Re: the truth which dare not speak it's name

On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Tal Leming<tal@typesupply.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> Note, though, that Hudson was talking about people who  
>>> *commissioned*
>>> fonts for their own use, rather than just ones who bought a  
>>> license on
>>> an existing font.  The latter situation is actually more
>>> understandable, from a "well if I have to pay for it, you should  
>>> too"
>>> eye-for-an-eye perspective.  Having a font commissioned, though, is
>>> something different.
>>
>> How?
>
> Before commissioning a font, it doesn't exist.  Time and skill has to
> be spent to create it.  It thus makes sense that commissioning a font
> should cost money - you're paying for a scarce good (the act of
> creation).
>
> The font itself, though, is an infinite good.  It can be perfectly
> mass-copied for free.  Sharing it doesn't require any effort at all,
> unlike commissioning it.
>
> My point is then that, since paying to commission a font is natural,
> you shouldn't get any weird 'fairness' feelings making you think that
> other people should morally pay as well to receive it.  On the other
> hand, since having to pay for a copy of a font is a fundamentally odd
> thing, it can understandably produce "misery loves company" feelings.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty good at seeing  
all points in an argument but you've absolutely lost me.

I think this is a philosophical argument that doesn't have much  
relevance to the discussion at hand.

Tal

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 17:20:00 UTC