- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:21:41 -0700
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
FWIW, John, on the analogy or non-analogy to music: On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 13:54 -0700, John Hudson wrote: > Fonts are not music. Fonts are tools. Music is a consumable. The market > for fonts is a professional design market. The market for music is > pretty much everyone. Fonts have value to the customer in relative or > absolute exclusivity (the fact that we put a price on exclusivity and > clients pay this price is sufficient evidence of this). Music has no > value in exclusivity to the customer. Taking that apart a bit: > Fonts are not music. True. > Fonts are tools. True. > Music is a consumable. False. Normally, listening to a recording does not "consume" it. I think you mean that people often play a music recording for incidental reasons rather than to manufacture a commercial good. Of course, that is true of fonts as well. > The market > for fonts is a professional design market. The market for music is > pretty much everyone. The demand for fonts is pretty much everyone as well. The paying demand for fonts may be as you describe. > Fonts have value to the customer in relative or > absolute exclusivity So does music, as any film maker or collector of Grateful Dead tapes can tell you. > (the fact that we put a price on exclusivity and > clients pay this price is sufficient evidence of this). So it is in music, as well. > Music has no > value in exclusivity to the customer. Generally speaking, not so. -t
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 21:22:22 UTC