German Court Fines Site Owner For Sharing User Data With Google To Access Web Fonts

from the getting-fined-the-odd-way dept

The European Union's data privacy law, the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), has caused all sorts of problems since its debut. Its debut was itself a mess, something that immediately resulted in a whole lot of websites simply refusing to allow European users to connect with them.

Since it was unclear how to avoid running afoul of the law, it was easier to avoid potential fines by simply cutting European users out of the equation. For everyone else, it was being greeted with a new warning about cookies at nearly every website they visited -- a small hassle to be sure, but a hassle nonetheless.

Then there were the truly unexpected consequences of the new law that imposed data-gathering and data-sharing restrictions on any business, whether they were internet-based or not. In some areas, GDPR was read as requiring retailers to notify purchasers of items when the items were returned -- something that would make the exchange of unwanted Christmas gifts extremely awkward.

In another weird case, post offices in Ireland removed waste bins from their facilities because customers were throwing out unwanted mail and receipts, resulting the offices' unintentional collection of personal data. When the waste bins went missing, customers resorted to throwing their trash on post office counters and floors, leaving it even more unregulated than it was when the waste bins were still in place.

Yet another side effect no one saw coming: the use of Google's Font API was enough to get a website fined by a German court. (via Slashdot)

Earlier this month, a German court fined an unidentified website €100 ($110, £84) for violating EU privacy law by importing a Google-hosted web font.

The decision, by Landgericht München's third civil chamber in Munich, found that the website, by including Google-Fonts-hosted font on its pages, passed the unidentified plaintiff's IP address to Google without authorization and without a legitimate reason for doing so. And that violates Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The court says whether or not Google did anything with the forwarded IP address is beside the point. The fact is the website engaged in the unauthorized transmission of this IP address to Google by using its font API to access a font to render the text on the site. The court's decision points out this can be avoided by self-hosting the font and notes that the website operator has chosen to do this going forward. That being said, the court still feels a fine is the only way to ensure future compliance with GDPR.

Risk of repetition is to be affirmed. It is undisputed that the plaintiff's IP address was forwarded to Google when the plaintiff visited the defendant's website. Previous unlawful impairments justify an actual assumption of the risk of repetition, which was not refuted by the defendant. The risk of repetition is not eliminated by the fact that the defendant now uses Google Fonts in such a way that the IP address of the website visitor is no longer disclosed to Google. The risk of repetition can only be eliminated by a declaration of discontinuance with a penalty.

The fine here may have been minimal, but the law allows a penalty of €250,000 ($286,000) per violation, which the court warns the website operator is not only possible, but probable, if the problem doesn't go away. There's also the (very slim) chance the improper use of Google Fonts could result in prison time, because that's also a potential GDPR violation penalty.

While the solution here appears to be simple enough -- self-host fonts -- the reality of the situation is that this decision will lead to yet another pop-up asking for consent that will stand between site users and the content they're trying to access, and that no one will read before clicking "accept." It won't make the web a better place and it won't do much to limit the sharing of personal data with off-site entities. It will just make everything a little more annoying.

Filed Under: data protection, fonts, gdpr, germany, ip addresses, privacy, sharing, web fonts
Companies: google

Goldman Sachs Created A Font, But You Are Forbidden By Its License To Critique Goldman Sachs Using It

from the comically-sans dept

Even if you find financial news incredibly boring, you will be familiar with investment firm Goldman Sachs. The famed investment bank has a list of purported controversies that rivals some small nations, which will become important in a bit. First, let's focus on this bit of hot news: Goldman Sachs developed its own font!

Goldman Sachs has released its own eponymous font, Goldman Sans, a contemporary sans-serif that garnishes merciless formality with a charming typographic "wink" here and there.

If you want to see what the font looks like, you can see it here. It's... certainly a font? To be honest, it looks clean and fine, but not especially unique. Unlike, say, the license it issues for the use of the font, which it is also giving away for free. Because, in addition to that license stating that Goldman Sachs can rescind the license at its whim -- turning anything created using it into a potential retroactive legal liability -- the license also states that you cannot use Goldman Sans to criticize Goldman Sachs, which is Goldman stupid.

(C)(2)(d) The User may not use the Licensed Font Software to disparage or suggest any affiliation with or endorsement by Goldman Sachs.

(E)(2) Further, Goldman Sachs may terminate this License, without notice to the User, for any reason or no reason at all and at any time, completely at Goldman Sachs’s sole discretion.

For a company that has so many controversies listed on its Wikipedia page, it sure is thin-skinned. And given that thin-skinnedness and the fact that the license allows the company to basically make any content created with it infringement at its whim... why in the absolute hell would anyone ever create anything with this font? Like, at all?

Other than the myriad of comments in the source article and elsewhere in which folks immediately started using the font to criticize Goldman Sachs, I mean.

Filed Under: fonts, goldman sans, license, streisand effect
Companies: goldman sachs

How The Muppets And A Font Choice Hurt The Star Trek / Dr. Seuss Mashup In Court

from the one-fish-two-fish-we-CAN-sue-fish dept

A little over a year ago, we wrote about an unfortunate case in which Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided to sue for copyright and trademark infringement over an attempt to create a (pretty funny) parody that mashed up Dr. Seuss with Star Trek, called "Oh, The Places You'll Boldly Go." As we noted at the time, this seemed to be a clear parody (which is protected by fair use). It was clearly transformative, and was commenting on the differences between Trek and Seuss. We also noted some extraordinary (and extraordinarily silly) claims in the lawsuit. The defendants in the case, Comicmix, won a round earlier this year, when the judge tossed out the trademark claims. However, he let the copyright claims stand for the time being. After, Dr. Seuss Enterprises filed an amended complaint on all the claims, leading to a new motion to dismiss.

Unfortunately, in a new ruling, the court has again denied the fair use claims on copyright, and also denied a new motion to dismiss on trademark grounds, meaning the case will move forward. And it's in large part due to the Muppets and a font. I only wish I were joking. You can read the ruling here. Since the court had previously done a copyright fair use four factors analysis, it mostly just points back to its previous ruling on the matter, but only adjusts its analysis of factor four -- the "effect of the use upon the potential market." The other factors split evenly (factor one in favor of Comicmix, factor two in favor of Seuss, factor three favoring neither).

So this ruling turns on what many courts (perhaps incorrectly...) believe is the most important factor: does this use harm the market for the copyright-covered work. Here, the discussion turns on whether or not this would undermine the Seuss Estate from licensing out its copyrights to someone to do a Star Trek mashup. Comicmix's argument is basically "come on, no one's doing that." Seuss's argument is "hey, look, we've done other mashups before"

Plaintiff states it has published “books that are derivative of [Go!]” such as Oh! The Places I’ll Go; Oh, Baby! Go, Baby!, and more.... Plaintiff states it also publishes a series of “books written and illustrated by other authors and artists that are based upon and incorporate the Dr. Seuss Intellectual Property” such as Oh, The Things You Can Do That Are Good for You!, There’s No Place Like Space!, Oh, The Pets You Can Get!, and more.... Plaintiff states “[n]otably, ‘Dr. Seuss’ does not appear on any of the [book] covers, and all of the covers include names of other authors, despite the fact that these works are authorized by DSE and are recognized by the public as Dr. Seuss works.”...

Defendants argue Boldly cannot cause any relevant market harm because Plaintiff’s licensed collaborations listed in the FAC are not works of Boldly’s type.... Defendants argue Plaintiff has not licensed and would not license “any derivate work that creates a hybrid of Dr. Seuss’s books with existing characters and imagery from a third party’s entertainment franchise. The first amended complaint does not give rise to a plausible claim that Boldly would cause any harm in any transformative market.” ... Defendants distinguish their mash-up from Plaintiff’s licensed derivatives and argue none of the books published as part of Plaintiff’s co-branding licensing program “are crossover works that integrate pre-existing characters or imagery from another entertainment franchise, such as Star Trek, with those of Dr. Seuss.”

The Seuss folks responded to this by pointing out that... they'd done a Muppets mashup with Seuss. Muppets!

Plaintiff argues it has in fact collaborated with others and created crossover works, such as through the creation of The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss, “a live action/puppet show produced by the Jim Henson Company featuring Dr. Seuss’s well-known and beloved characters alongside new, Muppet-like characters created by The Jim Henson Company.”

That apparently is enough to convince the court that Seuss might possibly, some day, find a market to produce mashup Seuss / Star Trek works:

Although these books may not be mash-ups like Boldly, there is a potential market for a literary mash-up involving Plaintiff’s books; such a market would not be unlikely based on Plaintiff’s past licensing programs. Defendant’s production of Boldly may result in an adverse impact on Plaintiff’s derivative market and the Court therefore finds there is potential harm to the market for Plaintiff’s derivative works. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff.

With the amended complaint, the court also revisits the trademark claim... and allows it to move forward as well, reversing its earlier ruling. It finds that Seuss's trademark is valid here, and then says that Comicmix's use does not meet the standards for nominative fair use (in trademark law, that basically means did you just use the trademark to identify the thing that you're talking about). The real failing by Comicmix? Going a bit overboard in using the identical font in their title. Really:

Defendants not only use the words “Oh! The Places You’ll Go!” in the title of Boldly but also use the exact font used by Plaintiff. The look of the lettering is unquestionably identical on both books, down to the shape of the exclamation point. This situation is similar to that in Toho. The Court finds it was unnecessary for Defendants to use the distinctive font as used on Go! to communicate their message (i.e., that Boldly is a mash-up of the Go! and Star Trek universes). The Court concludes Defendants have not satisfied this nominative fair use factor.

I find this... puzzling. Again, the use of the font is the same issue as the use of the other Seussian design: to evoke the world of Seuss in which to land their parody.

So, Comicmix is 0-for-2 at this point -- and have the Muppets and a font to blame. Ouch.

This by no means that the case is over. It can still go through discovery and summary judgment and, then possibly a trial. And it's still possible that Comicmix could win -- but it's also going to be expensive to keep going.

In the meantime, I'm still left wondering why this is a good move by Dr. Seuss Enterprises. It's a beloved brand acting like a bully, pissing off tons of fans. Why not just let the Star Trek / Dr. Seuss fans have their fun for a bit and use the goodwill to sell more of its own books. I mean, I imagine the temptation among many people who would buy the mashup book would be to also get a copy of the Seussian original if they don't already own it. But, alas, in this day and age, so many organizations feel they have to go legal against everyone.

Filed Under: copyright, dr. seuss, fair use, fonts, licensing, muppets, parody, star trek, trademark
Companies: comicmix, dr. seuss enterprises

From Sans Serif To Sans Sharif: #Fontgate Leads To Calls For Pakistan's Prime Minister To Resign

from the fun-with-fonts dept

Some people get really worked up about fonts. Here, for example, is a thread on Reddit, spotted by Leigh Beadon, about the appearance of the serif font Cambria on the show "Better Call Saul". The problem is that the show is set in the years 2002 and 2003, while Cambria was designed in 2004. The (mock?) outrage about this slip-up is all good fun, but obviously nothing too serious. Unlike in Pakistan, where another apparent font faux pas is leading to calls for the country's prime minister to resign.

As the Guardian explains, the daughter of Pakistan's prime minister is being investigated by the country's supreme court as a result of revelations in the Panama Papers that linked her to expensive properties in London. Documents produced in her defense had a slight problem, as spotted by font aficionados:

Documents claiming that Mariam Nawaz Sharif was only a trustee of the companies that bought the London flats, are dated February 2006, and appear to be typed in Microsoft Calibri.

But the font was only made commercially available in 2007, leading to suspicions that the documents are forged.

Social media users have derided Sharif for this apparent misstep, coining the hashtag #fontgate.

Such is the interest in #fontgate and the humble sans serif Calibri font, that visits to the relevant Wikipedia page have ballooned from 500 visits per day to 150,000 in just two days. As a result of the intense interest and some dubious editing attempts, Wikipedia has been forced to act:

After users seemingly tried to change the article's content to say the font was available from 2004, Wikipedia suspended editing on its Calibri page "until July 18 2017, or until editing disputes have been resolved".

Although you might think this is pretty much at the level of the Reddit discussion of Cambria, rival politicians in Pakistan see it as much more serious -- and an opportunity they can exploit:

Opposition parties have urged prime minister Nawaz Sharif to step down after the investigation found a "significant disparity" between his family's declared wealth and known sources of income.

However things turn out in Pakistan for the country's prime minister and his daughter -- Nawaz Sharif has denied wrongdoing -- #fontgate has already had one positive outcome. It allowed the Indian newspaper Financial Express to use the memorable headline: "Awesome story of Calibri, the font that may leave Pakistan sans Sharif."

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: calibri, corruption, fonts, mariam nawaz sharif, pakistan, panama papers

Hasbro Sued For Font Piracy On My Little Pony Merchandise

from the live-by-the-copyright,-die-by-the-copyright dept

Live by the copyright, die by the copyright, as I've said before. See, copyright protectionism is sort of like taking a moral stand: when someone asserts the importance of their copyright, they assert it for all copyrights. For most of us, this is not a problem, because we don't spend a great deal of time bashing others over the head with the copyright cudgel. But when you're Hasbro? Especially considering all of the many various actions taken by the company to shut down anything having to do with its My Little Pony property? Well, then it would be nice if the company might at least make sure it wasn't committing copyright infringement in selling that property as well.

But that appears to be asking too much. Hasbro is finding itself the subject of a copyright infringement action over the font it uses on basically everything My Little Pony.

According to Font Brothers, American toy multinational Hasbro did so when it started to use the “Generation B” font for its My Little Pony products, without permission. The Generation B font was created by Harold Lohner and is commercially exploited by Font Brothers. One of the best known uses of the font is for the popular My Little Pony toys and videos. However, according to a complaint filed at a New York federal court Hasbro failed to obtain a proper license, so My Little Pony is using a pirated font.

From the complaint itself, it appears Hasbro was not only using the font internally without a license, but was distributing it to third parties as well.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Hasbro has used or instructed others to use unauthorized copies of the GENERATION B Font in the creation of, but not limited to, all products, goods, merchandise, television and film properties, and advertising materials connected with the “My Little Pony” product line and by way of third party vendors authorized to sell “My Little Pony” branded goods bearing the term “My Little Pony” using the GENERATION B Font, showings of which are annexed hereto as Exhibit D.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Hasbro has not purchased the special license from Font Brothers which authorizes the use of the GENERATION B font software as a resource for use on goods for sale and for distribution to third parties or in the creation of its various HASBRO “My Little Pony” branded goods, products, and/or services.

Oops. The complaint goes on to note that Hasbro had repeatedly been made aware of the lack of license and authorization for the font, but that the company had failed to even bother to respond. Keep in mind that the company appears to have used this font on tons of products and merchandise, including on its own site. And distributed it as well. All while being aware that it was unathorized to do so. Sort of puts a couple of fan-made My Little Pony games into perspectrive, doesn't it?

And, lest you think that this is all some misunderstanding in which Hasbro used a different font that was somewhat simliar to GENERATION B:

While small differences can sometimes be tricky to prove that an unauthorized font is used, in this case it is also used on Hasbro’s website. The stylesheet of the website specifically mentions the Generation B and a copy of the font stored and distributed through Hasbro’s servers.

Hasbro has since removed all uses of the font from its website, which rings more as an admission at this point than complying with any requests. And, sure, maybe super-aggressive copyright protection over the use of fonts can be a little silly at times, but it's going to be hard to find any friends to fight in your corner when you've been beating everyone over the head with copyright all these years.

Filed Under: copyright, fonts, my little pony
Companies: hasbro

Font Designed To Help Dyslexic Individuals Gets Legal Threat, Becomes More Open In Response

from the dyslexics-unite dept

Recently, we highlighted the tremendous difficulty that visually impaired people have encountered when it comes to intellectual property. The White House had initially endorsed, then stalled, an international effort to expand fair use rights to help visually impaired individuals get greater access to written works. We also highlighted how DRM was a threat to the visually impaired. However, it is not just large interests making life difficult for this class of readers. 

Thanks to TechnoMage, we learn that New Hampshire-based mobile app designer Abelardo Gonzalez had created a font that is easier for those with dyslexia to read books and websites, but it ended up facing some legal threats from a competing font designer. First off, we have a little background on the font.

The plight of dyslexic individuals served as inspiration to Abelardo Gonzalez, a New Hampshire-based mobile app designer, who devised a clever font to help dyslexics read digital text easier.

The font, dubbed "OpenDyslexic", employs a trick in which the bottoms of characters are weighted. Curiously some dyslexic individuals visual processing cortexes rotate images that look slender, making characters appear backwards or upside down. By making the bottom look "heavier" the font reportedly reduces this kind of visual "bug" in the brains of people with this disability.

Along with creating this font, Abelardo had released an app for iPhone and Android devices that allows those device owners to override the default font wherever it is used and replace it with this font. Other app developers had also started using it as an alternative font. Even e-reader makers Sony and Amazon have taken interest. Unfortunately, this kind of greater access is not something to celebrate if you are trying to market a more expensive font to the same demographic.

He relates that he was contacted by font designer Christian Boer (who sells an alternative font called dyslexie for $69 USD per "single-use" license) to "cease and desist" early during his process.

At the time he was charging a nominal fee and did reuse some bitstream-vera-sans characters as the basis for his font. Bitstream-vera-sans' license explicitly allows derivative fonts to be sold (free of fee to the bitstream font creators), however, Mr. Boer was claiming that the offense occurred due to the fact that Mr. Gonzalez had changed the (free) font in a similar way as he had. By all appearances the real issue was that Mr. Gonzalez was offering it for far cheaper than Mr. Boer.

In response to this threat, Abelardo released the font for free made some modifications to the font, thus allowing greater access to the public, Abelardo had already released the font for free and was not planning on backing down, which was probably the exact opposite of the reaction Boer wanted. The fact that Boer felt threatened enough by a cheaper free font shows just how weak his position is. Abelardo even admits that Boer's font is better and has become even better as a result of having more competition in the market. So why does Boer feel the need to threaten the competition? Shouldn't the fact that he can provide a better alternative be enough incentive for people to seek him out? Or perhaps, if people and companies are turning to cheaper or free alternatives, maybe it's a sign that he might be charging too much?

As someone with two dyslexic brothers, I am glad that there are people out there trying to make the world of text easier on them. Had my mother had access to a font like Abelardo's or Boer's, she probably would have had an easier time teaching them throughout school. Perhaps if the school systems that had abandoned my brothers had access to one of these fonts, they probably would have had an easier time teaching them and many others.

As we move into a more electronic world in which the ability to switch out fonts and make other changes to support the visually impaired becomes more accessible, we can provide a better solution to those who need the additional help. Unfortunately, if more people like Boer and legacy publishers get their way, such tools will be locked away behind expensive paywalls, decreasing the value and accessibility to those who truly need them.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, dyslexia, fonts, legal threats

France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo

from the oooops dept

We've been highlighting how Nicolas Sarkozy -- who was the original strong supporter of "three strikes" proposals to kick people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) -- and his political party have been caught time and time again infringing on the copyright of others. It looks like that's happening again in an even more embarrassing fashion. The organization that's been designated to deal with three strikes in France, Hadopi, unveiled a new logo... that used an unlicensed font, that had been created by France Telecom and had not been licensed for use by anyone else. Hadopi had to scramble and try to find a new font once called on this, and issued an "apology," but will it allow those accused of infringement online the right to "apologize" as well?

These may seem like minor issues, but they're actually quite instructive. The point is that due to the way copyright law is set up, people infringe unintentionally all the time. Even the biggest defenders of copyright do so. And that is the problem with any sort of system that punishes people for something as minor as three infringements -- and it's even worse when its three accusations of infringement, rather than actual convictions. It creates a massive liability for the way everyone -- even copyright defenders -- do things every day. But, of course, the big powerful folks -- the ones who passed and support this law -- can just apologize and ignore the consequences. Everyone else? Good luck.

Filed Under: copyright, fonts, france, hadopi, hypocracy, three strikes

The User Generated Font Community

from the challenging-business-models dept

It's often amazing to see the larger struggles of one industry reflected in a very similar situation in a much more narrowly focused industry. Obviously, we've had tons of stories about major media operations, from television to radio to newspapers have suddenly struggled to compete in a world where there's also user-generated content to compete with on all levels. Certainly, most of that user-generated content is not very good, but that's missing the point. Some of it is quite good -- and the good work tends to get noticed and float to the top. Basically, the old guard no longer has a monopoly, and that can require a major adjustment in terms of both product and business model. And the same thing is happening in much more narrowly focused markets -- such as fonts.

A few months back, we wrote about how one font company got so upset that one of its fonts was found on a file sharing network that it sent a huge bill to the guy it believed was responsible, and then increased the price on the font, along with a huge rant about people "stealing" their fonts. This is like the RIAA flipping out over file sharing -- and rather than recognizing that the unauthorized file sharing was actually a sign of people wanting a more efficient market -- trying to resist that market.

Then, compare that to this wonderful story in Slate about an online service called FontStruct that lets anyone create and share their own fonts. Suddenly, a large group of folks who didn't even have the means before can now make their own fonts. They're certainly not as good as professional fonts in most cases, but for many people they are good enough (and some of them are quite good). As the article notes: "FontStruct is the Casiotone keyboard of font-making. Maybe you can use it to bang out a credible pop song. Beethoven? No way."

But just as user generated content has changed other businesses, it also impacts these smaller businesses. Now some (and I'm sure the font company we discussed earlier would agree) will bemoan this situation, complain about the "amateurs," insult the crappy fonts and insist that it will hurt the overall market. But that's the wrong way to look at this. What we're seeing is more fonts available, and more people even being aware of font possibilities. The best work bubbles to the top, thanks to a rating system. A good font designer can use a program like this to highlight and promote his or her works -- and then sell the ability to do custom work as well, or additional design work. It becomes a win-win across the board. More fonts are available, it's easier for the best designers to promote themselves, and more people who would never consider paying for a font learn about what's possible and available.

Filed Under: community, fonts, user generated content

Font Company Can't Come Up With Good Business Model; Punishes Customers

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Tyler Hellard writes in to alert us to the bizarre and self-destructive plan of a company called Letterhead that sells different fonts. The super paranoid company apparently includes the name, email and account ID of each purchaser with the font itself. One font buyer shared the font with a company making a sign for him (which seems reasonable enough) and that company ended up sharing the font on a file sharing network. That's the point at which Letterhead went ballistic. It claimed that every single download was "stolen" (which, of course, it was not) and then sent the original purchaser a bill for $944 for all of those downloads (Update: Apparently the folks at Letterhead aren't happy about this post -- they've blocked anyone coming from this site, so if you want to see the article, you need to copy and paste the URL, rather than just clicking the link. Apparently, they don't deal with criticism well.). How many downloads were there? A whopping 32 copies. But Letterhead falsely assumes that all 32 would have purchased the font (no, they would not have) and then thinks it can change its original deal with the guy so that they can charge him for those downloads. The company also published his name and his contact info (which would appear to be a violation of a customer's privacy).

Then, to make things even more ridiculous, Letterhead decided to punish all its own customers for its own inability to put in place a business model that recognizes basic supply and demand. So, along with publishing the story and this guy's name, it's significantly raised the price of the font from $30 to $40 -- saying that it will keep the price up until the full $944 is paid off. This is doubly stupid. Not only are they making it even less likely that anyone will buy the font, they're now competing with the fact that this font is already out there available for free. That's not the time at which you raise prices. Obviously, they're trying to shame the guy into paying $944 -- but the real problem is the company doesn't understand its own market or the products its selling.

In fact, it goes out of its way to admit that it doesn't understand digital goods by claiming:

"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. (1) The time that Duncan Wilkie spent in creating the fonts (2) The time Letterhead Fonts spent in helping Duncan to refine his fonts (3) The time and advertising dollars Letterhead Fonts spent to promote LHF Garner (4) The time Letterhead Fonts spends removing LHF Garner from the file-sharing websites."

This shows a fatal lack of understanding of basic economics. First, fonts are not tangible goods. They never have been, and to say that the company will always consider them to be suggests that it will probably go out of business well before businesses that understand what they're actually selling. Then, claiming that there are specific costs that need to be recouped, again is a misunderstanding of economics. Yes, costs need to be recouped, but that's the responsibility of those setting up the business model -- not the customers. Furthermore, the company falsely includes fixed costs with the marginal costs in figuring out how to "price" the fonts, again insuring that other companies will be able to create much more reasonable business models.

Basically, the company is advertising its ignorance of basic economics and its own products and market, while punishing customers for its own incompetence. It may think it's going to shame one of its customers into paying, but all it's really doing is convincing a lot of folks never to buy anything from Letterhead fonts in the future.

Filed Under: downloads, economics, fonts, punishing customers, tangible goods