Why Rent or Buy, When You Can Rasterize.(typophile.com)
typophile.com
Why Rent or Buy, When You Can Rasterize.
http://typophile.com/node/64534
25 comments
You took it out of the context.
He is talking about the state of affairs and how that creates an immediate opportunity for type designers willing to sell rasterized versions of their fonts, not suggesting an alternative to the @font-face support.
He is talking about the state of affairs and how that creates an immediate opportunity for type designers willing to sell rasterized versions of their fonts, not suggesting an alternative to the @font-face support.
> here is an idea that can be easily implemented right now and that will cover the 100% of the web design community needs.
There seem to be a lot of complaints about the fact that images of text break accessibility. That is completely untrue, as long as the designer also includes alt text. I use a text-based web browser from time to time, and I've found that most designers do a good job of this.
This also doesn't break resizing any more than any other design element on the page would. Try going to any blog and resizing; the layout breaks. That's just how it goes if you want a page that looks nice. (Even HN doesn't resize nicely, and it doesn't use any images at all.)
So basically, this is a non-issue for 98% of the users. For the 1% of the users that use w3m without images enabled, they can still read all of the text. The 1% of users that are blind, can still have all the text read to them by the screen reader.
Sometimes I think people make these arguments because other people have made the same arguments for years. It's like a disease....
This also doesn't break resizing any more than any other design element on the page would. Try going to any blog and resizing; the layout breaks. That's just how it goes if you want a page that looks nice. (Even HN doesn't resize nicely, and it doesn't use any images at all.)
So basically, this is a non-issue for 98% of the users. For the 1% of the users that use w3m without images enabled, they can still read all of the text. The 1% of users that are blind, can still have all the text read to them by the screen reader.
Sometimes I think people make these arguments because other people have made the same arguments for years. It's like a disease....
personally, i'll stay w/ typekit. the commenter (on typophile) who raised issue with images not being 100% accessible has a real point: now that i can use non-standard fonts in a standard way, ill take scalable text over an image.
is this what they are talking about?
http://skrrl.org/font
Startup idea, anyone ?
The idea is OK, but one needs to have connections in typographic community to execute it. Going foundry by foundry and convincing them to take their heads out of DRM hole and consider simpler, unsexy options such as this one. This can translate into a lot of effort.
If you are allowed to buy a font to make images for your website, why wouldn't you be allowed to sell those images to others? Professional web designers do it all the time.
(Video rentals are similar. First sale, and all that.)
(Video rentals are similar. First sale, and all that.)
Stupid idea. That's what's already done today and it's not good enough: doesn't reflow, doesn't zoom properly, does not work for dynamic texts (eh buddy, ever heard of FUCKING BLOGS?), isn't that great for accessibility, SUCKS a lot for the mobile web, and so on and so forth.
Why, oh why do I have to state the fucking obvious here?
Skip the profanity and you have a cogent argument in there somewhere.
Great concept, but who needs a service? This should just be an open source plugin. I dump all of my local fonts into a folder and then just <%= render_text "Hello World", :typeface => "Comic Sans", :height => "400" %> -- add a cache and this would be splendid.
PS. By "local fonts" I mean http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4475069/Font_Collection_(65_...
PS. By "local fonts" I mean http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4475069/Font_Collection_(65_...
I wish I could downvote you for a sheer ignorance.
> who needs a service ?
Foundries do. You know, the people who actually make your "local fonts". Also those who recognize what a complex task the type design is and want to compensate them for their work.
> who needs a service ?
Foundries do. You know, the people who actually make your "local fonts". Also those who recognize what a complex task the type design is and want to compensate them for their work.
Its fine to compensate people for the tough work they do on fonts. It still doesn't mean you have to run it as a service. You can still license. Usually, most customers that will pay, do, without regard to what they can do illegally. Those that won't pay, probably won't pay for the service either.
Yeah, okay, well if you still cling to the antiquated concept of IP then I won't downvote you for sheer ignorance.
Listen, we don't much tolerate hostile assholes around here - so if you're just going to hurl insults at other members of this community from the comfort of your chair, then please do us all a favour and GTFO.
To address your rather poorly communicated point though: the concept of IP isn't going to disappear, especially not overnight. To pretend that we don't need to find solutions around the IP minefield is unwise at best.
To address your rather poorly communicated point though: the concept of IP isn't going to disappear, especially not overnight. To pretend that we don't need to find solutions around the IP minefield is unwise at best.
I didn't think he acted like a hostile asshole. That comment about sheer ignorance had already been made to him, he was just handing it back.
re: "who needs a service": Jitterbug is an open source plugin that renders images of text suitable for image replacement:
http://github.com/flyingsaucer/jitterbug
I agree. And I'd further add that it's quite likely that the time wasted and inefficiencies caused by having to deal with the trifling issue of font IP handsomely exceeds the combined revenue of all font foundries on earth.
The top 500 or so fonts should just be moved into the public domain en masse so we can forget about this ridiculous issue once and for all. Sucks if you're a foundry but you don't get to collect windfall profits for the rest of your life just because you made a slightly more attractive capital A a few months before someone else would have done the same, and the cost of administrating that "property" far outweighs any benefit such a property regime might theoretically deliver.
The top 500 or so fonts should just be moved into the public domain en masse so we can forget about this ridiculous issue once and for all. Sucks if you're a foundry but you don't get to collect windfall profits for the rest of your life just because you made a slightly more attractive capital A a few months before someone else would have done the same, and the cost of administrating that "property" far outweighs any benefit such a property regime might theoretically deliver.
Really? Links to illegal copies? Classy.
It's a link to the torrent of the illegal copy. The link does not lead to an illegal copy.
Also, is copying really illegal? What law and jurisdiction are you referring to?
Also, is copying really illegal? What law and jurisdiction are you referring to?
"It's a link to the torrent of the illegal copy."
Technologically speaking, that's not really any different then saying "That's a link to a page that solely consists of a link to the illegal copy." Whether the protocol is HTTP or BitTorrent isn't really relevant. "Oh we don't host illegal stuff we only provide torrents, all the stuff is distributed elsewhere" may be (though quite possibly isn't) a valid legal defense for the torrent site hosting it, but doesn't really have any place when discussing the appropriateness of linking to it from here.
And obtaining an unlicensed copy of the fonts from those foundries will be illegal (definition: something that you can be successfully sued for by said foundries in court) in essentially any First-world country. Certainly in the U.S., where OP, you, I, and probably the majority of news.yc are located.
Technologically speaking, that's not really any different then saying "That's a link to a page that solely consists of a link to the illegal copy." Whether the protocol is HTTP or BitTorrent isn't really relevant. "Oh we don't host illegal stuff we only provide torrents, all the stuff is distributed elsewhere" may be (though quite possibly isn't) a valid legal defense for the torrent site hosting it, but doesn't really have any place when discussing the appropriateness of linking to it from here.
And obtaining an unlicensed copy of the fonts from those foundries will be illegal (definition: something that you can be successfully sued for by said foundries in court) in essentially any First-world country. Certainly in the U.S., where OP, you, I, and probably the majority of news.yc are located.
This is effectively what canonical do with video codecs - "if you have the right licenses or you have rights in your legal jurisdiction to use these codecs then here's a pointer to find them". This is no more illegal than saying to someone how to produce alcoholic drinks from grapes, say, in some jurisdictions that will be illegal (under Sharia law) in others not.
Illegal != immoral. And personally I cannot understand why foundries don't just give free downloads of their fonts anyway. It's utterly trivial to find "illegal" copies if you wish. The people who pay do so to license them for commercial use; they're not paying for the actual files and would pay regardless.
I really hate people talking about "illegal stuff". I don't see why it's natural or obvious that there is even such a thing as illegal information, or an illegal action you can take with information. The idea that you can incriminate yourself merely by copying a file, no matter what that file is, is abhorrent to me.
I really hate people talking about "illegal stuff". I don't see why it's natural or obvious that there is even such a thing as illegal information, or an illegal action you can take with information. The idea that you can incriminate yourself merely by copying a file, no matter what that file is, is abhorrent to me.
"I cannot understand why foundries don't just give free downloads of their fonts anyway."
And that makes it okay for you to use them? If you object philosophically to their position then don't use the product they produce; justifying your desire to use their product without paying them certainly doesn't indicate high moral standards on your part.
"The idea that you can incriminate yourself merely by copying a file, no matter what that file is, is abhorrent to me."
Because information has value and without a way of getting recompensed for that value nobody will take the time to create the information.
What do you do, and why should you get paid for it?
And that makes it okay for you to use them? If you object philosophically to their position then don't use the product they produce; justifying your desire to use their product without paying them certainly doesn't indicate high moral standards on your part.
"The idea that you can incriminate yourself merely by copying a file, no matter what that file is, is abhorrent to me."
Because information has value and without a way of getting recompensed for that value nobody will take the time to create the information.
What do you do, and why should you get paid for it?
Non-standard fonts are used sparingly precisely because they have to be rasterized.