Well, we could have a side chat ... but I think it's central to the whole point of this blog/thread.
I respect intellectual property as real property and as such believe it should not only be mine for a lifetime, but also has real inheritable value, and want to pass that value on to those I intended to take care of with my life's work.
Freeloaders are those who want the value I created and do not want to pay me for it.
The ludicrousness is in the mind of those who want the benefits of something they didn't create without paying for it. They seem to value my old creation, but, having not created their own value in the past, they want to steal mine. That is ludicrous, and they are the freeloaders by your own standards.
In the end, we just disagree. You want people's creative efforts our there free, and I want creators to get the societal benefits of their creations just as any other worker gets, especially any other worker that creates value.
If I build a building that takes in rent, I keep it for my lifetime and can pass it on.
If I create a catalog of creative works that brings in royalties, why do you think freeloaders should have at it without compensating me?
Earlier: Perhaps the correct restriction is to simply eliminate some of the exclusive rights associated with copyright, by specifying that copying and distribution for which no money is charged or received (including by advertising) shall not be a copyright violation, ever.
Reply: Too easy to abuse. If I wanted to bankrupt or dilute my competitor, I'd give away copies of their work.
Re: Stinks, and, Copyright should be immediate - IT IS!
Earlier: I suggest ardent historical study to respect continuity in respect for authorship and ownership.
Reply: History doesn't support your position. The founding fathers put the stipulation "for limited times" in the Constitution because they understood the difference between real physical property and intellectual property.
Follow up: We agree, sort of. I accept limiting the time to the life of the author and the first assignees, whichever is longer, not renewable after that.
Historically, I'm referring to the revolutionary wars of the US and France that threw out "royalty" and "royalties" going only to "royalty", and respecting authorship as a form of property. The US Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written after a war.
Moreover, to allow someone else to benefit from my property is against the whole point of the revolutionary wars, and against the resulting societal respect for personal property.
I think that the premise in this whole thread is "when does one person's intellectual property become no longer theirs?" I suggest lifetime plus direct decedents who knew the author. So, if I had great grand children in my family and will, then they can maintain the benefits of inheriting the intellectual property I will to them. If I die childless, then have at it immediately upon my death! If I assign my copyright to a publisher, I suggest the same age restriction be applied, so they get to keep the assigned copyright as long as they live, but no one can extend the copyright beyond the age of the original recipient of the original assignment or the age of the original author.
Complex? Sure. We can work it out. Basically, I propose that copyright benefits stay immediate, as it is now, (registration is optional, as it is now), but I propose that the duration be the lifetime of the author and or the lifetime of the first assignee, which ever is longer, and then become public domain and non re-assignable.
Earlier: You want something that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay the original creator for it.
Reply: Pointing out how your own argument is ludicrous is kind of self-defeating.
Follow up: Huh? Your point? Anyway, I can reword it: You want something OF MINE that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay ME, the original creator, for it, REGARDLESS OF HOW OLD IT IS.
Earlier: Copyright needs to be automatic
Follow up: It is.
Reply: If copyright is automatic, how do you know who to contact if you want to license something? Even more to the point, how do you determine if something is still under copyright. As things stand now, it can be nearly impossible to determine.
Follow up: Don't use it if you can't find the author. Go innovate your own creativity. Quit complaining!
Right, so I took photos of the World Trade Center under construction in 1971, archived them because no one cared after a while. Then, in 2001, I get nothing from someone else rediscovering my pictures more than 5 years later? They get to republish them at no benefit to me for all my efforts and ownership of my own intellectual property?
Stinks! Use it or loose it indeed!
How about respect for ownership? Let somebody else go back in time and shoot what I shot and see if they can get it free using their own time-machine. Otherwise, it's mine, and I want royalties regardless of how old my intellectual property is when someone wants it.
Moneyed companies are already circumventing copyright by applying for Trademarks that last forever (but happen to be use-or-loose) - Disney, Abba, and so on.
Is this a corporate take over attempt - the new feudal system, with top corporations as the new king, and all royalties go to royalty? This is what revolutions were fought over!
Individual artists have no such resources to protect themselves against corporations without the intervention of our self-governance. I have a challenge paying a mere $35 per to register with the copyright office as many of my pictures as I can in one batch each year. I cannot afford to add to my costs $35 every single day per roll of film or per day's shoot. I do not want to have to go back and re-register 10,000 images (and the count is growing) every 5 years.
And, if I have them in my on-line catalog or Flickr, is that "use"? If I have them on my share drive, open to the public (with watermarks against copying), is that "use"? Who defines "use" - must there be a cash transaction? If I no-charge an image for single use to a charity, is that use or not? Does that automatically extend the 5-year registration, or do I have to register every use to prove that re-registration is not required? Has anyone thought about this bone-head idea in detail?
This is just a way for corporate raiders to not have to go out and take their own pictures (and other authorship), to not have to innovate. This is a way for corporate raiders to take other people's pictures (and other authorship). And books. And poems. And artwork, illustrations, music, lyrics ... without doing any creative innovative work on their own.
This is just a way to stifle innovation, not reward it. It is just a way to permit non-innovative, non-creative people and corporations from profiting unfairly from the innovation and creative work of others.
You want something that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay the original creator for it.
Property is property. I think all property laws should have commonalities. You don't get my farmland just because I haven't farmed. Okay, I pay taxes on that land as part of our societal arrangement, so there are definitely differences for different types of property. Still, how we treat one type of property informs how we think of other types of property. The US revolution and French revolution were in part a declaration that "royalty" didn't own everything, and that individuals could own things, especially authors of their own works. I suggest ardent historical study to respect continuity in respect for authorship and ownership.
==
Earlier: "... The song was incomplete without the sample ..."
I think they still own the patent, but the powers of the patent expire. So, it's accurate to say, for instance, "Pat. No. 485739854" and anyone looking that up will see the contents and note the expiration date, and then be able to use the contents of the patent without paying royalties. It's actually a SERVICE to list all patent numbers on the outside of a product where that patent is used inside the product as it gives everyone heightened access to what's inside. Also, this begs for others who do not own the patent to use the patent number on their products that incorporate the patent ideas, so "Pat. No. 23097275" just means what's inside, not that anyone owns anything or has "monopoly" rights. This is a good thing. Like ingredients on food packaging or automobile price tag listings. What's the problem? No one shut down their factory in fear because a competitor has a "Pat. No. 2435730475" on their product. They looked it up, just like we all can. Actually, they had their lawyers look it up. Good for everyone. The suing attorney is pursuing a hidden agenda, and is NOT representing me and my interests. Does anyone want to investigate and report on "...Washington DC patent attorney, Matthew Pequignot, filed at least two Section 292 lawsuits in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging false marking. These include Pequignot v. Solo Cup and Pequignot v. Gillette and P&G ..."
I don't think people are upset that you take a stand against piracy. I think people are aghast that you inaccurately take an unsupportable public stand against non-pirates (your customers and potential customers) instead of accurately finding and prosecuting those who may have broken a law or a contract that involves you. Such investigation and prosecution cannot be done in a public forum. On the one hand, I applaud you for saluting and singing the praises of your typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort. On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and is fostering animosity against you and publicity for alternatives.
==
I'll let you know if they respond.
Someone here said: "... Someone made the comment that fonts are worthless and don't work, etc. That shows a profound ignorance of typography and the current state of the art ..." I hope that was not directed towards me. As a font designer, I know better, and I know that many "official", full price, legitimate fonts are crappy and need rebuilding to properly do their job in many, or even any, environment. Perhaps your comment was directed at the "hey, it's digital, give it away and sell advertising and support" philosophy, which, as a tech consultants, TechDirt is exampling quite well, since no one pays directly for reading this wonderful, participatory blog.
In summary, returning to the point of the matter ...
Wow. A confluence of problems and miscommunication, compounded by a steep personality at the font company. Where to start, where to start ... ?
"World's First $1,000 Font?" I don't think so! I remember the first commercial digital version of Rudi Ruzicka's Fairfield was $1,500, so this company's claim for the "first $1,000 font" is remarkably inaccurate, revealing that they don't even know their own industry history. I have also sold private, custom fonts for $2,000 and didn't think much of it (except that I didn't get paid adequately for my time, more like minimum wage!).
Here's what I see. There are two worlds that will apparently never meet in friendship:
- original creative artists
versus
- copyists.
As a (self proclaimed) world-class font wizard and designer, I quickly saw the price of fonts fall from hundreds of dollars for off-the-shelf fonts, to $1 a font on licensed CDs from the big names, to 1/2 cent a font for clone knock-offs on CD, to ZERO over the Internet. And, what's worse is that expensive Adobe and Monotype versions still sucked and needed smoozing to work without error, only Bitstream (the first wholly digital foundry) fonts worked first time, every time. So, I had to re-digitize fonts from any source anyway to get them to work, often also needing to replace or add enhanced characters malformed or missing from the suite. So, why pay $40 or more for a single font face that I have to rebuild, when ZERO is the price of the competition (that also might need rebuilding anyway)?
On the one hand, I applaud the mentioned font foundry for saluting and singing the praises of their typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort.
On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and actually is fostering publicity for their competition. Doh!
Personally, may I suggest a LEGITIMATE free alternative? I cannot think of a kinder, nicer, fairer, more considerate, person in the FREE font world than Glenn Folkvord, the Font Man at
"... bandwidth theft and link piracy ... against people who can't be bothered to ask before they ... benefit from my work ... Obviously the fonts themselves are not mine but I spend a great deal of time ... the least I should expect is that people download as members from MY list/group ... the only real satisfaction I get ... is to see that the member count always grow, and ... know that ... people enjoy the fonts ... I welcome all new members and hope you will enjoy the fonts ... I don't want to come across as an self-important guy or blow the link theft out of proportions ... enough is enough and let's get back to collecting them there fonts, OK? ... P.S.: If you ever use a font for something, I urge you to buy a license from the font's creator. If your newsletter or website or company benefits from a designer's font, he or she should benefit too, it's the right thing ..."
Very different attitude there, eh? Some people KNOW how to behave and run their organization with respect for everyone - you set a great example, Glenn. Thank you!
It's all about the "SEO" already being used generically, not about whether or not anyone trusts SEO service providers.
However, independent observers have called the USPTO a "snakepit", so don't expect much. On the patent side, it can take 9 years to produce results, and by then, the advantage of a patent may be null and void. On the trademark side, they even let Microsoft get the generic, descriptive term "windows" through to registration even though the term "windows" was in popular use throughout the computer software industry at the time for any multitasking software that showed more than one task on screen at a time.
The purpose of the USPTO is to promote commerce by preventing court cases. It looks like they dropped the ball once again. This will see it's day in court if it goes through, and if they try to enforce exclusive rights. At least it's not tax payer's money they are wasting. The USPTO is fee-based, paid for by applicants.
Since the US Patent Office routinely is reported as having a 9-year pendancy or longer, I can't imagine claimants in court waiting for justice delayed, justice denied.
This is NOT Photoshop in any way. It's slow and incomplete and handles JPG only. JPG is an output format only, not suitable for subsequent tweaking. Free Google Picasa (download) handles any RAW or TIF (capture and storage formats) I throw at it.
Adobe is just trying to compete on-line with other on-like "image tweakers". It requires dancing baloney enabled browser, is arduously slow, did not seem to have a fine or predictable level of control over adjustments being on or off or cancelable or implemented with other features, and they offered no dialog feedback, only a form asking which features you loved. How arrogant! I will never revisit Photoshop Express.
At http://www.eepybird.com/dcm1.html I get 2 red [x]s and now I'm glad my browser is "broken" and no longer shows me dancing baloney. I see in the source code for the page that it says "You may need to upgrade your Flash Player or click the security box at the top of the page to activate this content." I have neither a Flash player nor a security box - hahahah. Maybe I'll keep my browser this way just to make web browsing sooo much easier and noise free! I do use filters from Smith Micro Check It 86, interMute Ad Subtract Pro, and the Google Toolbar Popup Blocker (all three together) on ancient IE 6.0(!), so my web browsing is now pretty much dancing baloney free! I guess I'm a preternaturally proto-original purist when it comes to the philosophy of "content is everything", to paraphrase your headline, since advertising is non-existent for me, unless it's content. Tah-dah - I have the perfect (broken) browser that fulfils your observation regardless of the advertiser's intent - all I have is content! ;-)
Also, I don't need Coke as a refreshing drink nor as an entertaining explosive. I guess your "good/bad" is in the eye of the beholder, as always, but I have no reason to ever return to eepybird.com - they lost me at "hello".
Finally, thanks, tony, for the term "iADD" - new to me. But, I do have it, and I have it honed to a fine weapon. Years ago, I used to count to 10 before nixing a bADD web page, and now I hardly get to 3 before moving on. As Carl Sagan said, there's "billions and billions of start stuff" out there, so I figure, why not immediately move on to continue the search for someone who is ready for prime time, instead of waiting for someone to s-l-o-w-l-y slice the dancing baloney?
My dancing baloney has a first name,
it's C L O S E
My dancing baloney has a last name,
it's W I N D O W ...
"Yellow" is descriptive and cannot be trademarked ... as there is no other way to describe the pages that are, well, yellow. As such , it's generic and cannot be "owned" by one person since that would prevent others from even being able to describe their own "yellow" products. What, can no one else in the world have "yellow" pages? Quick, grab the rest of the color names, then aside from the few dozen people who own the color names, no one else can print ANYTHING!
No, as stated, the whole point of LEGAL support for "trademarks" - marks in trade - it to support commerce, not criple it! It's the "Yell brand of Yellow Pages" or some such, just as it's the "Band-Aid brand of adhesive bandages" or "Kleenex brand of facial tissue".
I sincerely hope that no stoopid judge (redundant?) who knows so little of commerce precedent (the trademark office is NOT a bunch of entry-level clerks but is a bunch of high level lawyers who practive law with every application they process every day!) lets YEll OWN the color YELLOW the way they let Microsoft OWN the descriptive and well used name "Windows" - which should be recinded and it's registration should be thrown out.
However, the Windows sham shows how sometimes the big guy gets served and the little guy gets squashed. Let's hope we win here and "yellow" remains in the puclic domain for us all to use. Yahoo has "Yahoo Yellow Pages" at http://www.yahoo.com/r/yp so SOME PEOPLE understand branding and NOT depending on generic terms for their identity!
Hello, Yell, GET A CLUE! You've chosen a generic term and cannot expect to own it and prevent the world from using the term "yellow".
Everyone wants to play Monopoly and be the next Mi
.
The problem was monopoly practices - Verizon using the power of their multiple communication services to force their customers to use Verizon's more expensive phone lines instead of their already paid for, less expensive Verizon email. Ever try to attach a photo or PDF to a phone call, or cc: multiple recipients in a phone call? What a hoax, Verizon, nice spin on why they shut off cheap "long distance" emails in favor of comparatively expensive phone calls! Hahahahah. I almost believe them. Almost.
I also paid $20US/year for Yahoo "premium" email. My reasons? (a) I had a well-established @yahoo.com email address so I didn't want to loose it but I wanted more features, and (b) I wanted POP access, which is available for Yahoo outside the US, but not here - surprised? Yahoo! Mail disabled free access to its POP3 service on 24th April, 2002. What a pain. With POP3, I can ignore the bulk/spam bin and download only my inbox. Yahoo accurately saw this as missing seeing the spam/advertisement they so depend upon for income. So I've spent ~$80US so far since 2002 for my annual re-subscriptions to POP3 within Yahoo email.
I may revert to the wonderful Yahoo Pops/YPOPS, free at http://www.ypopsemail.com/ that loads POP3 drivers on my own computer for POP3 access to the free version of Yahoo email, and stop spending $20US/year for what? Get YPOPS from SourceForge
Yahoo so-called "premium" spam filtering for me is a joke, often repeatedly putting email from me and my own replies in the spam/bulk bucket, forcing me to have to browse the spam/advertising daily anyway.
Then Yahoo turned off the otherwise useful email search feature from being able to search through the spam/bulk bucket for the few good emails that I was after, again forcing me to browse the spam/bulk bin daily anyway.
Why bother?
Yahoo service people have been snide on the phone, threatening to do harm to my account if I criticized the service I was paying them for. Be forwarned - IF you can even find a way to call them, THEN be polite and subservient and grateful. Apparently they treat their employees as poorly as they treat their (supposed) customers, er, "end users".
Let's get real - Yahoo's customers are the mass advertisers, NOT the millions of end users of Yahoo/GeoCities/YahooGroups/Maps/YallowPages and the other formerly independent free services Yahoo has purchased over the years.
Until Yahoo turns around and pays greater attention to the services upon which it sells advertising, it will continue to struggle as an also-ran. Sadly, they mistake being a behemouth for being successful.
==========
PS - I know this is "the Internet" and people often share mere one-liners (as some have shared above), but some of us are also not only capable of reading longer thought-pieces, but also of writing them.
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Stinks, and ...
I respect intellectual property as real property and as such believe it should not only be mine for a lifetime, but also has real inheritable value, and want to pass that value on to those I intended to take care of with my life's work.
Freeloaders are those who want the value I created and do not want to pay me for it.
The ludicrousness is in the mind of those who want the benefits of something they didn't create without paying for it. They seem to value my old creation, but, having not created their own value in the past, they want to steal mine. That is ludicrous, and they are the freeloaders by your own standards.
In the end, we just disagree. You want people's creative efforts our there free, and I want creators to get the societal benefits of their creations just as any other worker gets, especially any other worker that creates value.
If I build a building that takes in rent, I keep it for my lifetime and can pass it on.
If I create a catalog of creative works that brings in royalties, why do you think freeloaders should have at it without compensating me?
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Copyright ONLY for paid distribution? NO WAY!
Reply: Too easy to abuse. If I wanted to bankrupt or dilute my competitor, I'd give away copies of their work.
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
Re: Stinks, and, Copyright should be immediate - IT IS!
Reply: History doesn't support your position. The founding fathers put the stipulation "for limited times" in the Constitution because they understood the difference between real physical property and intellectual property.
Follow up: We agree, sort of. I accept limiting the time to the life of the author and the first assignees, whichever is longer, not renewable after that.
Historically, I'm referring to the revolutionary wars of the US and France that threw out "royalty" and "royalties" going only to "royalty", and respecting authorship as a form of property. The US Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written after a war.
Moreover, to allow someone else to benefit from my property is against the whole point of the revolutionary wars, and against the resulting societal respect for personal property.
I think that the premise in this whole thread is "when does one person's intellectual property become no longer theirs?" I suggest lifetime plus direct decedents who knew the author. So, if I had great grand children in my family and will, then they can maintain the benefits of inheriting the intellectual property I will to them. If I die childless, then have at it immediately upon my death! If I assign my copyright to a publisher, I suggest the same age restriction be applied, so they get to keep the assigned copyright as long as they live, but no one can extend the copyright beyond the age of the original recipient of the original assignment or the age of the original author.
Complex? Sure. We can work it out. Basically, I propose that copyright benefits stay immediate, as it is now, (registration is optional, as it is now), but I propose that the duration be the lifetime of the author and or the lifetime of the first assignee, which ever is longer, and then become public domain and non re-assignable.
Earlier: You want something that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay the original creator for it.
Reply: Pointing out how your own argument is ludicrous is kind of self-defeating.
Follow up: Huh? Your point? Anyway, I can reword it: You want something OF MINE that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay ME, the original creator, for it, REGARDLESS OF HOW OLD IT IS.
Earlier: Copyright needs to be automatic
Follow up: It is.
Reply: If copyright is automatic, how do you know who to contact if you want to license something? Even more to the point, how do you determine if something is still under copyright. As things stand now, it can be nearly impossible to determine.
Follow up: Don't use it if you can't find the author. Go innovate your own creativity. Quit complaining!
On the post: How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
"Stinks!" - by a photographer
Stinks! Use it or loose it indeed!
How about respect for ownership? Let somebody else go back in time and shoot what I shot and see if they can get it free using their own time-machine. Otherwise, it's mine, and I want royalties regardless of how old my intellectual property is when someone wants it.
Moneyed companies are already circumventing copyright by applying for Trademarks that last forever (but happen to be use-or-loose) - Disney, Abba, and so on.
Is this a corporate take over attempt - the new feudal system, with top corporations as the new king, and all royalties go to royalty? This is what revolutions were fought over!
Individual artists have no such resources to protect themselves against corporations without the intervention of our self-governance. I have a challenge paying a mere $35 per to register with the copyright office as many of my pictures as I can in one batch each year. I cannot afford to add to my costs $35 every single day per roll of film or per day's shoot. I do not want to have to go back and re-register 10,000 images (and the count is growing) every 5 years.
And, if I have them in my on-line catalog or Flickr, is that "use"? If I have them on my share drive, open to the public (with watermarks against copying), is that "use"? Who defines "use" - must there be a cash transaction? If I no-charge an image for single use to a charity, is that use or not? Does that automatically extend the 5-year registration, or do I have to register every use to prove that re-registration is not required? Has anyone thought about this bone-head idea in detail?
This is just a way for corporate raiders to not have to go out and take their own pictures (and other authorship), to not have to innovate. This is a way for corporate raiders to take other people's pictures (and other authorship). And books. And poems. And artwork, illustrations, music, lyrics ... without doing any creative innovative work on their own.
This is just a way to stifle innovation, not reward it. It is just a way to permit non-innovative, non-creative people and corporations from profiting unfairly from the innovation and creative work of others.
You want something that's old? Make it yourself in the past! Or, pay the original creator for it.
Property is property. I think all property laws should have commonalities. You don't get my farmland just because I haven't farmed. Okay, I pay taxes on that land as part of our societal arrangement, so there are definitely differences for different types of property. Still, how we treat one type of property informs how we think of other types of property. The US revolution and French revolution were in part a declaration that "royalty" didn't own everything, and that individuals could own things, especially authors of their own works. I suggest ardent historical study to respect continuity in respect for authorship and ownership.
==
Earlier: "... The song was incomplete without the sample ..."
So? Write your own song! Innovate! ;-)
On the post: Is It Illegal To Announce A Patent On Something After That Patent Has Expired?
On the post: Font Company Can't Come Up With Good Business Model; Punishes Customers
Re: In summary, returning to the point of the matter ...
http://www.letterheadfonts.com/contact/index2.php
==
Re: Piracy
I don't think people are upset that you take a stand against piracy. I think people are aghast that you inaccurately take an unsupportable public stand against non-pirates (your customers and potential customers) instead of accurately finding and prosecuting those who may have broken a law or a contract that involves you. Such investigation and prosecution cannot be done in a public forum. On the one hand, I applaud you for saluting and singing the praises of your typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort. On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and is fostering animosity against you and publicity for alternatives.
==
I'll let you know if they respond.
Someone here said: "... Someone made the comment that fonts are worthless and don't work, etc. That shows a profound ignorance of typography and the current state of the art ..." I hope that was not directed towards me. As a font designer, I know better, and I know that many "official", full price, legitimate fonts are crappy and need rebuilding to properly do their job in many, or even any, environment. Perhaps your comment was directed at the "hey, it's digital, give it away and sell advertising and support" philosophy, which, as a tech consultants, TechDirt is exampling quite well, since no one pays directly for reading this wonderful, participatory blog.
On the post: Font Company Can't Come Up With Good Business Model; Punishes Customers
In summary, returning to the point of the matter ...
"World's First $1,000 Font?" I don't think so! I remember the first commercial digital version of Rudi Ruzicka's Fairfield was $1,500, so this company's claim for the "first $1,000 font" is remarkably inaccurate, revealing that they don't even know their own industry history. I have also sold private, custom fonts for $2,000 and didn't think much of it (except that I didn't get paid adequately for my time, more like minimum wage!).
Here's what I see. There are two worlds that will apparently never meet in friendship:
- original creative artists
versus
- copyists.
As a (self proclaimed) world-class font wizard and designer, I quickly saw the price of fonts fall from hundreds of dollars for off-the-shelf fonts, to $1 a font on licensed CDs from the big names, to 1/2 cent a font for clone knock-offs on CD, to ZERO over the Internet. And, what's worse is that expensive Adobe and Monotype versions still sucked and needed smoozing to work without error, only Bitstream (the first wholly digital foundry) fonts worked first time, every time. So, I had to re-digitize fonts from any source anyway to get them to work, often also needing to replace or add enhanced characters malformed or missing from the suite. So, why pay $40 or more for a single font face that I have to rebuild, when ZERO is the price of the competition (that also might need rebuilding anyway)?
On the one hand, I applaud the mentioned font foundry for saluting and singing the praises of their typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort.
On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and actually is fostering publicity for their competition. Doh!
Personally, may I suggest a LEGITIMATE free alternative? I cannot think of a kinder, nicer, fairer, more considerate, person in the FREE font world than Glenn Folkvord, the Font Man at
http://www.fontcollectors.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fontpacks
... who says at http://fontcollectors.com/linkpiracy02.htm
"... bandwidth theft and link piracy ... against people who can't be bothered to ask before they ... benefit from my work ... Obviously the fonts themselves are not mine but I spend a great deal of time ... the least I should expect is that people download as members from MY list/group ... the only real satisfaction I get ... is to see that the member count always grow, and ... know that ... people enjoy the fonts ... I welcome all new members and hope you will enjoy the fonts ... I don't want to come across as an self-important guy or blow the link theft out of proportions ... enough is enough and let's get back to collecting them there fonts, OK? ... P.S.: If you ever use a font for something, I urge you to buy a license from the font's creator. If your newsletter or website or company benefits from a designer's font, he or she should benefit too, it's the right thing ..."
Very different attitude there, eh? Some people KNOW how to behave and run their organization with respect for everyone - you set a great example, Glenn. Thank you!
On the post: Internet Marketer Tries To Trademark 'SEO'
However, independent observers have called the USPTO a "snakepit", so don't expect much. On the patent side, it can take 9 years to produce results, and by then, the advantage of a patent may be null and void. On the trademark side, they even let Microsoft get the generic, descriptive term "windows" through to registration even though the term "windows" was in popular use throughout the computer software industry at the time for any multitasking software that showed more than one task on screen at a time.
The purpose of the USPTO is to promote commerce by preventing court cases. It looks like they dropped the ball once again. This will see it's day in court if it goes through, and if they try to enforce exclusive rights. At least it's not tax payer's money they are wasting. The USPTO is fee-based, paid for by applicants.
On the post: Patent Office Rejects Blackboard E-Learning Patent One Month After It Wins Lawsuit
Judge wait for the US Patent Office ... for up to
On the post: Will The Freemium Model Work For Photoshop?
Photoshop Express
Adobe is just trying to compete on-line with other on-like "image tweakers". It requires dancing baloney enabled browser, is arduously slow, did not seem to have a fine or predictable level of control over adjustments being on or off or cancelable or implemented with other features, and they offered no dialog feedback, only a form asking which features you loved. How arrogant! I will never revisit Photoshop Express.
On the post: Court Notes That Empty 'The Office'-Style Workplace Concepts Not Subject To Copyright
Re: The Best Part:
But you can take the underlying ideas - love, suffering, joy, rhythm, percussion, and so on - and write your own vapid songs.
On the post: Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
eepybird.com dancing baloney lost me
Also, I don't need Coke as a refreshing drink nor as an entertaining explosive. I guess your "good/bad" is in the eye of the beholder, as always, but I have no reason to ever return to eepybird.com - they lost me at "hello".
Finally, thanks, tony, for the term "iADD" - new to me. But, I do have it, and I have it honed to a fine weapon. Years ago, I used to count to 10 before nixing a bADD web page, and now I hardly get to 3 before moving on. As Carl Sagan said, there's "billions and billions of start stuff" out there, so I figure, why not immediately move on to continue the search for someone who is ready for prime time, instead of waiting for someone to s-l-o-w-l-y slice the dancing baloney?
My dancing baloney has a first name,
it's C L O S E
My dancing baloney has a last name,
it's W I N D O W ...
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise
On the post: Oh No! People Might Watch Porn In Hotel Rooms! Oh, The Horror!
I didn't know you could get porn in hotel rooms - thanks for the info!
.
On the post: Wiki Demonstrates How Yellow Pages Are Obsolete -- Gets Sued For Its Efforts
"Yellow" is descriptive and cannot be trademarked
No, as stated, the whole point of LEGAL support for "trademarks" - marks in trade - it to support commerce, not criple it! It's the "Yell brand of Yellow Pages" or some such, just as it's the "Band-Aid brand of adhesive bandages" or "Kleenex brand of facial tissue".
I sincerely hope that no stoopid judge (redundant?) who knows so little of commerce precedent (the trademark office is NOT a bunch of entry-level clerks but is a bunch of high level lawyers who practive law with every application they process every day!) lets YEll OWN the color YELLOW the way they let Microsoft OWN the descriptive and well used name "Windows" - which should be recinded and it's registration should be thrown out.
However, the Windows sham shows how sometimes the big guy gets served and the little guy gets squashed. Let's hope we win here and "yellow" remains in the puclic domain for us all to use. Yahoo has "Yahoo Yellow Pages" at http://www.yahoo.com/r/yp so SOME PEOPLE understand branding and NOT depending on generic terms for their identity!
Hello, Yell, GET A CLUE! You've chosen a generic term and cannot expect to own it and prevent the world from using the term "yellow".
On the post: Verizon Discovers The Cost Of Being Too Aggressive In Blocking Spam
Everyone wants to play Monopoly and be the next Mi
The problem was monopoly practices - Verizon using the power of their multiple communication services to force their customers to use Verizon's more expensive phone lines instead of their already paid for, less expensive Verizon email. Ever try to attach a photo or PDF to a phone call, or cc: multiple recipients in a phone call? What a hoax, Verizon, nice spin on why they shut off cheap "long distance" emails in favor of comparatively expensive phone calls! Hahahahah. I almost believe them. Almost.
On the post: Yahoo Ditches Premium Service Package; Did Anyone Notice?
"Premium" Yahoo = more pay for more pain!
I also paid $20US/year for Yahoo "premium" email. My reasons? (a) I had a well-established @yahoo.com email address so I didn't want to loose it but I wanted more features, and (b) I wanted POP access, which is available for Yahoo outside the US, but not here - surprised? Yahoo! Mail disabled free access to its POP3 service on 24th April, 2002. What a pain. With POP3, I can ignore the bulk/spam bin and download only my inbox. Yahoo accurately saw this as missing seeing the spam/advertisement they so depend upon for income. So I've spent ~$80US so far since 2002 for my annual re-subscriptions to POP3 within Yahoo email.
I may revert to the wonderful Yahoo Pops/YPOPS, free at http://www.ypopsemail.com/ that loads POP3 drivers on my own computer for POP3 access to the free version of Yahoo email, and stop spending $20US/year for what? Get YPOPS from SourceForge
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/yahoopops/ypops-win-0.8.4.exe?download
or from
http://dbeusee.home.comcast.net/
Yahoo so-called "premium" spam filtering for me is a joke, often repeatedly putting email from me and my own replies in the spam/bulk bucket, forcing me to have to browse the spam/advertising daily anyway.
Then Yahoo turned off the otherwise useful email search feature from being able to search through the spam/bulk bucket for the few good emails that I was after, again forcing me to browse the spam/bulk bin daily anyway.
Why bother?
Yahoo service people have been snide on the phone, threatening to do harm to my account if I criticized the service I was paying them for. Be forwarned - IF you can even find a way to call them, THEN be polite and subservient and grateful. Apparently they treat their employees as poorly as they treat their (supposed) customers, er, "end users".
Let's get real - Yahoo's customers are the mass advertisers, NOT the millions of end users of Yahoo/GeoCities/YahooGroups/Maps/YallowPages and the other formerly independent free services Yahoo has purchased over the years.
Until Yahoo turns around and pays greater attention to the services upon which it sells advertising, it will continue to struggle as an also-ran. Sadly, they mistake being a behemouth for being successful.
==========
PS - I know this is "the Internet" and people often share mere one-liners (as some have shared above), but some of us are also not only capable of reading longer thought-pieces, but also of writing them.
Next >>