditto Tiffany on the embedding.

Hackers will find a way to cheat the installers, and in the end, the new system will only penalize and inconvenience Letterhead's legitimate customers. I think it's the wrong way to go and I hope other foundries don't follow. I doubt they will.

While I understand his POV, there's just some plain faulty logic.

"Anti-theft protection for the fonts is really a good thing-- for you, the user."

That's only true if it works. And DRM has been proven, again and again and again, to NOT actually work as anti-theft protection. It just doesn't work.

So, in the end, it's only BAD for the paying user.

I think LetterheadFonts is trying to more convince themselves that DRM works moreso than convincing the customer. ;o)

The topic is quite interesting, because it somehow touches the much wider problem, that is nowadays widely discused in the music area. With the difference that font industry is maybe 1 year behind them.

And what about that? We have to look how all music industry and community deal with that. What will be the next step. Will DRM success and what will be the impact on consumers and sales.

Unfortunately, DRM has hard time right now. And voices of critique is heard from everywhere. Now including Apple - owner of the biggest digital music store. And also yahoo:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-02-12-emi-copy-protection_x.htm

citation:
He [Dave Goldberg, Yahoo Music General Manager] says sales would increase by 15% to 20% without DRM.

Isn't it interesting?

Reading http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/, my impression is that Mr Jobs is so generous as regards DRM because he's not dealing with Apple's properties, but otherones' ...
Since, except for OSX, I don't use any other Apple applications -- maybe someone can tell me whether these need activation etc?

Be careful with the music industry analogy. Fonts aren't MP3s.

"Reading http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/, my impression is that Mr Jobs is so generous as regards DRM because he’s not dealing with Apple’s properties, but otherones’"

OSX CDs don't have any DRM either.

"Since, except for OSX, I don’t use any other Apple applications — maybe someone can tell me whether these need activation etc?"

Their other products require a serial #, but not activation.

"Be careful with the music industry analogy. Fonts aren’t MP3s."

True. But DRM is DRM. ;o)

Here's MY take on it, after an ugly and incredibly frustrating bout with Chuck over this issue.
I use Illustrator 9 about 95% of the time. I have so many plug-ins that were never updated that I really need. Chuck told me to "install it on the OSX side". Obviously Chuck knows very, very little about Macs. He told me the fonts would work if I did that. He then told me it's "my fault for not using CS2". Even though he advertises that his fonts are compatible with Illustrator 9. He expects me to change my entire design process and dump some 1500.00 worth of plug-ins to use HIS fonts? I've got a half dozen fonts that I've bought previously from him and LOVE them, they're really nice, but I'll never spend a penny again with him if he's going to be so obstinate. Let me see, EVERY OTHER FONT VENDOR IN THE WORLD doesn't use some hare-brained scheme, but HE'S the one that's gonna solve all the problems with his half-assed protection?
Bite me, Chuck.
When I want cool, retro fonts, I'll buy from House or Font Diner.

I've been a fan of LHF for a while now, and have been making purchases from them here and there on projects. Nothing big, mind you, so I'm sure my opinions as a customer don't really matter to Chuck.

However, I will not buy fonts with DRM. Period. It screws up my workflow (what if I use a font for running heads in text? I can't convert those to paths before creating a PDF X/1a). My day job is art directing a magazine, and we can't have a font that needs to be converted to paths at every instance, because our entire workflow is PDF, and keeping editability is very important.

This type of draconian DRM only serves to encourage piracy. Someone, somewhere will want to crack it. Then, the cracked fonts get distributed, and the very thing you were trying to prevent becomes true.

If Hoefler gave up their bizarre hidden font install scheme, and if Emigre stopped chasing every 15 year old who downloaded a copy of Exocet, and even Apple is pushing for non-DRM music in the iTunes music store, what possible reason does LHF have for making such a ridiculous protection scheme? All it does is irritate the end user.

Sean Glenn
Art Director
www.superunicorn.com

Even though this thread is a bit old, I'd like to report in on it. Like many who've posted here, I have a HUGE problem with the Letterheadfonts.com "installer"—after a few months, my fonts no longer showed up, and I had to reinstall several times. Their system's not all it's cracked up to be, let's just say. I will no longer buy from LHF even though I love their fonts. With the installer, they're basically telling the customer that they do not trust them. If I'm purchasing a product, I don't expect the guy I'm giving money to to look over my shoulder when I use it. It lacks professionalism.

However, the other day I went back to the site (the other day = mid July) and got into my account and was able to download the .otf files for my two purchased fonts separately, though up 'til now had only been available with their awful installer app. I don't know if I found a glitch in the system or if LHF has sensed the error in their judgment and is creeping back into "regular" font downloads. Anyway, I was pleased. If they go back to font files instead of installer apps, I'm sure to spend money there, but if LHF continues to disrespect their customer by disallowing me to use what I've purchased, i.e. it's *mine*, in my font management software or simply to organize my font libraries, then I'll have none of it, and I wrote them a few emails telling them so.

I just can't see the point in the installer. They say they'll lose money if they don't, but there are several sites that *TRUST* their customers and are doing a fine business. You know what I do now instead of buying LHF fonts? Go to other foundries and buy theirs. Wow, that installer really works, huh? It makes the fonts AND customers disappear. Show some respect, LHF.

Rattybad1,

In the early days of Mac in the office, I had a font collection that I spent wel over $15,000 on in the first few months of owning a computer. Adobe loved me... (10,000+), URW's library was $700, Bitstream had a special offer to typesetters, their whole library $300 - and the rest went to OPTIFonts, FontFonts and the Font Store.

Well, let's put it this way, one of my employees decided it was okay to steal the entire font library and give it to a photographer down the street from me - who started advertising to my customers he could do everything I could - even had my "exclusive" fonts... (Several fonts were "customized" for different publishing houses - like Belwe becoming the old typositor font Elizabethan).

So as an owner and person that has paid her dues... I appreciate any effort to save them.

Like you, I was weary of Chuck's latest -- and you are absolutely right to have your own opinion and say you don't want to use LHF any more.

I feel that would be your loss. I love his fonts. I just did a poster for The Wizard of Oz and used LHF Chunky Block. Everyone who sees it loves the type.

BTW - I am on a MAC. I find I don't like using his fonts in Quark - because if I need a pdf - I have to take an extra step and save each page as an .eps and then distill. However, since I seem only to use LHF for display type (never body copy) I tend to use it in Photoshop and illustrator.

Works for me.

Jackie T
I am from the same typographic period as you are. I switched over to a studio operation to survive. There no typography plants operating in the L.A. area any more. I watched the typography disciplines go down the drain. I consider myself a digital dinosaur
and fortunately I have been blessed with clients that know the difference between good and unacceptable typography.

With the installer, they’re basically telling the customer that they do not trust them.

Given the rampant nature of piracy in the design industry, especially when it comes to fonts, it makes good sense not to trust the customers :(

You're confusing me, James. I thought you were anti-DRM.

"Given the rampant nature of piracy [...] when it comes to fonts, it makes good sense not to trust the customers :("

This is what I call the "stay small" philosophy.

Not sure if it's appropriate to go after the bigger issue in this thread, but I was talking about it with someone the other day and we got onto the topic of libraries. Everyone takes them for granted these days, but if the concept didn't exist already, would someone be able to get a public library system going?

Look at the reactions to google's book search. People were screaming bloody murder and saying that google was profiting off of authors' hard work. Personally, I use google book search to search for books, and then if a book looks suitable, I'll order it from amazon. Similarly from a library. There's something nice about owning a book, just as there is with owning anything, including fonts, legitimately. I don't think, however, that nowadays most content producers would see it that way, and I really doubt public libraries would ever have been allowed in this day and age.

Ultimately, I think that people are applying IP law in a rather one-sided manner. It is there to protect the content producers, but also the consumers. The wave of DRM schemes that have been popping up recently is a knee-jerk reaction from people scared of development. It is too simplistic to compare file sharing with physical theft. It's been said a thousand times before, but computer copying is not a zero-sum game. My taking a file from someone else does not hinder their use of it. It also does not necessarily equate to lost sales, as I might never have bought the file in the first place, or never have even been exposed to it, and through the so-called piracy, might have even decided to buy it. I have certainly borrowed CDs from friends, and in some cases decided to buy a copy myself because I liked it enough.

The digital world brings many benefits with it, but the paradigms are ultimately different. Gone are the days when a customer needed to walk into your shop(pe) and engage in conversation with you to get your product. It means less infrastructure is needed to be successful, but also inherently means significantly less control over where your product goes. Unless people start trusting EULAs or the government imposes "trusted computing" on the world, I see no way to gain any more control over distribution of anything digital. DRM schemes are as flawed as EULAs, really. Instead of asking you not to do bad things with the font, they ask your computer not to let you; you (assuming no trusted computing) have full control over your computer, and with some technical expertise, it is rather trivial to overcome most schemes.

Anyway, that's just my 0.02 on the topic. I must say I've never used any Letterhead fonts, but judging from the website, they do look rather attractive. I hope that over time Chuck will realize that his good customers will remain good customers if he listens to them, and removes the DRM. As it stands, he's sticking it to the pirate but his legitimate customers are becoming "collateral damage." He really needs to evaluate if 1 pirated copy equates to 1 lost sale.

Well, I'm usually just a lurker so I'll go back to lurking. Apologies if this post is rather straggly and (I hope not!) off-topic... I've been up for way too long.

You’re confusing me, James. I thought you were anti-DRM.

I am, but I also understand that, contrary to some paranoid fantasies, not all DRM exists as part of oddball conspiracies vendor lock-in conspiraciess. The simple fact is that, in design circles, pirated content of all sorts is passed around like joints at a Phish concert. Fonts, due to their tiny file sizes, seem to be the most conveniently and commonly pirated item around. So while I certainly do not like, or want anything to do with, DRM, I can understand why some businesses distrust their customers enough to deploy it.

Indeed, one does not necessarily have to agree with another's action in order to understand, and even sympathize with, their motivation for that action.

I am curious if the Letterhead fonts are able to be managed by the common font managers, so they can be batch installed, and uninstalled with others of their style. If not, that sucks, because I often find that I like to try several script (or whatever) fonts until one has an overall look that appeals to me, or fits the space alloted.

So, in the end, it’s only BAD for the paying user.

I wouldn't be surprised if some ingenious person could get one OS or the other to spill the beans, and extract a font from the exe. At which point, it is only the paying users that are discomfitted.

I am tempted to see if there has already been some success in that area, because I remember being surprised more than once by the abilities of the Usenet group. Apparently some of the font-collectors (or pirates, as they are known here) are programmers.

I believe font-collecting is an addiction. I managed to kick the habit when I realized that I didn't have time to organize bazillions of fonts, and my addiction to playing with fonts, was suffering. In the end, I probably have more empathy for the 'collectors' than most people here, although I certainly see, understand, and agree with (for the most part) the point of view of the people who make their living with fonts.

I just wish I had made better printouts from when I (allegedly) had tons of fonts, because my eyes are strained by the small samples I have, and they are a good resource for the ID group.
: )

"Given the rampant nature of piracy in the design industry, especially when it comes to fonts, it makes good sense not to trust the customers"

It makes no sense.

"The simple fact is that, in design circles, pirated content of all sorts is passed around like joints at a Phish concert."

Very true. But then there's the simple fact that DRM does nothing to stop that...just as a few security guards do nothing to stop people from getting high at a Phish concert.

"I can understand why some businesses distrust their customers enough to deploy it."

Paranoia. Frustration. It's there. It's likely a normal reaction. People tend to believe technology can fix a lot of things that it just really can't.

pumpkingod...don't bring up the concept of public libraries. It causes DRM folks to get brain aneurysms. ;o)

As much as I dislike what Chuck has done - it is not difficult to work with. I just used one of the fonts - and yes, I'm sad I cannot make an pdf from Quark (please remember - I've reminded you enough, that there are folks out there that extract embedded fonts and toss them all over the net) because the new font will not allow itself to be embedded. However, I can make .eps and turn those into PDFs without problem and only adding a few moments onto any one job.

Since the nature of Letterhead fonts is for DIsplay purposes only - I also tend to make my "logotype" in Illustrator or Photoshop and then import it into my page layout program From that I can make PDFs...

I think I may be repeating myself - but it is worth it. Letterhead Fonts are unique and enjoyable to use for the final designs I produce. This is just a small snag - and one I'm getting use to working with. Why? Because I like the finished product -- and better, so do my customers.

"This is just a small snag"

While not limited to Letterhead, the inability to embed typefaces in PDFs is a rather huge issue for anyone using PDFs for their intended purpose of electronic data management.

If you have to convert type to EPS to make a PDF, then the PDF is no longer text and impossible to parse via screen readers, search engines, document management systems, etc.

Aluminum If you have to convert type to EPS to make a PDF, then the PDF is no longer text and impossible to parse via screen readers, search engines, document management systems, etc.

Little Ol' Me :-) I still keep my main Quark document to make ALL changes - and I have NEVER given one of those to a customer. I am still giving my customers PDFs - and if there is a correction -- I make it with a smile.

Fontplayer I am tempted to see if there has already been some success ...

Little Ol' Me :-) I have had many assure me that there isn't a font that can't be gotten into -- and I'm sure someone somewhere has attempted this.

Fontplayer I am curious if the Letterhead fonts are able to be managed by the common font managers...

Little Ol' Me :-) The fonts are installed through a program that Letterhead Fonts developed. And they are open all the time... So they are not managed by my Suitcase program. However, they appear open in all the programs I am presently using. Hope that helps, and, sort of answers your question.

"I am still giving my customers PDFs - and if there is a correction — I make it with a smile."

There are two primary uses for PDFs...prepress production, and the storage of useful content.

For prepess, yea, who cares if it's text or outlines, as it ends up on paper anywyas.

But for storing actual information, it's useless if you convert everything to outlines.

An example is that perhaps a corporation retains all of its sales literature in PDF format and a sales person needs to do a quick search to find a particular brochure. If all the content is outlined, it's impossible for their internal search engine to index any of it. And, as such, makes for a rather useless repository of information.

Just pointing it out as I think it's something a lot of people fail to consider when producing PDF files.

Letterhead Fonts is currently licensing regular Opentype fonts. The installer and the server are gone. The downloaded OTF file can be managed any way you prefer.

From their site; "Redistribution of Letterhead Fonts in any manner is strictly prohibited. Each Letterhead Font is embedded with special encryption allowing them to be traced back to the original purchaser. Letterhead Fonts does not hesitate to seek criminal or civil prosecution of any offenders and damages concerning lost profits, attorney fees and/or statutory damages. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Section 1204) allows for fines of up to $100,000 or 10 years imprisonment for distribution or use of copyrighted software."

That's much easier on the consumer.

That is much easier, though still illogical. It's still a 'you are guilty until proven innocent' line of thinking.

What's wrong with the good ol' "here's the software license you purchased, please note it's copyrighted"?

We already have a legal system in place. No need to try and trump it with crappy technology.

For those that say that protection is a slap in the face to the consumer or even hint that we are less friendly to our customers now— You obviously have never purchased anything from us or called us.

I just now noticed that LHF responded in this thread, and I will vouch for this statement. This thread probably hasn't done Letterhead much good, so I wanted to at least verify that what he says is true.

I once called to complain that the font I was thinking of buying didn't have a full character set, and he offered to fill in the character sets of any fonts I bought. In the end I didn't buy it, because I didn't want him to go to that trouble for just me if no one else was complaining about it. But I have always remembered the offer. (I do wonder if the sets have been filled in through the years?)

Patternmaker - ... does not hesitate to seek criminal or civil prosecution of any offenders...

When my Adobe font collection was stolen and being used by a company down the street from me -- and I was very close to Adobe in those days and let them know, they first wanted to know how I knew it was my library. When I explained I altered and renamed some fonts and that no one else would have them that way but me -- they listened a bit more. The Adobe library alone at that time was a $15,000 investment. Know what the outcome was - it wasn't enough in be worthy of a lawyer, and they never pursued it.

So do you think any foundry losing a font here or there could afford the legal expense it entails - for a $29 or a $449 font?

The only company I know for sure that went after someone was Quark. A New York marketing person had sold about 15 or 20 Mac computers to a corporation when computers were first going in... Each computer was outfitted with programs - all with different serial numbers. Then the marketer went to another corporation, got them computers -- and outfitted those with the same serial numbers as the first company. I don't know how many times the marketer did it -- but he lost one of the companies about 2 years later - just in time for the latest Quark update. Well, needless to say, the serial numbers were already accounted for and that compnay was not the one that they were registered to. You see, they were all registered to the marketer, and he'd go from company to company upgrading to the latest software as part of his service. Don't think he ever expected to lose an account, or have an account bright enough to update on their own. And yes, Quark went after him - and yes, they won.

In that case, yes financially, it was definately worth going after legally.

fontplayer font I was thinking of buying didn’t have a full character set

Fontplayer, almost everyone of Chuck's fonts has/had a Betafont put out for a select group to try the font and give their opinion. The Betas never had the full character set. I wonder if that is what you were referring to and maybe, didn't know it. I own a few LHF fonts and they are all complete, and some even more so with alternatives.

Chuck still uses human beings to answer the phones and talk to custumers (even those of us who aren't purchasing at the time). It's a nice way to do business -- and see, makes people like you have a soft spot for him, and keeps his regulars calling back. The last time I spoke to LHF it was about 8pm EST and it was about a font. Not only did I get all the information I needed, I could not believe how busy everything sounded -- their phone seemed to ring off the hook.

I hope LHF survives and thrives through this modern age. They have some wonderful fonts - different from the every day stuff -- and not going into the square san serif look that is coming out of Europe these days. They are strong, bold fonts with a hint of femininity (my opinion of the ones I own) and the other foundries do not have anything like them.

Did this thread hurt Chuck? Honestly, I don't think so. For those of us that want those distinctive fonts for display type - I doubt it. What has hurt are people who get their hands on the fonts and pass them all over the internet. That really hurts.

P.S. aluminum If all the content is outlined, it’s impossible for their internal search engine to index any of it.

One thing you may consider is using your display type (LHF) in vector format - then bringing it into your page layout as a graphic -- then all your body copy would still be in a font that a search engine could get to... Two minutes more work for you -- but you'll have the design you want and still have a large percentage of your page as you want it.

You are right - for me - I just use the pdfs two ways. One to give to a customer that I do not want them touching it in any shape anyway. (All corrections made in a master file) and Two - to the printer (who I do not want touching it either...) if they run into a problem, let them tell me so I can fix it -- and keep it fix from that point forward.

Thank you for letting me speak up early in the morning - I should get to work now. Later :-)

The Betas never had the full character set. I wonder if that is what you were referring to...?

I don't think so. This was back around the turn of the century, give or take a year or two, back when I had money to throw away on fonts, and I remember him being surprised that anyone would want international characters, while I was incredulous that anyone would have commercial fonts that were incomplete.

I guess something probably reinforced my view and he got the fonts completed. So, you can partially credit me for that.
; )

I too am a designer and I don’t use any font management program. I would rather spend the time designing than turning fonts on and off. If I don’t want a font, I don’t install it in the first place.

That might be the case for a few out there, but there are some of us who deal with several different clients, with different identities and brand guidelines, using different fonts. I have different font sets in Suitcase set up for different clients, so I don't have to have Client A's fonts taking up memory when doing stuff for Client B.

I too am a designer and I don’t use any font management program. I would rather spend the time designing than turning fonts on and off. If I don’t want a font, I don’t install it in the first place.

GREAT FONT MANAGEMENT NEWS FOR LHF FONTS...

In http://typophile.com/node/35411
Peter van Rosmaien suggests we try FontExplorer from Linotype.

IT'S FREE

They have downloads for both Mac and PC...

And it has a section once installed called ACTIVATED FONTS - and the LHF fonts show up there - and you can click them off if you so please.

Just had to come back and let you know...

Can someone please point us to the place on the LHF site where they say they have dropped their copy protection scheme?

After reading this ...

"Letterhead Fonts is currently licensing regular Opentype fonts. The installer and the server are gone. The downloaded OTF file can be managed any way you prefer."

... I looked everywhere to confirm but couldn't find a word.

Thanks.

I think patternmaker might be in error. According to everything I've seen on the LHF site, including the licensing agreement referred to by patternmaker, the copy protection scheme and installer are still in place.

malbright, I checked the LHF site a couple weeks ago after patternmaker's post to see what was up, and again a few days ago. With LHF's revamped shopping cart system instituted at the beginning of 2007 you can redownload fonts you have previously purchased. So I did that with the locked font I bought earlier, and when I download it now, patternmaker is right, it's a regular .otf font file, not the black box installer thing. However, there is also this notice above the button for downloading your fonts:

"IMPORTANT! Each of your fonts has been encrypted with your unique account information. Please do not share them with friends or colleagues. Instead, encourage them to purchase their own copies so that we may continue making new fonts for you. Thank you."

PDF embedding is still not allowed, however. Although you can now open the font in FontLab and turn the embedding restriction off if you wish, that wouldn't seem smart. Aside from the ethics of that or lack thereof, by doing so and embedding fonts in PDFs that can in any way be traced back to the font licensee (with or without encrypted account info), that's inviting getting caught violating the license.

As an .otf file the fonts can now be managed with font managers of course. But if your workflow or permanent document needs depend on PDF embedding (to support searchable PDF archives, etc.), you may not regard the situation as much better than before.

I do wonder about the encrypted account information put into the fonts, and how that's done. I'm not an expert and not of course recommending this, but couldn't fonts simply be opened with FontLab and regenerated anew to lose the encryption? I would assume that type of encryption has to be added after a font is generated and isn't something supported by FontLab/Fontographer. If so, it would seem to be useless for catching any but small-time pirates who didn't know better. Otherwise, assuming the encrypted account info doesn't breed potential software glitches of its own in use of the font, this might be a livable system for combating font piracy.

It is interesting that there has been no public notice of the change on the LHF site. It's reminiscent of the original institution of the protection scheme several months ago when the limitations of the installer were not spelled out fully (at least not IMO). Or maybe LHF is just attempting to quietly test the waters to see how users and sales respond to the new change without biasing it with a public announcement. Also, if this is not just a temporary glitch in LHF's system, maybe Chuck is gunshy now and just doesn't want to say anything hoping the brouhaha will quietly go away and be forgotten with time.

Again, if not a glitch, it is encouraging in that it would seem to be an effort on LHF's part to meet font users halfway. It would have been a difficult emotional decision on Chuck's part, given he said earlier here more than 2 years work was invested in the installer scheme. Or maybe it wouldn't be so difficult if sales were negatively impacted and left little choice but to drop the scheme or close up shop.

I believe Chuck previously gave that as one of his options here, if his effort to combat piracy didn't prove out. If he ended up closing things down has actually been one of my biggest concerns with the whole thing. If you buy installer-only fonts and LHF later decides to close up shop, then once the Windows or Mac OS's have changed enough over time that incompatibilities arise, the fonts become unusable.

Curious what others think about the new change...

Now that the LHF installer is gone, I have an idea to recycle it.
I also don't like a DRM system for fonts that I have bought and need to work with. But I would love to see such a technology for try-outs! Since the installer controls the activation of the font at the system level, it would be very easy to limit the use to a try-out period, say three days and the fonts would be deactivated and deleted after that.
So the users could try the fonts in their usual workflow, for example in InDesign. They could check how a font can be combined with different styles and other fonts, apply OT features and so on. Everything the usual type testers on websites cannot offer.

How about you start a new thread about it? I wonder if you might get others interested in this idea.

I noticed that Letterhead Fonts is now directly linking price increases to piracy.

> Fonts are tangible goods around here and will forever be treated as such. Theft always affects the price of fonts and there are some costs that must be recouped. ... In order to recoup these losses, LHF Garner must now sell for $39 (32% increase).

I share Letterhead's interest in reducing piracy, but I'm puzzled about how they think the pirates will respond to this. I fear it will have no effect on piracy and will have a negative effect on sales.

Prices should be set based on the value of the product. Like some have said earlier in this discussion: punishing your paying customers is not a good way to reduce piracy, nor endear respect.

Letterhead has responded to this criticism, but I don't think the post really answers the key question: how do price increases reduce piracy?

I'll just say what I"m thinking and hope no one gets too angry with me.

I think some foundries think fonts being pirated EQUALS a lost sale. This isn't the case. We all know that some designers do TEST fonts before they license them, so in that case, yes, it is a lost sale as those designers shouldn't be doing that.

Perhaps LHF cannot separate the two. So to them increasing prices will in some small way make up for some of the piracy.

Hmm. Ok it took me reading some of their response to see what you mean.

I don't think raising prices will decrease piracy.

Letterheads line of reasoning could ultimately lead to just one sale a year — for say $ 624,678 —, right?

Makes me think of a plan a friend of mine lauched some decades ago. He got to tell about it in a very popular tv talk show. His 'Plan to reduce smoking' went like this: Smokers cease to buy their cigarettes, but boost them from other smokers. That of course goes on until just one person in the whole country has to provide for all those smokes. He or she won't be able to bear the grunt in the end, stops buying cigarettes and ergo: all smokers have to stop.

Just use the words fonts and piracy and end users in the right places. ; )

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

On another hand, Letterhead's prices still aren't what I've seen Veer fonts going for. This might be naive, but I guess if Veer can get $99 for a font, then what is $39?

Fontplayer - The difference here is motivation. Veer feels that very extensive OpenType fonts are worth $99 a pop. I would take no issue with Letterhead if they deemed their fonts are worth more than their standard $29.50 price (I'd bet they are worth every bit of $39). But raising the cost and blaming pirates is just strange.

But raising the cost and blaming pirates is just strange.

If Letterhead’s sales are dropping, but use of the fonts is not, it makes a lot of sense. People are getting those fonts somewhere.

The difference here is motivation. Veer feels that very extensive OpenType fonts are worth $99 a pop.

I can't argue with that. Some of them are certainly gorgeous. I trust the designers are doing well in the arrangement; I see some experienced names represented there.

"I think some foundries think fonts being pirated EQUALS a lost sale. "

You are absolutely correct. It's a theoretical lost sale, at best, and even then, it's a rather flimsy theory.

I agree with most everyone here...it's fine to increase prices...it's silly and almost insulting to blame it on 'pirates'.

@James: But by raising the prices they are punishing those who DO license their fonts not those who DO NOT. Don't you think that is strange?

I've seen on usenet people asking for specific fonts and the regulars piping up that they do not share that foundries fonts because they are so inexpensive and they also have nice free fonts. This sort of action, raising the prices because of the pirating, will probably have an adverse reaction.

I think if some people put as much energy into marketing and making new fonts, as they use worrying about pirates, they would probably come out ahead. Some people have never uttered a peep about pirates, and are doing quite well.

IMO, it's kind of like life in general. On one side is pragmatism, and on the other, bitterness. You could be full-time stressed and miserable about how screwed up the world is, or you can try and make the best of things where you are, and try to enjoy what is valuable to you.

@Tiffany: I don’t think it’s strange—font designers have bills to pay. It’s a crummy situation, but not a strange one, and not one limited to the font industry.

I think if some people put as much energy into marketing and making new fonts…

I tend to agree, but I think that teaching type design would probably be a better option than making new fonts. I really got into type piracy when my first design teacher passed around two DVDs packed with six gigabytes of fonts. I only started paying for type after I had learned about the people and the labor behind type design. I think that making that experience part of the curriculum of every design program would have a big impact on font piracy.

You're on to something, James. Piracy is in many ways a symptom of undereducated design students. Young people don't react to scolding or price increases. A patient, thorough education in letter drawing will help them value type. Of course, that education isn't the responsibility of the type makers, but it is helpful for everyone to understand the roots of the problem.

>>I think some foundries think fonts being pirated EQUALS a lost sale.

Not only foundries, every software company likes to do those statistics of losses due to piracy. (Number of illegal copies/downloads x Price = Loss)
Of course, that is nonsense. The ones who are collecting gigabytes of fonts in P2P networks are usually teenagers who would never had bought the fonts. So there is no loss.
But there is also a number of professional designers who try to find a font for free, and only if they are not successful they will buy it. So here the download can be a real financial loss for the foundry. So the real question is: Is the time spent hunting down these people less expensive than the loss they create. I guess not.
I would even image that many fonts (or other software products), that are used without a license today, can turn into a real sale tomorrow. I didn't bought my first version of Photoshop, but I did when I started a company. The same could be true for fonts.
Another example: Some years ago I did this type specimen book with recommendable fonts from various foundries. The majority of foundries was willing to give me their fonts to be presented in the book. But some foundries didn't, and I'm sure they didn't gave it me because they were afraid I could spread the fonts for free. But in the end, those were the fonts I couln't advertise …
Font piracy was invented the day after the first letter was casted. It was always there and it will never go away. I guess if you are overcautious with your fonts, you are the one decreasing the sales …

You can go on and on all you like about whether a pirated font equals a lost sale or not. That argument is circular, and it is hard to see the point of it, if there is any point to it at all. The answer is immaterial as we are talking about hypothetical sales.

Stephen Coles: Letterhead has responded to this criticism, but I don’t think the post really answers the key question: how do price increases reduce piracy?

Where does this idea come from? The idea that LHF's price increases are supposed to reduce piracy of their fonts?

I've read most of this thread, and I have read what Chuck has written in response. The purpose of the price increases, as far as I can discern, is to compensate LHF for the lost production time incurred in cleaning up the mess pirates make in stealing LHF font products. I also presume the price increases are not intended to reduce piracy of LHF fonts.

I referred to "cleaning up the mess" in my first post on this thread. The point is, every time LHF's fonts are pirated, some of the type producer's time must be spent removing the pirated material from circulation. Fonts are labour-intensive things to make. The "lost revenue" compensated for by the LHF retail font price increases is, I presume, the revenue not earned due to their reduced capacity to make fonts caused by having to take illicit material out of circulation.

There is a basic problem with this discussion thread. It started on the topic of the anti-piracy lockdown scheme, then the topic of LHF font price increases cropped up, and somewhere along the way some commentators who should know better have confused the notion of "anti-piracy" with the price increases.

j a m e s

Clearly the solution is to get the IRS to allow theoretical losses due to piracy as a tax write off.

It's bad marketing. Macy's doesn't tell you they are increasing prices because of shoplifting and in-house theft, but they are.

pbc

Macy’s doesn’t tell you they are increasing prices because of shoplifting and in-house theft, but they are.

Are you kidding me? I see signs in stores all the time stating that they have security cameras everywhere so that prices don’t keep going up!

It’s bad marketing. Macy’s doesn’t tell you they are increasing prices because of shoplifting and in-house theft, but they are.

Some things are left unspoken.

j a m e s

I bought a Letterhead font last night and did not know about the brouhaha over restrictions, and quickly wrote to them for support. It was only then that I started Googling and found all the discussions about their DRM move.

This morning, I got a reply from Letterhead letting me know that they are removing the PDF-embedding restriction from ALL of their typefaces (it will be done in "2-3 days") and to log in on the site and redownload the font I purchased. I think this is a very good move.

Zan, welcome to typophile.

When did you get out of the plumbing business?

I have heard it before in here. Actually this time was more painful as I was reading it was one thirty am. My lovely wife resolved to stick to this tv show and we ended up not going to bed at the customary time. Ah, I wasn't watching the show as I was hammering a invitation project. It was at some point kind of difficult to proceed because my keyboard is black and the small type (actually it looks like Univers Italic and it measures ... exact 17 pt.! - I measured it with AGL type ruler, which is very accurate). So, as couldn't read no more and gave up for the day I turned to this tread. I haven't seen this tread until it was already skyrocketed to cosmic measurements. It was one am or so and once again I went to FH website and even thought of buying a font. I just can't not love them cause nineteenth century is glued to my retinas. The prices aren't bad but something bothers me, who have bought a couple of fonts ever due to that the use of fonts is part of the job and when the fonts are available with the packaged files, one can tweak here and there and get the job to rip and bye bye. All is fast in the commercial printing which couldn't be without the font files. Of course doing the ctrl+o before pd-éfing the document, which is easy to do for display fonts as per Miss Tiffany. All measured out and all I guess you can even add dongles to the process which will indeed lock it all out, good, promoting your peace of mind.
I wish you exercise you determination as you see fit. Hail.

The thing with Quark is this.

edit : cmd+shift+p

apologies for not reading the whole of that above so this question may have been posed and answered already but:

does Illustrator let you 'create outline' of these fonts?

Letterhead fonts are embeddable as of May 21st, though you need to re-download previously purchased fonts to have the embedding bit changed. The announcement is at http://letterheadfonts.com/news/index.shtml?a=blog&id=35.

For any of you who are not technically aware. You can get around the whole idea of locked fonts quite easily. Make the file yourself. You can download a font creator program for free off Dafont.com. After that, open illustrator (or CorelDraw) and type in all individual letters and numbers into your artboard. Convert the font to outlines and the add them to the font creator program as individual letters. Once finished the program will create a TTF for use whenever you want and you can give it as freely as you wish. Although I do not agree with piracy, if I pay for a font, I believe I should be able to put it on all of my computers at home, not just one. I refuse to by the same font over and over for a different computer. My purchase, mine to do with as I please.

Piracy issues aside, there's a BIG difference between a font that's created by copying and pasting outlines into a font program, and the original font that's been kerned and hinted.

BigLeague: Once finished the program will create a TTF for use whenever you want and you can give it as freely as you wish.

No, you can't freely give it away as you wish... check the EULA for the font you purchased. What you've described is called a 'derivative work', and most EULA's restrict the derivative font to be used in the same manner as the original font. You do not get any new rights (i.e. you can't install it on any more workstations than the original font).

Um, right. BigLeague, just because you "believe" you "should" be able to do something doesn't make it legal. You're describing your own moral/ethical choices, but they won't necessarily hold up in a court of law.

By the way, the typical Adobe font EULA allows a font to be installed on five computers. I would guess that one reason Adobe allows that is because it gives Adobe a competitive advantage (in theory) over other foundries which only allow one computer installation. If you "refuse to buy the same font over and over," then find a foundry that allows you to do what you want instead of making up your own rules!

Also, in reaction to BigLeague, you do not buy the font: you buy a license for the font, that allows you to use it the way the foundry states in the EULA.

It's true that this scheme is awkward for the legitimate user. What I think will have to eventually happen, though, is that the operating system include some sort of standard way to lock a font to a machine.

The font installer would basically talk to the OS when installing the font, and the OS would put an encrypted form of the font on the machine that wouldn't work if copied to another machine, being encrypted by a random unique key set up when the OS was installed.

That would obviate the need for techniques as extravagant as this one. Regular executables could be handled in this way by an OS as well, and this would encourage developers to develop for the OS, as they wouldn't have to develop their own security schemes.

Incidentally, increasing prices to recoup losses due to piracy isn't the same thing as increasing prices to discourage piracy. Presumably piracy causes some lost sales, and so the unit price on the remaining sales has to be increased to keep revenues constant. Of course, though, a lower price should mean more legitimate sales, and a higher price likely will mean less sales - even if the result is purchases of other fonts, not more piracy.

The font data will still need to appear somewhere in the computer memory in its raw format (otherwise the font will not be usable by the software like Illustrator). Once it is raw, it will be grabbed and saved into a de-DRM'd file.

This is a really old issue that has been explored in depth with shareware programs. DRM does not work (as in it is easy to break) unless it is rooted in the hardware (e.g. specialized chip) and the user is denied arbitrary access to this part of his computer. The problem here of course is how to convince a user to buy a computer that he does not have a full control over.

The problem here of course is how to convince a user to buy a computer that he does not have a full control over.

Well, if that is the only kind of computer that will play a Blu-Ray disc, for example, it may also be the only type of computer available for sale before long. I think such features are already present in the latest Intel and AMD microprocessors.

But even a very imperfect DRM might be better than nothing, and good enough that companies will feel they can use that instead of taking such a step as Letterhead Fonts did. Also, while it's true the encrypted font data needs to be decrypted in memory, it doesn't follow that a usable image of the whole file will be there. The individual characters could all be present, but without the data linking them together being present in the same format as in an unencrypted font file... except for a short time when the header, but not the characters, have been read in.

BluRay? haha. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369280,00.asp

DRM is like major political philosophies. It works great. But only on paper. It doesn't really work as intended in real life. ;)

Jim Baen, of Baen Books, was worried about piracy etc when he decided to get into the e-book market. His friend Eric Flint, an author and editor, convinced Jim to try something crazy...

Give away free copies of e-books, in several different formats, without any DRM or copy ptotection, and with the only restriction on the downloader being they could not sell copies. The EULA on the free Baen e-books practically demands you give copies to people.

At the Baen Free Library site, the books for free are chosen by the authors. Permission for books by dead authors is given by their estates or whomever holds the copyright.

Flint was right in what he told Jim. Don't give a crap about "piracy". Treat the customers like customers instead of thieves. Don't try to exert micromanagement control over what the customer can and cannot do with the product.

People actually PAY for many e-books Baen gives away for free. Why? Because it supports authors they like, which gets more new stories from those authors. Paying for free e-books also supports Baen, the distributor of the goodies.

But Baen took it a step further. They've released CD-ROMs with several of their hardcover printings containing the e-book version and many other e-books by that author and many others. Printed on all those CD-ROMs is the simple EULA that encourages making copies of the CD's to give to others. The contents of all those CD-ROMs are downloadable from many websites and are all over the P2P networks.

Baen's e-book and dead tree sales keep increasing because they're being nice to their customers instead of glaring through slitted eyes at all those ungrateful potential thieves.

Jim Baen (RIP) figured giving the books away would have his company bankrupt and out of business in short order, because he *had* the typical corporate "They're all thieves!" attitude and agonized over every "lost sale". I suspect he felt much better after dropping the 'tude and realized that people who aren't going to pay to get something just flat out aren't going to pay.

I've read this whole thread and see there's still many who still continue to FAIL to realize the difference between a digital, intangible computer file and a real, physical object. It is not possible to steal a digital file, unless there is only one unique copy and the physical object (such as a CD-RW) containing it is itself stolen or a copy of the file is made and the unique original is deleted.

As long as the copyright owner retains a copy, making more is as simple as commanding a computer to copy it. Once several copies are "in the wild", should the copyright owner somehow lose all his or her or its copies, the owner just needs to obtain one of those other copies.

For physical objects, it is a totally different reality. Take any one of a kind piece of art. If an art thief makes off with that one of a kind piece, it's *gone*, stolen. The only way to get it back is to track it down physically.

If you wanted to really steal a song today here's what you'd have to do. First, obtain every single CD, record, tape and every other piece of media it's ever been released on, including any sheet music copies and lyrics and guitar tabs on the web, and disc stamping plates. Second, delete every digital copy that's ever been made of the song. Third, kill the singer(s) and musician(s) who performed it, or at least somehow make them unable to re-record the song. Fourth, break into Stone Mountain and steal the master recordings, which often include all the individual track recordings that're mixed together.

Finally, you and you alone have all copies of the song and any means of reproducing it. NOW you have well and truly stolen a song. Sony must come crawling to you to obtain a copy so they can feed it to the CD mastering machine to make new plates to stamp new discs. Once they have that single copy, all your effort to steal the song becomes pointless.

Sound ridiculous, impossible? Of course it is. The digital world can ensure that nothing can ever be lost, as long as at least one copy is out there, somewhere.

Concentrate on selling to the honest people. Treat them like you believe they will act honestly and honorably and golly gee, most of them will. The ones who want free copies will almost always be able to find free copies. Most of them will never pay, thus they aren't "lost sales". If you have a reputation for fair dealing, some of those non-payers will at some point decide to pay you for your product.

Don't agonize over the "thieves". They're going to act how they do no matter what you do or think.

Something I remember from a John C. Dvorak article in PC Magazine, went something like "I don't care if the first copy of your software cost you $50,000 to develop. The second copy cost you $2 to make. Convince my why I need to buy your software instead of a competitor's or looking for something free on the web."

Not many customers give a crap about the work that was expended writing a program or creating a digital image or designing a font. What matters is what they can do with the digital product, what it means to them, what they see as the intrinsic values of the product itself. They know that once completed, the 'production cost' of digital products is essentially zero. Bang, bang, bang. Millions of copies as easy as one. (Just look at SPAM e-mails.) Arrangements of electrons whizzing around in silicon, patterns of magnetism on spinning platters or coded spirals of pits in metalized plastic. Duplication is cheap. Truly stealing digital product is impossible, pop off another copy for another paying customer the instant he clicks Checkout.

You have to make it worth it for the customer to appreciate your product and want to eagerly give you money for it. Set a price on your fonts. Tell people buy it, or not. Don't glare at the customers with the ole' stink eye. If you still lie awake worrying about people getting copies without paying, put some sort of serial numbers in the fonts, keep a record of which customer is assigned which numbers. Give the customers copies of the serial numbers.

Make it known (NICELY) that the numbers are useful for your customers' own inventory/auditing/tracking etc. They can help your customers control their own use of the fonts. Printers have to have the fonts in some form, typically embedded in PDFs the way the majority of printing is these days. Throwing rocks in the path of current work and production flows is counter productive.

Perhaps giving printers, who only do printing, not designing and layout, a reduced price on the fonts, or heck, just give them free copies, would help. Then you, the font designer, could use that as a selling point to designers. "Brown's printing in your city has ALL of my fonts so you can use any of my fonts and send PDFs to Brown's and you'll never ever have an issue with the printer missing fonts." Preemptive marketing tactics via carpet-bombing one of the biggest issues in digital design, the printer doesn't have Font X and the font cannot be embedded, but if all the major printers already have the fonts...

Then if you are still paranoid about all that potential theft going on, you can spend (or waste) time lurking around the darker corners of the web and P2P looking for copies of your fonts, downloading them and checking the serial numbers, then making polite calls or e-mails to those customers to inform them that font such and so has escaped their control, would they be so kind as to find out how it might have happened.

That might get many customers to exercise the due diligence to prevent your fonts from getting away from them.

Chuck doesn't really make fonts anymore. He sells the fonts of better designers, and treats them like garbage. Just ask Larry White. As for that sham Fontguard, Chucky doesn't have much faith in it. He now places the purchaser's name and address in the Copyright/version string of the fonts you buy. And, he makes you register an account with a valid telephone number so he can call you and make sure that you're white.

I registered to buy Factory earlier this year. Within about an hour he called me. The call went like this;
ME. Hello
Chuck.(Rudely) Yeah I'm calling to register an account for 'NAME', is that you?
ME. Yes, wow that was fast.
Chuck.(Rudely) Where are you from?
ME. I was born here in the US, why?
Chuck.(Rudely) No you're not, You don't sound American. You have a ghetto Accent.
ME. Well, my parents were from Asia, received citizenship in the 80's. But I was born here & I'm not ghetto.
Chuck. (Rudely)Forget it I can't help you. Go somewhere else. (Hung up)

Guy's a jerk. So if you have an accent or aren't within his color preference, I guess he won't sell to you. But sadly, that's really only hurting the designers who sell through him. Give it a try yourself. Let him call you and have a friend with a Russian or Hispanic accent answer. Watch him hang up. Before he sees this post that is. If only smart phones could record their audio...

Yesterday I had a young friend come over to my house and bring her laptop in order to design a logo for my new business. I wanted to use Letterhead Fonts so I purchased a couple of fonts, paid through Paypal and then was informed by the LHF website that I had to wait 30 minutes for someone to call me to confirm my order since it was my first purchase. I waited 45 minutes and never got a call. Apparently I missed the call sometimes affter that, LHF cancelled my order, refunded my payment and never answered their phone when I tried to call. The next day I emailed at 8 am and again at noon. I finally received a rude email from Carolyn Smith (customer service)asking why I didn't answer my phone the day before but offered no solution to my purchase attempt. I was locked out of my account after two attempts at reordering and have decided now that it just isn't worth dealing with them. Carolyn must be married to "Chuck" because I can't think of any other reason someone would pay such a rude employee.

I'm sorry I'd lost track of this thread over the years. Holy wow!

Please post the rude email because I'm getting bored of Charlie Sheen these days. This sounds even crazier.

New flash: Letterhead Fonts are now on MyFonts with what seems like a rather generous license agreement.

I was hopeful too, Ray, but it's just 15 families, all of them by Chuck Davis. Maybe he's testing the waters for bringing the rest on board. I hope MyFonts' volume sways him.

Interesting to read this thread years later. The idea of 3rd party software instead of standard font files is only mildly annoying. I'd work like a dog to get at the font file (if it existed) but only as a technical challenge.

I guess the irritation level depends on your usage of PDFs. I convert all fonts to outlines anyway when sending a PDF, but that's for signs, logos, that sort of thing. It avoids issues with the font not having embed permissions or with an identically named (but worse) local font replacing the intended font. But I can see where outlines are unacceptible for a technical document or book.

It may be my imagination but, just for the hell of it I tried looking for letterhead fonts in shady places online, torrents and whatnot... and they may be a little harder to find than others. You can get stuff like gotham or champion script, but good luck finding unlovable or packard script.

But I have no doubt that if someone cared a lot about it, any protection system will be cracked. If anyone doubts the resourceful nature of the guys who do this, spend a minute reading http://insecure.org/news/cryptanalysis_of_contents_scrambling_system.htm

...now about those rude phone calls and emails...

I have read through this post and have this to say. While I whole heartedly agree that designers have the right to and should protect their intellectual property, the case can be made, that a lot of the "protected material" on Letterhead Fonts is actually the intellectual property of others. Namely Frank Atkinson, Al Imelli, and the Rawson Evans Glass Co. to name but a few. Some of these "fonts" have been around for well on 100 years and started out as typestyles for signwriting. Which begs the question - Who is protecting the intellectual property rights of the actual real designers of these typefaces?

So, anyone have updates on this? When purchasing through MyFonts are we now free of the weird baggage that came with buying directly from Letterhead?

@Aluminum et. al. -

"All Letterhead fonts on [MyFonts] are sold in our standard, 'ready-to-download and use' formats, and from what I can see, available as Webfonts as well."

We have 28 LHF packages listed, 23 of which are for sale.

MyFonts does not currently sell anything that could be defined as crippleware.