This is the same situation for pdf, but a few more clicks.

—astype.de—

Jeremy,

This is of course a valid concern and that’s why certain foundries do not allow font embedding in Flash, but it’s not like you (or someone is a similar scenario) would actually loose revenue. My point is that no professional designer would ever resort to these pirate tactics... or maybe i am just blue-eyed - so if an amateur type aficionado steals your type, copies it from a friend etc. no sales are lost - he wouldn’t buy any fonts to begin with. But please correct me if i am wrong.

I hope i don’t step on any toes by saying this...

Seb

you may consider lettersetter.net

This was discussed here before.
I would recommend to remove the link to this software!

Seb,

You are probably correct, and in the past when its been one or two families posted to some website in Siberia, I just let it slide and pulled out the brown paper bag. But it’s not your work they are stealing.

Of course, I don’t to see any justification of this act, but your reasoning is sound.

There’s definately an emotional component that overrides any logical analysis of the situation.

Jeremy Dooley
www.insignedesign.com

If it makes anybody feel better, the pirate versions of a lot of fonts going around out there lately are next to worthless. There’s a programmer promoting a new file compression software by distributing complete foundry archives of ripped fonts and batch converting them into Opentype via Fontlab. The catch is that he doesn’t know what he’s doing and the fonts are often unusable for anything but (bad) student work, even then the fonts often require manual fixes before they can be used.

“I suppose I will have to re-evaluate the way I provide previews.”

Why?

Darrel has a point. It’s not like people using the really crappy ripped font collections buy fonts anyway.

That might be true James, but does that make it ok? The fact still remains that someone’s work is being exploited in a way which they don’t approve.

Tiffany,

While I agree wholeheartedly with your ethics, the practical concerns boil down to either coming to terms with this perceived violation of your property and chalking such theft or “shrinkage” as a cost of doing business, or inconveniencing your potential paying customers by crippling online previews so that font pirates won’t be able to produce a crappy imitations of your font. Since the pirates aren’t going to pay anyway, aren’t you potentially reducing the number of honest sales by offering less information to would-be buyers?

—m

From a pragmatic standpoint, whether or not it’s right is irrelevant. If having a Flash type preview increases sales, and if people who don’t pay for fonts are going to use some pirate font regardless, one might as well put indignation aside and focus on at least making as much money as possible from paying customers.

I was only commenting on James’ comment. It seems to me that it is easy for those of us who do not create fonts for a living to wonder how the foundries can possibly not offer good previews for those of us who do license fonts. But then those same foundries who do offer the best kinds of previews find themselves on the business end of a piracy problem. It isn’t our place to say how the foundries should offer previews, it is just our place to say what is most useful and for them to choose. No?

I’m not telling anybody how to do business, just point out that getting ripped off is pretty much inevitable in creative fields, and sometimes it’s probably better to just let it go and focus on the people who appreciate design enough to pay for it.

That is probably true, James.

“That might be true James, but does that make it ok?”

Probably not.

But DRM in general is a wasted effort. It hurts the honest customer, burdens the vendor, and in the end doesn’t really stop the copying of digital media by those that really want to copy it anyways.

It’s an exercise in futility.

Put that effort into designing more typefaces instead.

(BTW, nice stuff, Carni!)

“It isn’t our place to say how the foundries should offer previews”

Well, actually it is. We’re the customer. Foundries don’t have to listen, of course.

DRM bit me again this week. I bought some songs from iTunes to put on my new iPod. Only half would play on my iPod.

Spent a total of 4 hours with Apple trying to troubleshoot this.

End result? I said screw it, stripped the DRM out and did it my way. As such, Apple lost an iTunes customer.

DRM was not part of this discussion.

point out that getting ripped off is pretty much inevitable in creative fields
I could think of some rather unpleasant analogies, but the bottom line is “inevitable” is not acceptable.
If a previewer become a font dispenser, then it is the foundry’s prerogative to turn off the tap. ATF and metal foundries didn’t have online previewers, they had specimen books. We have cultivated good customer relationships where a regular customer can try out fonts upon request. We try to listen to our customers. Most people who offer the loudest criticisms are rarely customers, but people who feel a sense of righteousness about how they think things should be. It’s easy to say “let it go” but if a repeated indignation and crime is perpetrated upon you, you don’t stand there and say “thank you sir may I have another”

James
when you say the pirate versions of a lot of fonts going around out there lately, you seem to have a pretty good knowledge of the various levels of piracy and even then the fonts often require manual fixes before they can be used an implied first hand experience in using pirated fonts. I find it disheartening that even on this forum where those who chat daily with the makers of fonts can in the next breath dismiss the value of the craft by posting download links. It’s like when a fan of a band asks the band to sign a bootleg and burns copies of their music for all of their friends, is it flattering or insulting? A little of both no doubt. The mainstreaming of “sharing” culture will make it less and less inviting for anyone to want to go into a “creative” business. In conclusion...whatever.

If a previewer become a font dispenser, then it is the foundry’s prerogative to turn off the tap.

I’m not arguing otherwise. I only pointed out that if the foundries find that the previews generate extra business, it might be worth overlooking piracy. This isn’t a radical new idea—the software and fashion industries have been playing these kinds of games for ages.

As for my own familiarity with the seedier side of the internet, I don’t claim to be a saint, and I’m won’t insult you by offering excuses for my idealogical promiscuities.

Fair enough. I appreciate the candor.
I would think piracy could be overlooked if the balance of extra business outweighed the prominence a font would find throughout various “sharing” sites and the ease of finding a font once it is propagated. Sadly I think the scales are tipped in the favor of piracy reducing more sales than little or no pdf/flash specimens would reduce sales. I don’t have statistical evidence to back this up, but once a font is released, it tends to sell better when it has not been “shared” vs. font sales that have had piracy right after release. Contrary to a common rationalization, the “non consensual trial version” encouraging sales is a rarity. On the upside (with some trepidation) finding pirated fonts used in major ad campaigns can be a windfall if pursued. That brings up litigation as a revenue source for foundries as a big topic that could be discussed. Not online however :^)

“DRM was not part of this discussion”

It’s quite related, as the original app likely ’reverse engineered’ the flash file to grab the data. DRM is usually touted as the ’fix’.

“but the bottom line is “inevitable” is not acceptable.”

Is anyone disagreeing with that?

“Most people who offer the loudest criticisms are rarely customers”

Why is that? ;o)

“implied first hand experience in using pirated fonts”

That’s a rather accusatory assumption, ain’t it?

I think we also abuse the term ’pirated’ WAY too much these days.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that no, folks should not be taking your work for free if you intend people to purchase it. You can either a) make it hard for everyone, including your paying customer to use your product or b) just focus on your paying customers and not worry about some kid in Russia.

It’s really up to each foundry, and there’s no ’right’ answer necessarily.

“It’s like when a fan of a band asks the band to sign a bootleg and burns copies of their music for all of their friends, is it flattering or insulting?”

It depends on the band. Does a bootleg increase or decrease the bands market exposure and product sales?

“The mainstreaming of “sharing” culture will make it less and less inviting for anyone to want to go into a “creative” business.”

“sharing” has been around forever. This is nothing new. And yet, the creative businesses are still chugging along just fine...

“I don’t have statistical evidence to back this up”

And that is really the reason these debates still exist. No one does.

Does sharing an MP3 directly deny the RIAA income? Or does it directly increase it? It’s next to impossible to accurately measure this and in a lot of cases, it’s probably a wash. Just the times-a-changin.

I’m just speaking for myself, but I’m through with DRMed music. It’s a huge pain. I am more than willing to pay for music and will gladly do so when it’s DRM free (thank goodness for eMusic and Amazon!)

As for fonts, as a designer, I make a living doing commercial work, so will always pay for fonts...provided I can use them without jumping through hoops (in which case I just won’t use that font and go on to the next foundry). And that’s just my stance...other customers will differ, of course.

A more tangible example:

The last font I purchased was about a month ago for a client project. The client wanted a hand drawn typeface.

I went off to Veer and used the flash tool to set a bunch of examples of handwritten typefaces they had. Showed the client, and then we purchased the one they picked.

Had there not been that preview, those typefaces wouldn’t have been in contention.

Now, granted, I could have (technically, but not legally/ethically) just used the screen shot and have been done with it without any license at all. I’m sure that happens too. The issue is how many do the latter vs. the former. I, of course, don’t know. Not sure anyone does.

Sadly I think the scales are tipped in the favor of piracy reducing more sales than little or no pdf/flash specimens would reduce sales.

I don’t think that piracy via Flash rips is the kind of piracy that foundries need to worry about. If foundries want to make a meaningful dent in piracy, making very low cost fonts easily available to design students and schools is the only way to go. Too many students—at least here in the states—can’t even afford textbooks after they’re done paying tuition and room and board, much less software and fonts. I can tell you firsthand that piracy is taught as a necessary evil in some design programs. And when a young designer gets out of school, tens-of-thousands of dollars in debt, and finds that a good job at a good firm that pays less than he or she could make working in retail management, you can bet those old pirate fonts are going into the freelance jobs that keep the student loan companies happy.

This is why I keep bringing up ideas about very low-cost font licensing for students. For some of them, the difference between using a free font or using a pirated font is the difference between getting a scholarship or not going back to school next fall. Right now tuition is skyrocking, the value of the dollar is dropping like a rock, easy credit is fading, federal and local student aid is getting slashed, and type vendors need to get proactive. Because if you think font piracy is bad now, just wait until a generation of designers who were taught to pirate fonts is running the design industry.

Too many students—at least here in the states—can’t even afford textbooks after they’re done paying tuition and room and board, much less software and fonts.

Perhaps those charging such exorbitant prices for tuition, board and lodging, not to mention all those other things design students need like iPhones, iPods, iMacs etc., should lower their prices, so the poor dears can afford the occasional $14.95 for font.

Oh sorry, those things can’t be pirated, so I guess it’s OK for students to pay the full ticket for them.

Perhaps those charging such exorbitant prices for tuition, board and lodging…

Right now my school is having trouble finding money to repair the roof on its main building.

…not to mention all those other things design students need like iPhones, iPods, iMacs…

Tell that to my buddy who lugs around a full-sized keyboard he scrounged up when the keyboard on his laptop died.

Oh sorry, those things can’t be pirated, so I guess it’s OK for students to pay the full ticket for them.

I’m not making excuses for font piracy. I am stating that I think that it starts early, and that the font industry would be a let better reaching out to young designers—especially students—than worrying about people ripping fonts off of type preview systems.

I am extremely happy to announce that Fontlab Ltd. is very close to releasing Photofont WebReady, a product that will allow users to convert outline fonts not only to Flash fonts for use with sIFR and similar solutions (that are employed for Flash testdrive capabilities) — but also into something new, what we call “embedded web photofonts”. Basically, Photofont WebReady will convert an outline font into a bitmap font of a chosen size and then put this bitmap font inside of a Flash file that will include ActionScript that will make this bitmap font work as if it was regular Flash text.

Next week, we will publish a new version of the photofont.com website that will demostrate the technology in use. We hope that some folks who are afraid that fonts can be extracted from Flash files may consider switching to embedded web photofonts for preview purposes.

I’d like to add that — unlike some other solutions on the market — Photofont WebReady will respect the embedding bits in OpenType and TrueType fonts, and will not allow a user to convert a font into an outline Flash font if the embedding bits don’t allow that.

Regards,
Adam Twardoch
Fontlab Ltd.

“Photofont WebReady will convert an outline font into a bitmap font of a chosen size and then put this bitmap font inside of a Flash file that will include ActionScript that will make this bitmap font work as if it was regular Flash text.”

How accessible and machine-readable is that solution?

Photofont WebReady is based on sIFR (but there is lots of additional development that went into it). The output is completely searchable, search-engine-friendly text with a custom typeface. It uses a combination of browser-side standard techniques (CSS, JavaScript) with dynamically inserted Flash files (SWF with ActionScript). On modern browsers, you get custom-formatted text rendered using Flash, which remains searchable and copy-pasteable (just like the heading on this very forum, that today, for a change, seems to be using Comic Sans). Google or text browsers that don’t support Flash get the pure unprocessed text.

Adam

I can tell you firsthand that piracy is taught as a necessary evil in some design programs.

Are you saying that students are actually taught or instructed to steal fonts and/or other software? And to what end? So they can pass their exams and obtain qualification? If so,  w h o  is instructing them to steal? It sounds like you are saying lecturers or school admins are telling students it is neccessary, and okay, to steal. If that is the case, those staff are undermining the viability of commerce itself, which supports the universities by generating wealth and tax revenue. Without that tax revenue your university would not exist.

...the difference between using a free font or using a pirated font is the difference between getting a scholarship or not going back to school next fall.

If that is true then the universities are going about the task of education in a most unrealistic manner. There must be something seriously amiss, or just plain  w r o n g with scholarship requirements if students fail to attain qualification solely because they cannot afford shitty trendy esoteric fonts. Either that, or the lecturers have lost touch with the real world and desperately need to spend some time working as commercial designers. Get a grip. The other side to that coin is—-are design students and universities realistic about the cost of attaining a degree? Why are design students enrolled in courses they cannot afford to complete, and is that a realistic situation?

If foundries want to make a meaningful dent in piracy, making very low cost fonts easily available to design students and schools is the only way to go.

Are you sure that’s the  o n l y  way? You make it sound so final. The problem with selling fonts to students at very low cost is Where do you draw the line? Should students be permitted to continue using those fonts in a commercial practice when they become professional designers? It could turn out to be a recipie for painless entry into high quality font ownership. Save thousands on the cost of acquiring all the fonts you need to run a commercial design practice by getting them cheap when at uni.

Because if you think font piracy is bad now, just wait until a generation of designers who were taught to pirate fonts is running the design industry.

Ha-ha, bloody ha. Commerce and industry folds in on itself and ceases to function when run by people of compromised morality. It will never happen, because financiers will not appoint petty criminals to run the design industry. The people with the money, James, are the people who pull the strings in business. Once again,  w h o  is  t e a c h i n g  students to pirate fonts?

j a m e s

I’m going to drop out of this discussion as I don’t feel it’s appropriate to continue in a public forum. On the off-chance anyone really cares, bring up in Buffalo and I’ll buy you a pint.

“Google or text browsers that don’t support Flash get the pure unprocessed text.”

Nice.

“Commerce and industry folds in on itself and ceases to function when run by people of compromised morality.”

That’s funny. ;o)

Not that funny… :)

aluminum - you wrote this:
Does sharing an MP3 directly deny the RIAA income? Or does it directly increase it? It’s next to impossible to accurately measure this and in a lot of cases, it’s probably a wash.

Ask the record companies if it’s a wash. I’m not really for them or against them, but all the royalties I have received for songwriting or performance on records came from them. I don’t want people to “share” my songs, I want them to buy them. Record companies are dying fast. You might all cheer about this but don’t forget that Prince didn’t make money for 5 albums, all he had was the belief (and financial support) of a record company that he had talent.

If you’re The Grateful Dead and want to encourage taping and trading live shows, great. But it should be a choice.

Radiohead just released their latest album on their own and were in a position to do something revolutionary: they offered it up for download and told their fans they could pay whatever they thought was fair for it, including nothing. What happened? The vast majority downloaded it for free. I am not sure exactly what that means except they probably won’t try it again.

pbc

James,
I offer my apologies if it seems I am jumping down your throat, which I am doing in way. I have strong feelings about morality and ethics, and when the topic of piracy comes up I sometimes get quite preachy.

If I came across angry, don’t let it freak you out man. I just get bombastic at times, when the moment takes me. I like you and when I come over there I would love to buy you a pint. I do care about this.

Yes, you do need to be careful what you say in a public forum. Some aspects of human behaviour are best discussed privately.

I’m glad you have strong feelings about this kind of thing too, and you’re gutsy; in your position I can understand where you’re coming from. Being a student clearly is not easy in this day and age. The much-vaunted digital “media revolution” has given the shitty end of the stick to students. That’s bad and I wish I could do more to alleviate the situation.

So far I’ve made a few useful display fonts available free of charge. One day I will make a nice useful text font and license it free for personal use. I’ve got a draft already which I can post in the critique forum for scrutiny, if you would like to participate I am more than happy to have you onboard. To make it happen faster we could make it an open source project and invite other type designers to help finish it with a bold, italic etc. What say?

Best regards,
j a m e s

I offer my apologies if it seems I am jumping down your throat, which I am doing in way.

That’s what the internet is for!

The much-vaunted digital “media revolution” has given the shitty end of the stick to students.

Actually, it’s made our lives a lot easier. Have you ever seen the card catalogs at the Library of Congress?

What sucks for students is a society that puts people into a position where a college degree becomes almost essential for many careers, but expects them to screw themselves over financially to do so. People can spit on the memories of the robber barons all they want, at least they built a lot of classrooms and libraries. I’m getting through school largely thanks to loans at interest rates that would get a banker executed for usury in some nations. And I’m one of the lucky ones!

To make it happen faster we could make it an open source project and invite other type designers to help finish it with a bold, italic etc. What say?

I’m actually hoping to do that with my thesis work—but I have to design the basics and graduate first.

That’s what the internet is for!

I wish it wasn’t that way and I never set out to hurt other people online. Hubris is bad and we’re better off trying to avoid it.

Have you ever seen the card catalogs at the Library of Congress?

Not at the Library of Congress but we have a great public library here in Melbourne with card catalogs.

What sucks for students is a society that puts people into a position where a college degree becomes almost essential for many careers, but expects them to screw themselves over financially to do so.

True, but my main point is—-expecting students to be equipped with all of the goodies wage-earning designers take for granted is unrealistic and unfair, and look at the damage it’s causing to the type industry.

People can spit on the memories of the robber barons all they want, at least they built a lot of classrooms and libraries.

At a terrible cost in human lives and damage to the biosphere.

I’m actually hoping to do that with my thesis work—but I have to design the basics and graduate first.

Good. This is good.

Take care.

j a m e s

“Not that funny… :)”

Ethics and capitalism aren’t as directly related as we’d like them to be. ;o)

“Ask the record companies if it’s a wash.”

Why? They have an answer, but it’s not based on any tangible evidence. That was my point.

“I don’t want people to “share” my songs, I want them to buy them.”

The question you need to figure out is if letting people listen your music for free will increase or decrease your exposure and sales.

I don’t know.

“But it should be a choice.”

Sure. No argument there.

“What happened? The vast majority downloaded it for free. I am not sure exactly what that means except they probably won’t try it again.”

I dunno. 6 million dollars sounds worthy of doing it again.

But still, it’s the same gap in logic. Just because half downloaded for free does not mean they lost half of their sales.

A bunch of 14 year olds designing CD covers for their mix CDs using a font from a Russian download site aren’t necessarily a lost sale to the font foundry. This is not excusing them from doing it, just that, IMHO, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for a font foundry to worry about that particular demographic at the expense of their typical paying customer.

“What happened? The vast majority downloaded it for free. I am not sure exactly what that means except they probably won’t try it again.”

I dunno. 6 million dollars sounds worthy of doing it again.

Don’t forget that Radiohead is no longer attached to a record label, so all the money should essentially go directly to them.
This model would be much different if they were only getting a few cents per album.

(btw, I read at one time that it was roughly 60% that took it for free)

The question you need to figure out is if letting people listen your music for free will increase or decrease your exposure and sales.
Exposure, of course. Sales, unlikely if they took the first ones for free, the sense of “entitlement” and ease of download would be the already established pattern. 2/3 of the radiohead “fans” didn’t even pay 1¢. That was an amazing experiment and in the end likely a worthwhile one. The mindset for most is that all digital IP can and should be free. The harsh reality comes back when they want to make a living with their own IP and find all of their peers hold no value for their music, fonts or graphic design.

If school instructors are teaching piracy as professional practice, there is a serious problem that will take a major shift to overcome. I went through design school during the transition from analog to digital. No one complained (well, everyone complains) about having to buy press-type at the expense of beer money (both were somehow managed) where now buying fonts is seen as a luxury as opposed to the “art supply” that it is (with a shelf life of...their career).

Great - so Radiohead fans got what they wanted - most for free. Everyone in the music business knows that the money is no longer in CD sales - it’s in appearances and merchandise, etc… Why is that? Because of downloading. The only catalogue that is making money at EMI/Capitol is reissues. So much for new artists.

I recently had a song released by a major band and I made some decent money. Why? Because the record label is legally required to send me royalties ON THE COPIES THEY SELL. Did I need the extra exposure of downloaded versions of that song? Not at all - the artists who recorded it sell in the millions every time out.

For all you who are cheering downloading bringing on the demise of the major labels, consider the new business model. Clear Channel has purchased Madonna’s entire career for the next five years. Concerts, merchandise, records, etc…

Let’s see - they own a plethora of radio stations in America - I wonder what they’re going to play on those stations?

There are consequences all down the line when artists are devalued.

pbc

If a foundry does a font promotion, by giving away a font free for a limited time, or by issuing a font on a collection CD (eg with Indie Fonts), then that font is more likely to end up on a pirate site.

If a foundry does a font promotion, by giving away a font free for a limited time, or by issuing a font on a collection CD (eg with Indie Fonts), then that font is more likely to end up on a pirate site.

That sounds like a fact. Is it? ...more likely to end up on a pirate site than what? I have not seen this as a proven fact even though it would seem to be the case.

“2/3 of the radiohead “fans” didn’t even pay 1¢.”

% figures are pointless.

The key is how many purchased the songs when they could pick the price vs. how many purchased the songs when the band picked the price vs. how many downloaded the song on their own (and how many of those wouldn’t have paid anyways)?

Again, a really hard, if not impossible question to answer.

“The mindset for most is that all digital IP can and should be free.”

I’d say the success of iTMS, eMusic and Amazon’t MP3 sales severely dampens the ’most’ argument.

“If school instructors are teaching piracy as professional practice, there is a serious problem”

Definitely.

“Did I need the extra exposure of downloaded versions of that song? Not at all - the artists who recorded it sell in the millions every time out.”

Indeed...the bands that protest the loudest tend to be the ones that benefit most from the current system. Which is understandable. Band like Metallica thrive off of the current music label system.

But your songs already sells millions. Do you think ’sharing’ of those songs really has hurt those sales? Or perhaps you’ve already hit the saturation mark. As a teen, we’d swap CDs by copying them to tape for each other. This was the norm. Did we cost the bands sales? No. We were broke. I think there’s a belief (or perhaps a wish) that if there was only some way to technically prevent copying (which there isn’t) all of these ’copies’ would immediately translate into sales. Some would. Many wouldn’t.

“There are consequences all down the line when artists are devalued.”

I think Madonna and Metallica are overvalued to begin with. BTW, this is not a ’new’ model. This is how the industry has been working since the 50s. Control the market, and feed the masses a select menu of easily marketable consumables. The market hates diversity.

“If a foundry does a font promotion, by giving away a font free for a limited time, or by issuing a font on a collection CD (eg with Indie Fonts), then that font is more likely to end up on a pirate site.”

Is that bad? Good? Neither?

Maybe I’m naive...do a huge number of professional designers get fonts from Russian pirate sites?

I think it’s time for a typophile poll

That sounds like a fact. Is it?

It’s anecdotal, based on noticing which of my fonts I’ve come across on pirate sites.
It certainly seems logical.
It might even be naive behaviour, in that someone thinks “hey this is free, must be shareware”; or self-serving myopia, when greed causes one to not notice, or to ignore, inconvenient facts.

Maybe I’m naive...do a huge number of professional designers get fonts from Russian pirate sites?

They’re more likely to get them on CDs from friends, or, as freelancers, download them from their employer’s computer.
Nonetheless, as it’s a question of morality, the fight for intellectual property rights, focused on pirate sites, is symbolically important as a socially responsible, visible condemnation of bad behaviour—as much as for reducing the number of pirated fonts in the “sharing” subculture.

Real designers don’t pirate fonts.

“Nonetheless, as it’s a question of morality, the fight for intellectual property rights, focused on pirate sites, is symbolically important as a socially responsible”

Many that run file sharing sites (Which is DIFFERENT than ’pirate’ sites, IMHO) would actually aruge the same: it’s “is symbolically important as a socially responsible”. ;o)

Personally, I think the DMCA is taking things too far in one direction and the Pirate Bay is taking things too far in the other. Seems like the answer is likely somewhere in the middle there.

“Real designers don’t pirate fonts.”

Exactly! ;o)

I used to have fonts that had somehow accumulated over the years, but have since destroyed them and bought replacements. In the early 90’s not many people I knew considered fonts as something you should buy for yourself, and even pre-press companies gave fonts away to their clients for free. Since then both legislation and public awareness have changed, but there are still a lot of people who are willing to share fonts and/or who are ignorant of the legal issues. Perhaps people should be made more aware of what’s ok and what’s not, but I’m afraid a lot of people just don’t care.

I hope this is not too presumptuous to offer this poll, but it would be interesting to see what Typophile users answers are.
This is a non scientific poll, but may offer insight into the conjecture of the preceding conversations. The terms “Pirate, sharing orquestionable” all refer to fonts not obtained in accordance with the font’s EULA.