- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:04:05 -0700
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote: > Also sprach Thomas Lord: > > > There is a lot of talk to the effect that concerns TTF/OTF support > > will lead to "accidental piracy" are the main motivation for > > resistance to TTF/OTF. I am beginning to believe that that is not > > really the motivation but, rather, exclusion by incumbents against > > potential competitors is the driver. > > I support your analysis. Well, that "analysis" is simply wrong. Not to mention offensive, as it requires the assumption that all the font vendors who have discussed the issue are lying. Let me put it really bluntly. *Nobody* in the font biz (certainly, none of the top 20 players or thereabouts) is worried about some imaginary new competitors being stimulated by raw desktop fonts on web servers. They're just worried about their existing business being harmed by increased piracy. If they honestly believed that this would open up a viable new business model for them, they'd be all for it. But hardly anybody in the business seems to actually buy the idea that making free fonts and using that as a springboard for other work is a viable business model, for fonts. If you believe they are wrong, fine. But that just means different belief systems are possible; it doesn't mean they are either lying or stupid. But claiming that they are in fact lying with zero evidence is hardly fair. T
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 11:04:44 UTC