Tag Archive for 'stupid copyright tricks'

Why the Helvetica Do Fonts Cost $40 Each (And What Does That Even Buy)?

I know that designing a typeface is no trivial pursuit. I’ve tried it. It was really, really hard. But in spite of that, it’s always seemed unreasonable to me that to use a new font, you often have to purchase it for upwards of 40 dollars. And you don’t even get it in Bold.

But once you have a font on your computer, you can use it for anything, right? Well, it depends. Sometimes that $40 only gives you the right to display the font on your screen and print it out. Can you use it in an image on the web? Sure, unless maybe you can’t. I don’t know. How can they even prove you used their font, though? A lot of them look really similar. What are these things legally protected by, anyway?

Both the exorbitant prices and confusing legal situation make it difficult for anyone but professional graphic designers and/or established companies that employ them to use a particularly wide variety of fonts. The web, however, has given almost everyone who can read a CSS tutorial the ability to be a graphic designer, but for a long time font licensing has stood in the way of using anything but nine free(-ish) fonts that everyone (maybe) has on their computer. Fortunately, this situation is being rectified; soon you’ll be able to pay $78467 to license a font for web use, once they’ve figured out how to deal with “illegal uses”. Whatever the method of preventing these illegal uses may be, some 16-year-old kid in Bangladesh has already cracked it.

But seriously, 40 dollars? For a font? And then maybe I can’t even show anyone what I do with it? Again, I know making fonts is hard work, but are they really that valuable? Especially if it’s the sort of font you use for one small project and then never need again. These prices might have made sense when fonts were the sort of thing that you’d take out of a box and arrange on your printing press, but that’s just not how things work anymore.

Google Goes After Cyanogen For Making Their Customers Happier

Totally not being evil, you guys. Not at all.
About a month ago, I installed a wonderful thing on my G1 called CyanogenMOD. Named after its developer, a man who goes by the pseudonym Cyanogen, CyanogenMOD takes the free and open source Android operating system included with the G1 and makes it run faster, look better, and save storage space. After installing it, my G1 barely ever felt sluggish, all of the space-hogging applications could be stored on my spacious 8 GB memory card, and the interface improvements made it so much more of a joy to use. I’m now happily using all of the Google services that make Google their money much more often than I had before, and my phone would be too sluggish for me to make Google money nearly as much if I had to go back. The 30,000+ people who have also downloaded and installed CyanogenMOD probably agree.

So, naturally, Google is showing Cyanogen their thanks for increasing the Google-use of 30,000 people by sending him a Cease and Desist letter. Wait, what?

Well, apparently some of Google’s applications aren’t open source, such as the Android Market (which allows you to give Google money indirectly by buying apps from developers, who then give a portion of their money to Google). Sure, you can easily download and install these apps yourself from the freely available developer repository, but Cyanogen had the audacity to save 30,000 end users the trouble of doing all that just so they could continue using Google’s products and making them money. That constitutes “distribution,” which only licensed developers who sent in $25 and the filled-out form from the back of the comic book work for Open Handset Alliance members can do. Never mind that there aren’t any alternatives to many of these applications, and they’re kind of essential for a lot of Android’s usefulness.

Admittedly, under the current Jurassic-era copyright law, Google has the legal right to do this. Cyanogen does not have the resources to license their software, thus he does not have the license to distribute it. But considering that Android, as a whole, is a free and open source operating system, and that Google has nothing to lose from CyanogenMOD and much to gain, this is a real dick move by the “Don’t Be Evil” company.

Furries and the Art of Surviving in a Post-Copyright World

That was originally an empty kumquat jar but it's such an appropriate picture otherwise that I just had to Photoshop it to this.
Let’s be realistic here: copyright is dead. At least, it’s dead in the sense of “the right to make copies.” Once a piece of media is digitized — be it textual, visual, audible, or interactive — copying it costs exactly zero dollars (or -45,000 euros at the current exchange rate). Because of this, the perception of art not as a product but as information is rapidly reentering the collective human psyche after about 100 years of technical difficulties.

So this means artists who hope to make a living will now have to rethink their business models, because basing your livelihood on the assumption that all people will pay you for the privilege of merely experiencing your work is on par with Young Earth creationism in la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you factor. But never fear, artistic community, because a ton of niche nerd fandoms have come to terms with that assumption since the heyday of Usenet (because many of them probably had a hand in inventing it). They all operate with similar conventions, but because everything is better with cartoon purple foxes, the example I will explain is the furry subculture.
Continue reading ‘Furries and the Art of Surviving in a Post-Copyright World’

Copyright Proven Homophobic as NOM Gathers a DMCA Takedown Storm

Same-sex marriage now violates intellectual property laws too! Who'dve thunk?

Same-sex marriage now violates intellectual property laws too! Who'dve thunk?

Remember that ridiculous anti-gay marriage ad which I made even more ridiculous by replacing the soundtrack with “It’s Raining Men”? Apparently the National Organization for Nomnomnom isn’t too pleased with that sort of behavior. Parody ads left and…well, who am I kidding, they’re all left…have been removed from YouTube because of NOM’s bitching and whining and DMCA takedown notices (Mine hasn’t been touched, probably because the audio confuses the Content ID robots). Included in this crusade against legal and fair use was one for which the creators were recognized as “Homo Heroes” for their brilliance: a group of Reddit readers spliced the word “interracial” in wherever “same-sex” was in the original ad.

NOM has succeeded at infuriating the entire Internet again, but this time it’s personal. If anything spreads faster than a viral YouTube video, it’s a removed YouTube video. Congratulations, National Organization for Marriage, now both gay people and copyright reformers hate you. Now those two groups will converge, and you will face butt pirates.

Sorry, I had to.

UPDATE: YouTube is apparently giving NOM preferential treatment in their own takedown notice predicament with Perez Hilton. It seems highly unlike Google to be supportive of their cause, so I’m gonna chalk this one up to…something else. I don’t know what.

MPAA To Teachers: Don’t Rip DVDs, Camcord Them!

Current hearings in Congress about exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act are focusing on the following: should it be legal for teachers to circumvent copy-protection on DVDs so that they can show video clips to their classes?

No, says the Motion Picture Association of America. Besides, why would you want to do this? There’s a perfectly reasonable alternative: point a video camera at the screen!

MPAA shows how to videorecord a TV set from timothy vollmer on Vimeo.

Two things:

  1. Not every teacher has a high-quality monitor and camcorder, so it would cost educational institutions an enormous amount of money before this ridiculously convoluted workaround could produce usable results.
  2. The jokes write themselves.