Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

Mirko Gustony wrote:
> Could someone please explain me, why fonts actually do need more
> technical protection then let's say a ... text (I know there was a
> similar question already)?
I think this is a consequence of:

1) a carry over of the original philosophy that created the web;

2) in many cases, a copy of the text serves the purposes of its creators 
as much as that text does on its original site.

The original concept of the web was about making access to information 
easy, not about making money by controlling information.  In contrast, a 
slightly older technology, PDF, does apply technical protection to the 
text as well as the fonts, as it was targetted at commercial owners of 

With respect to (2) a lot of text on the web is there to advertise its 
creator or to propagate their views, whereas fonts would be there to 
make money for their creators.  Copying the text can still propagate the 
view or advertise the product.

However, nowadays, a lot of web business models would want text 
protection if it was available (and often use scripting to try and 
achieve it).  Examples are news based sites, where the content is there 
to attract one to the advertising, user provided reviews on e-commerce 
sites, and academic publishers (whose objectives are not the same as the 
academics they publish).

> Both are (depending on the country) more or less protected by law
> (e.g. in Germany there is something called "Urheberrecht" which
> protects works of art from time of creation on, in the US there might
> be something alike).

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 23:42:44 UTC