Best of luck with you man. |
| |
|
|
| |
I did submit to chillingeffects.org, in February and last week, but they never posted it. Who knows... |
| |
Keep up the fight. I'd say based on that last letter you've got them on the run. Good luck! |
| |
tom i would strongly suggest you submit your harassing letters from the lawyers to chillingeffects.org. its a clearning house for this kinda crap. |
| |
|
|
| |
I will go to ProgrammersHeaven.com and read the TTF file header description and I will take 15 minutes to write a program in Quickbasic 4.5 that makes TTF files unprotected and post it on the web, I wont even open visual studio or anything bigger than qb45 to program this because it is SILLY FLAG SETTING !!!!!!
I urge all programmers to do the same ! |
| |
I would tell them to bring it, and when they waste your time countersue for some obscene amount like a billion dollars for defamation of character or some such. Cause of course now everyone on the internet thinks yur an evil pirate :)
Which under one of those new fangled laws makes you a terrorist too, right?
|
| |
I think that the ones who should be held responsible for the "crime" are the ones who posted the description of truetype files, describing the arrangement of bits & bytes in the .ttf file, because reading such a description would make me aware of the position of the bit (flag) that has to be set to "0" in order to change the status of the font.
(following their logic , of course)
Also , if this "status" (protected or not) is enforced by a lousy flag, 1=protected, 0=free , with no encryption what-so-ever, is not a real "digital protection sheme", so it cannot be broken because it does not even exist...
That was my opinion - boltex |
| |
For everyone who is reading this and wants to actually *DO* something about the DMCA rather than complain about it, go to http://eff.org and send in a contribution to help them actually fight it! |
| |
I laughed at the point about you ranking over them in google, even though they paid to be suggested by them.
I wonder which exec has the penis envy. |
| |
The vagueness of the DMCA and the courts' ignorance of technology puts every programmer, author, geek, etc in hot water. Programs like "embed" do not violate copy protection. If I want to copy the font, I just copy it. Those bits dont do jack. As every day goes by, I hate the DMCA more and more. Please do not give up the fight, some of us (if not most) support you.
Scott Boss
|
| |
Go Tom. Best of luck to you! |
| |
Tom Poe:
Huh? Are you talking about the perl CPAN? I don't have anything to do with them... |
| |
*sigh* - people being silly again. If all you have to do is not read the bit, it doesn't seem very effective to me . . .
Good wishes from a Slashdot reader. |
| |
126. Tom 7 (gs82.sp.cs.cmu.edu) –
01 May 2002 17:38:45
[ We're #1 ]
Oops! |
| |
Hi: Have you discussed this with CPAN folks at all? Is there consensus on how these acts will be handled on their end? You won't be the singular "case" they will have to deal with. It might turn out to be a necessary step in preparing for legal issues that arise.
thanks,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV |
| |
123. Anonymous (u196n3.hfx.eastlink.ca) –
27 Apr 2002 14:33:01
[ FLAMING TEXT ]
hi
|
| |
The 1201(a)(1) claims are certainly baseless, yes.
Claims that it's a "circumvention device" (1201(a)(2)) don't apply for several reasons. The two most important ones are that 1. Embedding bits are not "technological measures..." as defined, and Embed is exempt from being a circumvention device because it was not designed for circumvention, and does not have only "limited commercially significant purpose or use" other than circumvention.
I'll probably be posting my response later tonight, which makes these points and others. |
| |
The threat from their lawyers is a bit on the false side. It looks like their complaint is centered on 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) which has nothing to do with making a tool available. If you were posting hacked versions of their fonts or admitting to changing the "protection" bits on their fonts they would have the start of a case. Fortunatly, your tool doesn't even seem to fall into the "primarily designed" to circumvent a protection measure on a controlled work requirement of 1201(a)(2). If it goes to court, somebody needs a kick.
The anoying thing is that the lawyer who's name is on those letters, or at least his law firm, is in a building I walk past daily. I wish people like that didn't live in the same town as me. |
| |
Hmm, it's funny how, in that last letter, he spends pretty much the whole time going on about their embedding bit copy protection & details of what would be illegal about defeating that protection & distributing copy protection defeated versions of their fonts, eventually getting to the point & saying, "Use of 'embed' on a copyrighted font is a clear violation of the DMCA." But still, no claims about you doing anything that he's complaining about. And obviously they're not going to try to sue you for cracking & distributing their fonts, they they haven't attempted such ridiculous accusations yet, despite the claim that "statutory damages allow a recovery between $200 and $2,500 per act of circumvention," still with no mention of when you've ever circumvented their stupid fonts. Within all of that, they insert that you distributing embed clearly violates the digital millenium junks, but it's not very clear when they spend the whole rest of the letter talking about how naughty it is to crack & redistribute their own copyrighted fonts...
I also like how they put the word "bits" in quotes. I mean, there's nothing euphemistic about it, it really is just about lousy 1 bit. |
| |
Effective malarkey monster magnet, virtual beef log torte prawn is STILL legal. good gun and good pliers pet sounds trick = _________. brian eno was unavailable for comment. |
| |
If you don't know concentration, which gives you peculiar pleasure, your life looks like hell. |
| |
|
|
| |
good pliers for american woman. |
| |