Font Company Can't Come Up With Good Business Model; Punishes Customers
from the yeah,-that'll-work dept
Tyler Hellard writes in to alert us to the bizarre and self-destructive plan of a company called Letterhead that sells different fonts. The super paranoid company apparently includes the name, email and account ID of each purchaser with the font itself. One font buyer shared the font with a company making a sign for him (which seems reasonable enough) and that company ended up sharing the font on a file sharing network. That's the point at which Letterhead went ballistic. It claimed that every single download was "stolen" (which, of course, it was not) and then sent the original purchaser a bill for $944 for all of those downloads (Update: Apparently the folks at Letterhead aren't happy about this post -- they've blocked anyone coming from this site, so if you want to see the article, you need to copy and paste the URL, rather than just clicking the link. Apparently, they don't deal with criticism well.). How many downloads were there? A whopping 32 copies. But Letterhead falsely assumes that all 32 would have purchased the font (no, they would not have) and then thinks it can change its original deal with the guy so that they can charge him for those downloads. The company also published his name and his contact info (which would appear to be a violation of a customer's privacy).
Then, to make things even more ridiculous, Letterhead decided to punish all its own customers for its own inability to put in place a business model that recognizes basic supply and demand. So, along with publishing the story and this guy's name, it's significantly raised the price of the font from $30 to $40 -- saying that it will keep the price up until the full $944 is paid off. This is doubly stupid. Not only are they making it even less likely that anyone will buy the font, they're now competing with the fact that this font is already out there available for free. That's not the time at which you raise prices. Obviously, they're trying to shame the guy into paying $944 -- but the real problem is the company doesn't understand its own market or the products its selling.
In fact, it goes out of its way to admit that it doesn't understand digital goods by claiming:
"Fonts are tangible goods around here and will forever be treated as such. Theft always affects the price of fonts and there are some costs that must be recouped. (1) The time that Duncan Wilkie spent in creating the fonts (2) The time Letterhead Fonts spent in helping Duncan to refine his fonts (3) The time and advertising dollars Letterhead Fonts spent to promote LHF Garner (4) The time Letterhead Fonts spends removing LHF Garner from the file-sharing websites."This shows a fatal lack of understanding of basic economics. First, fonts are not tangible goods. They never have been, and to say that the company will always consider them to be suggests that it will probably go out of business well before businesses that understand what they're actually selling. Then, claiming that there are specific costs that need to be recouped, again is a misunderstanding of economics. Yes, costs need to be recouped, but that's the responsibility of those setting up the business model -- not the customers. Furthermore, the company falsely includes fixed costs with the marginal costs in figuring out how to "price" the fonts, again insuring that other companies will be able to create much more reasonable business models.
Basically, the company is advertising its ignorance of basic economics and its own products and market, while punishing customers for its own incompetence. It may think it's going to shame one of its customers into paying, but all it's really doing is convincing a lot of folks never to buy anything from Letterhead fonts in the future.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Re: Letterhead Fonts by dfp on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 7:42am
Actually, the entire tirade on their site makes for interesting reading. The guy running the company sounds more like a self-absorbed fanatic than a business owner.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Dumb! by deadzone on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 7:43am
It's a very dumb move on the part of this company. I am pretty sure the court of public opinion will come back and take care of this little situation though.
It's sad that companies continue to be so dumb about copyrights though.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 8:08am
I guess Adobe will do for me now on.
So let's roleplay: You go to the store and bought a single bag of marshmallows, paid and left. You made the best S'mores.
The next time your in the area, you come back to the store and purchase steaks, bratwurst and other stuff. The bill is 20x larger than the last time you patronized the store. But you were THAT happy with the S'mores (They were that good.)
But while checking out, the manager stops you and says "You were the last person to buy marshmallows, but we're now missing 4 bags, pay us for the 4 missing bags."
What would your whitty response be?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
watch them try to sue you now.... by Danny on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 8:27am
"...all it's really doing is convincing a lot of folks never to buy anything from Letterhead fonts in the future."
Amen.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Fanatic, much? by Ken Adams on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 8:43am
You guys should check out his update tirade. The crowning achievement is his assertion that God will punish the evildoers:
"[...]I find strength in Psalm 140. See, Letterhead Fonts would never go out of business simply because some punk wishes it so. God created this business and only He has the ability to take it away."
Read the rest of the rant at http://letterheadfonts.com/news/index.shtml?a=blog&id=5 .
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 8:53am
O.o
Just wow.
I wish my business was propped up by an omnipotent being.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:03am
I like how he states if you want to blow your money on crappy fonts to go to this site. (with a link to myfonts.com)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Its a shame... by SteveD on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:08am
So it’s not about the money, its about the fonts, but its also about the money so we’re going to drive off the rest of our customers?
It’s a shame, because this guy seems to have the best of intentions (70% to the Artist? If only the record industry worked like that). But he doesn’t get digital business.
It’s not so much that fonts are or are not tangible goods, but he’d prefer to think of them like that because it makes a more straightforward business model.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fonts, what a joke by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:19am
Fonts are nothing but bothersome trash, especially for print industry workers. I have upwards of 50k and would never pay for any. They only cause output problems especially in the hands of designers, but that is a different problem altogether.
Letterhead's fonts are not even worth downloading for free!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
no copyright? by comboman on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:21am
Typefaces cannot be copyrighted, at least in the US. Strangely, when they are put on a computer as a font file, they can be.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by ehrichweiss on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:32am
I'm guessing he hasn't noticed that God(tm) doesn't have enough followers in the print industry to actually make a business model for him. Of course he also didn't read the part in his bible where his god said to give up all material possessions: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Violent Acres on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:32am
That explains a lot. It takes someone who is seriously mentally ill to become that righteous. I hope his god sees him through this trying time. What a maroon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here is a link to some of their fonts... by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:36am
Only 4, but his should get that retard going.
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3914591/171_Retail_Typefaces
LetterHead.Fonts.Goldsmith .Script.WinAll.Commercial.Font-TYPO.rar
LetterHead.Fonts.Monogram.English.WinAll.Commercial.Font-TY PO.rar
LetterHead.Fonts.Sarah.Script.WinAll.Commercial.Font-TYPO.rar
LetterHead.Fonts.Scriptana.Wi nAll.Commercial.Font-TYPO.rar
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: no copyright? by ehrichweiss on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:37am
There's a subtlety there that you're missing. It's the *file* that's under copyright, not the typeface itself. If you duplicated the look of the font(hence the typeface itself), it ceases to be under copyright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What happened last time? by Michael Brutsch on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:38am
He apparently uncovered some thieves in January, but I can't find anything about raising prices back then. Perhaps all the brouhaha this time is simply about much-needed publicity?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Her are a couple more by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:40am
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3447431/Commercial_Fonts_for_Windows_2006.02.20
Obviously more than one person decided to share with the masses.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: no copyright? by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:41am
Very interesting. If I understand this correctly if I design a font I can trademark the name but I can't copyright the typeface. However, if I develop a software font I can copyright the software version.
That's seem contradictory but give the state of patent and copyright law it probably makes a sick kind of sense.
It seems to me this moron missed a golden opportunity. His company provides a service (scare good) that produces letterhead fonts(infinite good). He got paid for the original font so his company probably got about all it would ever get for a custom letterhead font. If he allowed these fonts to go 'out into the wild' it would probably drive business to his company whereas his current strategy will likely drive customers away. Fortunately for him he has God as a business partner so let the smiting begin.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Alimas on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:43am
And then God said, "And let there be fonts!"
Where the hecks my invincible company?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:45am
You guys should check out his update tirade. The crowning achievement is his assertion that God will punish the evildoers:
I wonder what he thinks about Jesus. You know, the one who took the fish and loaves of bread and then proceeded to duplicate and share them with the crowd. Does he consider Jesus evil? I think he better reconsider his position. Of course, some people only acknowledge the parts of the bible that suit them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Free & Fine for me... by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:49am
http://www.dafont.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Here is a link to some of their fonts... by TehNube on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:54am
PWN3d!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 9:59am
He only refered to "God" and "Psalms" -- you assume he's Christian putting in the bit about the camel. You don't know, maybe he's Jewish.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Is this guy trying to get free publicity off this or is he really that dumb? by Joe on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:05am
Given the website, and how ridiculous the guy is I have to think he is either a complete idiot or he is trying to milk this for free PR.
I know they say that any press is good press but this guy has gone off the deep end. Lets just watch the site crumble.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Vincent Clement on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:10am
So if he truly believes in a god, shouldn't he take this as a sign that his business is not going to survive?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hah! by Daniel on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:26am
This guy is like the Derek Smart of the font world. What a megalomaniac.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Here is a link to some of their fonts by Tim Bobbotybim on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:35am
Someone needs to open those fonts with a hex editor, replace the embedded ID/Email with those of the loon at letterhead.com and reseed in a package with some really popular files. See what happens.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
what a nut job! by TheTraveler on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:54am
Wow, I just read this, and this dude is out of his mind! The fact that he even thinks this will get him any ware; he might as well burn his building down with all of his designers in it, because he is just taking them down with him!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by asdf on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:56am
wow. just wow.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
All press isn't good press . . . by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:56am
"All press is good press" generally only applies to politicians.
Bad press, in particular, this kind of bad press is very bad for this company. I know plenty of folks in design who regularly read tech blogs like this one.
I can't imagine anyone doing business with them after reading this.
As for the religious aspects, his use of Psalm 140 is not relevant to his stating that "God created this business". God didn't create the business. To a Christian, God is the creator of him. Man rules over man, and is given free will, but supposed to follow the will of God. The will of God may have been for this man to create this business. The will of God may not be for it to succeed. And then there's that whole touchy subject about man's interpretation of the will of God.
As a general rule, if someone has to resort to stating that the thing they are doing is "the will of God" because those looking upon him think it's the will of ... not God ... chances are pretty good that it was not the will of God.
In other words, if you have to announce that you are a Christian as a result of behavior that goes against Christian teaching "you're doing it wrong".
Besides that absurdity, his actions run afoul of the entire message of the gospel and plenty of verses in the old and new testament alike.
@erichweiss: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ..." Relevant verse, but not necessarily in the way you stated. *That* particular rich man was asked by Jesus to give up his possessions and follow Him. The lesson was that you are to put God ahead of everything. As that verse and the lesson within it relates to this individuals actions, one can reasonably question whether this gentleman has put God above his desires to have a successful business.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by qwerty on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:57am
i envision this guys business burning to the ground within the week. way to go moron.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Reasonable? by JB on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:00am
Why is it "reasonable" to share the font with the sign company?
What sort of business model would you propose for a company that designs fonts? I think selling their fonts sounds reasonable. And if those 32 people want to use the font they should buy their own copy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: what a nut job! by The on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:00am
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Reasonable? by TheTraveler on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:04am
Your right but the question is not whether they should buy there own fonts or not! The problem is this guy going completely ballistic over it, charging one guy for the piracy of a completely different company and then charging more for the font itself. to Recoup the costs of the loss of that font!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
who the hell pays for a font? by satan on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:05am
I don't get it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hypocrite... by Mike C. on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:07am
So.. he has a problem with someone else "stealing" his content, but has no problem using content from NBC and Saturday Night Live?
Happy Fun Ball font.
Wonder if has paid the appropriate license fees to NBC...
More importantly... I wonder if NBC knows.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Reasonable? by jonnyq on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:24am
Designing custom fonts and logos is a marketable business. Relying on the sale of easily copyable teensy weensy files is not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Scote on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:25am
"Why is it "reasonable" to share the font with the sign company? "
Because that has been common in the industry for years. Large print-houses can afford to buy large collections of fonts but they can't have everything. If printers had to buy every one off font for every job you'd never be able to get anything printed. Quark collects fonts for output for a reason.
Anyways, since type faces can't be copyrighted hopefully someone has made a generic tracing of this font and given it away for free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Reasonable? by R. H. on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:26am
It was reasonable to share with the sign company because the sign company was doing work for them. Here's how I see it: the font purchaser needed a sign made using the font that he bought. In order for the sign company that he contracted to make the sign in this font, he had to share a copy with them. However, either the purchaser never told the sign company that the font was under copyright or someone at the sign company said, "Wow! What a nice font. I think the guys at TPB will love this one...." and uploaded it to the internet causing all of this mess. All-in-all even if one were to consider copyright law to be fair I don't think that going after the purchaser of the font is appropriate here. His use of the font was legal under present day copyright law. Whomever uploaded the file to the P2P networks however, should probably keep their head down for a while.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Write Off by Jack Mehoff on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:37am
I have read all the replys. I have read LetterHeads posts on his site. This guy is a fool. (Though i admire his faith in God.) But if he knew how to run his business all he would have to do is write off the expense. It should have been part of the Business Plan. This is a fail safe, so when you go by marshmallows you don't get charged for the four missing bags. (LOL, i liked that one.) The "store" simply counts that as a loss and get reimbursed for the loss. LetterHead needs to take a business course (Buss 101). For the meantime, just don't shop there. He will get the picture. And if he reads this he can email me, i can explain how it works, so he doesn't have to screw his clients.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This Article by MLS on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:37am
If I may ask some questions:
This business designs and sells scalable fonts. Just what is wrong with that?
This business sells these scalable fonts to its customers with the totally understandable requirement that they not be redistributed. Just what is wrong with that?
This business appears to generally price its scalable fonts on what it believes customers are willing to pay. Just what is wrong with that?
I have a difficult time understanding just what it is about this company's product that justifies the animosity reflected in the above comments.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: watch them try to sue you now.... by Mike on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:45am
Convinced me!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: This Article by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 11:48am
Maybe you should read the article and not just the comments. Just a thought.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Jim on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 12:13pm
I'd call you an idiot for thinking of the worst analogy ever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: This Article by RTFM on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 12:27pm
Are you the corporate counsel for the loon that owns Letterhead©? Did you actually read the article and not just the comments? Not one person questioned the legitimacy of suing the sign-company which (allegedly) uploaded the font to a file-sharing website. They are the guilty ones here, not the original customer of Letterhead© who paid for the font.
In some cases, it is simply better to shut one's trap. The owner of Letterhead© should have directed his anger (and his legal mouthpiece) at the sign company, not at the schmuck who actually paid for the use of his product.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Rekrul on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 12:52pm
Thanks for posting this!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Letterhead Fonts by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 12:56pm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Letterhead Fonts by Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 1:00pm
Ironic tirade considering most of the fonts on his site are reworkings of older fonts Which Someone Else Designed
back in the 30's or 50's or whenever.
These fonts are included in the larger pirated font packages so turning purple over 30 odd downloads is missing the forest through the spindly oak sapling.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Bob on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 1:05pm
This guy gives all "Christians" a bad name. It's this sort of behavior that really makes people confused about wanting to be associated with your type. You fake Christians are nothing but a big disappointment and it seems you know it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Theft by Todd on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 1:47pm
It seems to me that if this is indeed theft of tangible property he should sumbit the "loss" to his insurance company. I'm sure they will be more than cooperative in approving that claim.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: This Article by MLS on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 3:05pm
I did read the article and links and, of course, agree that there are more productive ways for a business to address this matter. My questions were posed not in support of the hamfisted approach being used, but because of some posts suggesting that scalable font selling is somehow wrong because it involves digital data. Those posts were to my way of thinking troubling, as if because digital data is involved there is nothing wrong with someone who happens to get a copy uploading the data for all to use free of charge.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Write Off by Tim Bobbitybim on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 4:04pm
He can't write it off...if he can't document inventory on hand that went missing he hasn't got anything. Lost revenue is a myth - the folks that downloaded the font weren't on the verge of plunking down $35 at his site then suddenly switched gears and found it for free. Chances are good that if they hadn't found the free download they would have done without.
This is like the MPAA/RIAA claiming millions in lost sales - pure BS. The guy who fills his terabyte san with pirated movies wasn't going to go out and spend thousands of dollars at Wal-mart. He only pulled them because they were free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by DevNull on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 4:09pm
Has he never heard of the Streisand Effect? Guess not. I also guess maybe I'll not try to embed any of my 522 Letterhead fonts because I have NO idea of where they came from...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: This Article by Mike on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 4:14pm
This business designs and sells scalable fonts. Just what is wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with it... other than that it's an unsustainable business model the way it's set up. He's discovering that, but rather than adjusting his business model in the right way, he's adjusting it in a way that will only escalate these problems.
This business sells these scalable fonts to its customers with the totally understandable requirement that they not be redistributed. Just what is wrong with that?
Again, nothing's wrong with that if you can make it sustainable. But, a little lesson in basic economics suggests that you cannot do so.
This business appears to generally price its scalable fonts on what it believes customers are willing to pay. Just what is wrong with that?
But that's not the issue at all. The issue is that he's now jacking up the prices on fonts not due to customer demand, but due to some anti-economic tirade. Not only that, but he's doing it in a way that is sure to lose him more customers than it will gain.
That's just bad business.
I have a difficult time understanding just what it is about this company's product that justifies the animosity reflected in the above comments.
It's a bad business strategy focused on punishing paying customers, rather than changing with the marketplace.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: This Article by MLS on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 6:28pm
"But, a little lesson in basic economics suggests that you cannot do so."
Can you elaborate a bit? The site does not sell services...it sells scalable fonts to people who are typically graphic artists/designers.
Please be advised my comments have nothing to do with the problem the site faced and how it chose to deal with it. I am more interested in trying to figure out just what it is about the site's business plan that some seem to believe does not measure up to economic realities.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hypocrite... by Xanius on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 7:45pm
Apparently his hypocrisy is not on display any more.
Error 403!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Hypocrite... by Xanius on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 7:47pm
Hmm looks like the site is blocking referrals from techdirt. No links to the site work if you go from here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: This Article by Mike on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:46pm
Can you elaborate a bit? The site does not sell services...it sells scalable fonts to people who are typically graphic artists/designers.
Right, and the basic economics suggests that's not a sustainable business model. And that's what they're learning. In response, they're doing the exact wrong thing (raising prices) rather than figuring out a way to deal with the market.
What you're saying is the same as "but the buggy whip maker doesn't sell automobiles... it sells buggy whips" and then asking us to explain why it can't keep selling buggy whips.
They can't sell buggy whips because the market goes away.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrite... by Mike on Apr 14th, 2008 @ 10:46pm
Hmm looks like the site is blocking referrals from techdirt. No links to the site work if you go from here.
Now, that's hilarious. I've edited the post to make note of this. Thanks for pointing it out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by anonymous on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 2:09am
here are some more just to make letterhead happy.
http://www.gfxworld.org/fonts/new_fonts_5.html
on the plus side techdirt is now the third result on google when searching for LHF Garner. lets get to number 1, and show him how blocking a website (refreshing works) will only backfire. someday business will realize that the best way to fight something is quietly, with minimal media attention. aka ignore it.
People You Will Meet In Hell
Letterhead Fonts
Lori Drew
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
when fonts make noise by iSaac on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 5:10am
you know, with all the thousands of free fonts on the web and all the cheaply available software to make your own untold numebr of custom fonts, i cant get over the fact that this "company" even sells......fonts.....that strikes me as (like the teenyboppers say) soooooo 1990's....
I had to laugh.....so i did...ahaha...hahaha
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Jake on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 5:17am
I can kind of understand Letterhead being annoyed about the font going up on a file-sharing website without their permission; even if that design company thought it was being helpful, there are few things more irksome than someone doing what they think is best for you without consulting you beforehand. But not only am I slightly dubious about the legality of their contract versus the First Sale Doctrine, but at no point have Letterhead even implied that the signwriter did this with their customer's knowledge or consent; why are they suing him?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
yes they are morons, font business sucks by stationstops admin on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 5:56am
Yeah, these guys are morons.
However, I don't envy fontographers in any way - a good font is indeed a work of art and very difficult to get a good return on your work investment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: This Article by MLS on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 7:45am
As I previously noted, I am not asking anything about how the company responded to the specific situation it was presented.
What I am trying to understand is why a company whose sole business is "selling" scalable fonts over the internet is not pursuing an economically viable business model? It is in a niche market (graphic designers/artists who need high quality scalable fonts) and appears to have a customer base that is willing to pay for the product provided. While it is a small scale operation, its business model is not that different from software sellers who ply their products over the internet, or even sites like Getty and Corbis that sell stock photos and graphics.
Obviously, a company in the business of selling digital products is always vulnerable to those who cheat and upload files for P2P copying. That is always a risk, albeit in this niche market not something that will necessarily bankrupt the company. It does not, however, account for your comment that the company's business model is economically unsound.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
For your chuckling pleasure by BoyHowdy on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 8:05am
FYI - I added the bolding.
From the FAQ:
"Can I send my Letterhead Fonts to my printer?
No. Sharing your Letterhead Fonts with any third-party constitutes piracy and carries with it serious consequences-- including 5 years in federal prison and a minimum fine of $250,000. Your account information is embedded in each of your Letterhead Fonts. Should your printer or someone working there distribute the fonts elsewhere, you will be held responsible for damages resulting from each case of piracy. Instead, protect yourself by converting your text to vector outlines before sending your file to the printer. Please see this page for more information."
What a douche.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Melvillain on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:15am
Wow, and I thought the MPAA, RIAA...etc was bad.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:18am
This is the dumbest comment I've ever read. How can a reader of the Techtirt blog still not understand the difference between tangible (scarce) goods and intangible (infinite) goods. Anything you buy at a grocery store (marshmallows, steaks, bratwurst) is a scarce good - to reproduce them incurs additional cost. Fonts are an infinite good - they can be reproduced infinitely with no additional cost.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Fanatic, much? by Anonymous Coward on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 9:23am
Yeah, it was lucky for Jesus that there was no patent, copyright, or trademark on fish and bread. Otherwise, he'd have been crucified for infringement by lawyers for the fishermen and bakers!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This Article by Mike on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 10:32am
As I previously noted, I am not asking anything about how the company responded to the specific situation it was presented.
Neither am I. As I thought I made clear (I guess not...) this company is trying to sell an infinite good. Supply and demand (basic 101 econ) will point out to you that such a good will eventually get priced at $0 in a competitive market.
What I am trying to understand is why a company whose sole business is "selling" scalable fonts over the internet is not pursuing an economically viable business model?
Because they're trying to sell an infinite good. That's not a sustainable business model. They come under pricing pressure, and unless you figure out a different model, you're in trouble.
It is in a niche market (graphic designers/artists who need high quality scalable fonts) and appears to have a customer base that is willing to pay for the product provided.
Yes, for now, but it's not sustainable, because the market is increasingly flooded with free alternatives.
its business model is not that different from software sellers who ply their products over the internet, or even sites like Getty and Corbis that sell stock photos and graphics.
Indeed. All of which are finding their business models under serious pressure.
Obviously, a company in the business of selling digital products is always vulnerable to those who cheat and upload files for P2P copying.
I'm not talking about competing with file sharing. I'm talking about competing with those who recognize how to do the same thing by giving away the content and charging for scarce goods.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
For your chuckling pleasure by BoyHowdy on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 12:53pm
FYI - I added the bolding.
From the FAQ:
"Can I send my Letterhead Fonts to my printer?
No. Sharing your Letterhead Fonts with any third-party constitutes piracy and carries with it serious consequences-- including 5 years in federal prison and a minimum fine of $250,000. Your account information is embedded in each of your Letterhead Fonts. Should your printer or someone working there distribute the fonts elsewhere, you will be held responsible for damages resulting from each case of piracy. Instead, protect yourself by converting your text to vector outlines before sending your file to the printer. Please see this page for more information."
What a douche.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LETTERHEAD FONTS by RANDY HOWE on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 3:56pm
Hi Folks, first time reader...first time poster - YES IT'S ME! - the guy Chuck Davis of Letterhead Fonts fame has blasted on his website. A friendly stranger gave me the link to this site and I thank him for that. Had a chance to skim over all the previous comments and would like to take a minute to clarify a few things about how things developed to the point of ridiculum ( I just made that word up ) that they have reached with regard to the font scandal Chuck has conjured up in his head.
It all started in Southern Ontario on a sweltering day in the summer of 1959, in the tiny bayside village of St. Williams, when Fred and Betty Howe gave birth to their son -ME.
Fast forward to 2008.
I have been in the sign business for over 20 years, and I have purchased many, many fonts from Lettethead Fonts since they first started doing business 8 years ago - love the fonts - use them everyday even still. Last year I hired a local company to help ME launch a website for ME consisting of pages designed by ME using fonts purchased by ME - it's really just that simple and far from contrary to the rules set out by Letterhead Fonts.
OOPS - wife just called - meeting some friends for supper, have much more to add
TO BE CONTINUED.....
RANDY HOWE
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LETTERHEAD FONTS by RANDY HOWE on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 6:13pm
Hey y'all - ME again ( just got back from Hilton Head and picked up a bit of a southern drawl )...
anywhooo - so I know you're wanting to know - why has Chuck decided to freak out on ME, why would HE do what HE do if it wasn't true?
Here's what went down...Chuck emails ME and asks ME to phone him about an urgent matter, so I do so. He tells ME that the Garner font I purchased is being offered up for free online and wanted to know how it got there. I told him I had no idea, and if indeed it was MY font, wanted to find out how it got there as much as he did. He asked ME about MY new website and the people I worked with to develop it.
I told him there was no way that they distributed the font.
( I know this to be true and quite frankly don't care who believes it - how do I know? - I just know - end of story ) In fact - once they seen my collection of Letterhead Fonts, they were so impressed that they purchased several Letterhead Fonts of their own ( YOU'RE WELCOME CHUCK! )
Next thing you know, I get an email from Chuck telling ME how sad and disappointed he was with ME, to get the font removed from the site, or he would go public and blah blah blah blah blah.
That's when I said hang on a minute there Chucky Boy, if you want any help from ME, you had better give your attitude an adjustment, and if you don't, then you can kiss my ass, and feel free to go ahead with your threats...and so folks, here we are.
Initially I received several nasty emails telling me what a dick I am. I responded to them all, provided them with my phone number so they could call ME and tell ME in person, or talk to ME and find out what really happened - no one took ME up on it - pithetic chickenshits. However, as time and Chuck went on, the tone of the emails began to change, and I was reassured that most people do have a sense of fairness at least.
I will end this here, and welcome anyone to contact me or visit my website to see what all the fuss is about...
THANKS ALL, RANDY HOWE
519-426-0740
www.gougerville.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Tina on Apr 16th, 2008 @ 9:38am
Randy Howe... You're a loser! You should have helped him get the font off. I don't think it was too much to ask after what you did. You weren't supposed to share the font, correct? You did. You are the wrong one here. Simple as that in my opinion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In summary, returning to the point of the matter ... by Peter Blaise on Apr 16th, 2008 @ 9:49am
Wow. A confluence of problems and miscommunication, compounded by a steep personality at the font company. Where to start, where to start ... ?
"World's First $1,000 Font?" I don't think so! I remember the first commercial digital version of Rudi Ruzicka's Fairfield was $1,500, so this company's claim for the "first $1,000 font" is remarkably inaccurate, revealing that they don't even know their own industry history. I have also sold private, custom fonts for $2,000 and didn't think much of it (except that I didn't get paid adequately for my time, more like minimum wage!).
Here's what I see. There are two worlds that will apparently never meet in friendship:
- original creative artists
versus
- copyists.
As a (self proclaimed) world-class font wizard and designer, I quickly saw the price of fonts fall from hundreds of dollars for off-the-shelf fonts, to $1 a font on licensed CDs from the big names, to 1/2 cent a font for clone knock-offs on CD, to ZERO over the Internet. And, what's worse is that expensive Adobe and Monotype versions still sucked and needed smoozing to work without error, only Bitstream (the first wholly digital foundry) fonts worked first time, every time. So, I had to re-digitize fonts from any source anyway to get them to work, often also needing to replace or add enhanced characters malformed or missing from the suite. So, why pay $40 or more for a single font face that I have to rebuild, when ZERO is the price of the competition (that also might need rebuilding anyway)?
On the one hand, I applaud the mentioned font foundry for saluting and singing the praises of their typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort.
On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and actually is fostering publicity for their competition. Doh!
Personally, may I suggest a LEGITIMATE free alternative? I cannot think of a kinder, nicer, fairer, more considerate, person in the FREE font world than Glenn Folkvord, the Font Man at
http://www.fontcollectors.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fontpacks
... who says at http://fontcollectors.com/linkpiracy02.htm
"... bandwidth theft and link piracy ... against people who can't be bothered to ask before they ... benefit from my work ... Obviously the fonts themselves are not mine but I spend a great deal of time ... the least I should expect is that people download as members from MY list/group ... the only real satisfaction I get ... is to see that the member count always grow, and ... know that ... people enjoy the fonts ... I welcome all new members and hope you will enjoy the fonts ... I don't want to come across as an self-important guy or blow the link theft out of proportions ... enough is enough and let's get back to collecting them there fonts, OK? ... P.S.: If you ever use a font for something, I urge you to buy a license from the font's creator. If your newsletter or website or company benefits from a designer's font, he or she should benefit too, it's the right thing ..."
Very different attitude there, eh? Some people KNOW how to behave and run their organization with respect for everyone - you set a great example, Glenn. Thank you!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Techdirt by nick shinn on Apr 16th, 2008 @ 9:52am
Letterhead adopted their aggressive and unusual policy towards piracy a while ago, and are still in business.
Rather than make uninformed critical comments about what one assumes to be bad business practices, let's be more open-minded about how different folk choose to deal with the mind-boggling ethical and economic conundrums of digital media, and encourage experimentation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Techdirt by Mike on Apr 16th, 2008 @ 12:04pm
Letterhead adopted their aggressive and unusual policy towards piracy a while ago, and are still in business.
I never said they'd go out of business immediately.
But wait and see.
Rather than make uninformed critical comments about what one assumes to be bad business practices, let's be more open-minded about how different folk choose to deal with the mind-boggling ethical and economic conundrums of digital media, and encourage experimentation.
Right. As for uninformed and critical, didn't you just do the same thing, without recognizing how much research and analysis we've put into digital economics and business models over the last decade? The position I took wasn't just some fly-by-night claim. It's based on a thorough understanding and analysis of economics and business models in the digital age.
This is a bad business practice, plain and simple.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LETTERHEAD FONTS by RANDY HOWE on Apr 16th, 2008 @ 1:34pm
Tina - how can you say that I am a loser...maybe a hoser, but not a loser ( A little Canadian humour there...do you have a sense of humour? ) I did not share the font - I used the fonts I purchased for my own purposes. Was I not supposed to let anyone else see it, give your head a shake.
The font in question did not come from me, I don't care if Chuck says it does have my info - how do I prove it - I have no idea, but I have been put in touch with a forensic computer analyst who I will use to find out if forced to. I purchased fonts and carried on a friendly relationship with Chuck for 8 years ... there's a certain way to ask people for help, Chuck's approach to me was uncalled for and I took a stand. I'm a friggin' signmaker for crying out loud,
I wouldn't know how to help him get the font off even if he did ask me nice.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Letterhead Fonts by Malbright on Apr 16th, 2008 @ 6:10pm
It's true. Chuck has gone ballistic and handled this in a way that has created a lot of problems.
But as I see it, it takes a great deal of time and energy to design and market a good font. It's a tough business to make money in, even for the big houses. Chuck has made it very clear that when you buy a font, you can do whatever you want with it, just don't put it in a pdf or send it with your files—you've got to make an outline of it first so it cannot be pirated or illegally copied. Since most of his fonts are for display purposes, this extra step really isn't all that big of a deal. Granted, I don't love the extra hassle. But imagine how you would feel if you saw hundreds of your fonts being pirated for free. Wouldn't you try and do something to stop it?
Now, I'm not justifying Chuck's reaction. But I do understand how frustrated he must be. Even here on this thread there are people posting links to pirate copies of his fonts. I wonder how these people would feel if someone did the same thing to them?
Someone made the comment that fonts are worthless and don't work, etc. That shows a profound ignorance of typography and the current state of the art.
I may not agree with Chuck's handling of Randy's situation with his customer, nor of his citing God, though that's his god-given right. but what he is asking for in his EULA isn't really all that intrusive. He's just doing the best he can to apply some kind of DRM to protect his business.
A font is worth money, and just because it's in a digital format doesn't change that. Fontographers need to do something to protect themselves, otherwise, all of us designers who rely on their art, their expertise and their assistance will suffer.
It sounds like Randy made an honest mistake, and Chuck went ballistic. It's really a shame, because in my dealings with Chuck he's been a really nice guy and very reasonable. Moreover, he has always kept the price of his fonts quite reasonable, trying his best to keep prices low when many others are not doing the same.
Remember, you never really BUY a font. You buy a license to use the font on x number of computers. The lesson is that when you buy any software, including typography, you need to read and abide by the EULA.
Maybe some of you have better ideas on how Chuck can protect his fonts. If you think there's a better business model, please let us know, because everyone in the industry struggles with this every day.
No, it is not right to publicly berate a customer and then make everybody else pay (although all of us pay the price for piracy in one way or another—Chuck is just being up front about it.) But it is also wrong to pirate software and fonts, obviously.
I feel badly for Randy; the guy made a simple mistake and Chuck went nuts on him. But I also feel badly for Chuck, a person who runs an honest, quality business and is just trying to stop people from using his fonts for free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Letterhead Fonts by Mike on Apr 17th, 2008 @ 2:16am
But as I see it, it takes a great deal of time and energy to design and market a good font.
No one doubts that, but that's a fixed cost -- and your basic economics will tell you that you can't expect to price things based on your fixed costs. It's just not a sustainable business.
A font is worth money, and just because it's in a digital format doesn't change that.
Remember, price and value are not the same: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/153919828.shtml
Just because something is valuable, it doesn't mean that selling it is sustainable.
Fontographers need to do something to protect themselves, otherwise, all of us designers who rely on their art, their expertise and their assistance will suffer.
As many other industries have discovered, there are business models that can be built around giving away completed digital goods for free. It need not involve "protection." In fact, protecting digital content generally means you're limiting your potential market because you're cutting off the best promotional resource you have.
Maybe some of you have better ideas on how Chuck can protect his fonts. If you think there's a better business model, please let us know, because everyone in the industry struggles with this every day.
He shouldn't be protecting it. He should be leveraging it to sell scarce goods (such as his ability to create amazing new fonts):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
No, it may not be as *easy* a business model, but I'd bet it would be a lot more profitable long term. The fact is that your basic economics of supply and demand will push the price of already-created fonts towards zero. It's not a good idea to base your business model on pretending those economics don't exist.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: In summary, returning to the point of the matter ... by Peter Blaise on Apr 17th, 2008 @ 4:21am
I told them what I think at
http://www.letterheadfonts.com/contact/index2.php
==
Re: Piracy
I don't think people are upset that you take a stand against piracy. I think people are aghast that you inaccurately take an unsupportable public stand against non-pirates (your customers and potential customers) instead of accurately finding and prosecuting those who may have broken a law or a contract that involves you. Such investigation and prosecution cannot be done in a public forum. On the one hand, I applaud you for saluting and singing the praises of your typeface designers, and trying to provide a revenue stream for their effort. On the other hand, this publicity is not positive, and is fostering animosity against you and publicity for alternatives.
==
I'll let you know if they respond.
Someone here said: "... Someone made the comment that fonts are worthless and don't work, etc. That shows a profound ignorance of typography and the current state of the art ..." I hope that was not directed towards me. As a font designer, I know better, and I know that many "official", full price, legitimate fonts are crappy and need rebuilding to properly do their job in many, or even any, environment. Perhaps your comment was directed at the "hey, it's digital, give it away and sell advertising and support" philosophy, which, as a tech consultants, TechDirt is exampling quite well, since no one pays directly for reading this wonderful, participatory blog.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Letterhead Fonts by Spinmeister Wannabe on Apr 17th, 2008 @ 5:52am
Dear Malbright,
Since your post is an obvious PR piece and your writing style differs from Chuck's I'm guessing that you're probably a hired gun and not Chuck himself. Additionally, Letterhead Fonts doesn't appear to be large enough to have its own PR department so I further suppose that you are a contractor. I've been thinking about trying to get into that business myself and would really like to learn more about it. Now I realize that as a professional you probably can't disclose the details of your particular relationship with Chuck but I have some questions about how this business works in general if you would be so kind as to answer them:
1. Do you typically already have a business relationship with your client before some episode needing PR spin occurs or does that relationship develop afterwards?
2. If it occurs afterwards, who typically initiates first contact, you or the client?
3. If it is the client, how do they usually find you? I mean, is it by referral or some other means? Do you advertise?
4. If it is you, how do you find clients? Do you perhaps watch the news for potential clients in trouble and then contact them with an offer of your services (similar to an ambulance chasing lawyer)?
5. What kind of fees do services of your type usually command?
6. How do you respond to people who would label you a "turf troll" or "shill"? Does it bother you and, if so, how do you deal with that?
Thanks in advance for any insights you can give a potential future colleague.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Letterhead Fonts by malbright on Apr 18th, 2008 @ 12:52am
Dear Spinmeister,
Your assumptions are incorrect. I have no relationship with Letterhead Fonts whatsoever. I am not a PR hack for him—in fact, when Chuck first deployed his troublesome, and later abandoned, font installer, I was one of his biggest critics. If you read the threads on typophile you can see that for yourself. I thought it was one of the most boneheaded ideas I heard in a long time, and it was obvious it was a non-starter.
At the time, I took it upon myself to write Chuck and engage in a dialogue. I was pretty upset at his plan, yet, for all my vitriol, I was surprised at how gracious and accommodating he was. Though I totally disagreed with his installer scheme, as well as a lot of his methods for fighting piracy, I gained a greater understanding of his position.
It really sucks to see your stuff stolen and to realize there is almost nothing you can do about it.
But believe whatever you want.
Because I am empathetic to his plight doesn't make me a turf troll or shill. I am equally sympathetic to poor Randy, who strikes me as a reasonable, nice guy—his site shows a great sense of humor and style—and who seems to be the brunt of Chuck's pent up frustration. I also think Chuck went way over the line in the way he handled the situation with Randy. I think his behavior is counterproductive and bad business.
However, back to your questions. On a positive note, with your flair for cynicism and complete lack of productive, thoughtful suggestions, I think you have a world of career options open to you and the answers you seek will no doubt come as you gain experience once you've found a full-time position. I encourage you to pursue your passion, and not worry about the details yet.
Cheers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Letterhead Fonts by Anonymous Coward on Apr 19th, 2008 @ 10:34pm
It really sucks to see your stuff stolen and to realize there is almost nothing you can do about it.
Copyright infringement isn't theft and to claim otherwise is dishonest. Because you have demonstrated such dishonesty I am not inclined to believe your other denials.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Tina on Apr 23rd, 2008 @ 12:24pm
First off, Mike Masnick shouldn't be writing about business failures. He obviously knows nothing about business. Maybe he should take a class on the subject. Letterhead is raising the price of its goods due to thief. Every business does this. Unless you plan to grow your own crops and sew your own clothes, you're paying for thief everytime you walk into a store. Sorry, the truth hurts.
How can I call you a loser Randy? Well, it's about as easy as putting on my velcro strap sneakers in the morning. I read both Letterhead's side of the story and yours. I see a company that is fed up with their hard work getting pirated by thugs (some of which I see reside on this very site.) They find out how it got there and contact you. Because they're upset, you tell them, "you can kiss my ass" (that must have been a very repulsive thought for them.) That's a swell way to handle it! If it was me I would have sued your ass not kissed it!!! But that's just me.
Now, please, I beg someone to accuse me of working for Letterhead. I only wish I had half the talent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Apr 23rd, 2008 @ 4:33pm
First off, Mike Masnick shouldn't be writing about business failures. He obviously knows nothing about business.
Of course not. He's only built a rather successful one himself. And helps many other businesses with their business strategy.
I know, because I'm him. But clearly, I know nothing, right? And what do you know of me?
Letterhead is raising the price of its goods due to thief.
No. They're not raising prices due to theft. They're raising prices due to in inability to deal with infringement. If you think infringement is the same as theft, you've got a problem.
Every business does this.
No. That's simply untrue when you're talking about infringement. If businesses have worked out a way to build a business model that embraces infringement and leverages it for positive purposes, than those that try to increase the price due to infringement will find less and less business available.
The problem is you seem to be equating infinite goods to scarce goods. Unfortunately for you, the world doesn't work that way.
Unless you plan to grow your own crops and sew your own clothes, you're paying for thief everytime you walk into a store.
Not quite, but this is the statement you've stated that's closest to accurate. Yes, if you are buying tangible goods, it's likely that some of the cost of "loss" or "leakage" is included in the pricing, but that's not what's being discussed here. The problem is that there's no *loss* when you're talking about an infinite good, such as a font. There's only lost *opportunity* and unlike *real* losses, you don't bake lost opportunity into your price unless you want your competitors to beat you silly.
Sorry, the truth hurts.
If only you knew.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Tina on Apr 23rd, 2008 @ 6:22pm
Hmmmmmm... nope, still not convinced. I know nothing of you except the article above. And I couldn't disagree more with all that you've said.
But I'll tell you what:
If "competitors beat" Letterhead "silly" and they fail due to their price increase and business practices, I'll think of you and admit that you are a business genius.
Until then...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Apr 24th, 2008 @ 1:02am
Hmmmmmm... nope, still not convinced. I know nothing of you except the article above. And I couldn't disagree more with all that you've said.
Well, it's nice to know that you judge whether or not someone knows anything about business based on a single paragraph you misread.
If "competitors beat" Letterhead "silly" and they fail due to their price increase and business practices, I'll think of you and admit that you are a business genius.
Whether anyone realizes it or not, they already are. If they weren't, Letterhead wouldn't have freaked out over a small number of folks sampling the font for free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LETTERHEAD FONTS by RANDY HOWE on Apr 24th, 2008 @ 12:29pm
Just to correct you Tina - Letterhead Fonts doesn't tell us how the font got there - they just claim that it's mine and come to a convenient, yet incorrect, conclusion on how it got there.
I tell you that it didn't get there from us but you choose not to accept that - same as Chuck...so what am I to do.
I challenge anyone to show me how the font supposedly - and I stress supposedly - got from my computer to some obscure Russian website that I've never heard of before.
In spite of what's been said about me all over the internet because of this, I've received plenty of support and encouragement from friends and strangers alike - I've tried to keep somewhat of a sense of humour about the situation but when I read a comment from an ignorant braindead maroon like yourself, I must admit I start to get a bit pissed off.
If anyone has a suggestion on how this sort of thing can be tracked, without breaking the bank, I'd love to hear it .
RANDY HOWE, temperature rising
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Tina on Apr 25th, 2008 @ 12:31pm
Wow, now I know what Letterhead dealt with. It doesn't take much to upset that Canadian humor you bragged about.
Letterhead told us exactly how the font got there. You shared the font and the font then found it's way to the internet. Your account information was embedded in it. I'm not a computer wizard but I'm sure that can be done. I doubt seriously Letterhead saw one of their fonts on a pirate site and decided to pin it on a customer that "started doing business 8 years ago" with them. Especially someone who has "purchased many, many fonts from" them.
Sorry to get your "temperature rising." I'm just stating my opinion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by RANDY HOWE on Apr 25th, 2008 @ 5:03pm
State your opinion all you want, but why not get the facts straight. You say you're not a computer wizard, no problem, but it is blatantly obvious that you are not on an intellectual level that can comprehend what is being presented to. It's not a crime to be stupid and ignorant, just accept it and keep your piehole clamped shut - and for the good of mankind - DON'T REPRODUCE!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
letterhead fonts by James on May 11th, 2008 @ 10:43am
I can understand Letterheads position and I love both their site and their fonts. That being said I understand the peoples argument here. Fist off here's my problem's with the current arrangement.
1. As a loyal customer I am now being punished for others misdeeds. If I choose to buy it then I'm being a loyal customer, not forgoing the process of paying the original artist and representation rather than just go get the product for free (you know stealing) yet somehow I now am being penalized for making the right decision.
2. I find it troubling that my personal information is being tagged and distributed to who knows by Letterhead font, without my permission. I would argue that now that they've put how they embed my info onto their fonts it could put my personal info at jeopardy. I'm not sure why I haven't noticed this before in the terms of use license nor if it's there but computers and hackers in particular today are very creative if there's a exploit to use this information out there they can find a way to retrieve it. I see that they value their artwork in the form of fonts but they don't respect the value of my personal information.
3. While I agree that Letterhead has the best font's around and a amazing site, I don't buy the advertising angle they represent. Their advertising is the site itself and it's a sales tool. I see no advertising anywhere else nor do I see them in any publications that refer to font's. In fact unless your a type / font fan you might be hard pressed to even know it exists. Hardly the advertising I could justify the 30% take from. In fact if anything I would expect the owner of Letterhead to make a reward system for his products, find a file sharing site with our product report it to us and we'll knock $5 - $10 off the price of a font. In this way he would be actively pursuing the problem, engaging the customers to be familiar with the artist plight and rewarding people for actually buying the product rather than doing the exact opposite. Since he doesn't do this and has instead charged more for the product he should be paying the artist more than 70% as he failed to distribute the product to the masses as he was commissioned to do. Charging would be customers would make sense if the company was at a loss for the theft, but they are not. People often forget that they can and will mark this off as a loss on their taxes. As such they will be making more than a little profit off this fiasco. Namely they will be getting the Letterhead name out, they've now had a reason to mark up the product, and they have hit the original purchaser of the font for the damages. Even if he doesn't pay up it will go to the losses posted in taxes as mentioned. I don't see the downside to their position other than the fact that at least 32 people have the product now, than did before and have not paid for it.
4. I love these font's and I respect the many artist that have spent time and effort to put these together but let's call a spade a spade. Many of these font's are copies of type from Billheads, Signs from advertising in the late 1800's and other places. Now that may not be the case with all of the fonts but a far share are. So what we are seeing is someone ranting about others taking work without paying and yet the work in question is a recreation and fixing of another's work in the first place. Now I don't mind paying for this as I don't have the time and energy to put into taking these lettering samples, scanning them into Fontographer, cleaning them up and submitting them to Letterhead font to be further cleaned up and distributed, but when I see someone get huffy about what is essentially a service that recreates digitally the works of master artist from long ago, I have to wonder why they don't kick some of that money down to the original artist's families, (oh wait they don't have to because that persons more than likely dead or unknown) to me this would be the equivalent to someone wanting to get paid for someone sharing a digital clip art of the mona lisa that they charge for then upping the price of the clip art to compensate for the price. Should they charge for it in the first place? Well, they did make the effort to digitize it sure and they distributed it as well so yes. Now should they get uppity if someone else takes the artwork? No because that is what they essentially did as well.
As I said before I am a fan of letterhead font. I know it doesn't sound like it but I am. They provide a service and represent artist in a way that no-one does, but they also show they're artist naivete by their business practices. Their customers are diehard font fans and as such will forgive them their transgressions, so I don't see their actions changing their profit much at all. But it does remind me of the old joke about the 2 bulls one young, one old. The young one says to the old timer hey let's run down and screw us a few cows, the old Bull replies nah, let's walk down and screw em all. The point being that by alienating the consumer and charging more they won't hurt their business too much as the customers they offer a specialty product for a niche consumer. But had they taken the time to embrace the power of these consumers and enlist their help they would find themselves in a better market position. They could have put a good spin on the angle, maybe someone would have put the story on digg and it could have generated some of the publicity that the owner of Letterhead font charges 30% for. Products would be more secure since customers (loyal as ever) would have spent a little time to hunt down the beloved fonts on file sharing sites and report them and thus making pirated fonts that much harder to find. This would make me as a font artist more agreeable to using Letterhead font as my distributor as they would show their prowess at keeping this my "creations" off the file sharing sites and profits in my pocket.
As it stands now I have no reason to spend any of my time doing letterhead font any favors, I mean why should I? If I do find a file being shared and I report it it will only make that and other font's go up in price and after a while that add's up, and what would I do then? Of course I do own fontographer and have a extensive library of old types, I guess I could always just get off my soap box and recreate some of those old fonts that everyone is clamoring for. Now if I recreate Billhead from the original Source am I imposing on Letterheads trademark / copyright?
3.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Letterhead fonts by James on May 11th, 2008 @ 1:34pm
I was just rereading the article by chuck davis and came across this bit:
"Ignoring piracy devalues our work and makes it that much harder for the next generation. Indeed, I can see a day when creativity has been stifled so severely that the only fonts being created are simply knock-offs of other fonts. After all, who wants to spend months creating an original typeface only to have it pirated the first week it's released?"
And yet when you stop and look at almost every one of the font's at his site you'll notice they are almost entirely lifted from older works. Take a look at anything from the 1880's to the 1940's and you'll discover so many great letterhead font's and soon to be letterhead font's. I bought the book "the art of the market" and was amazed to see so may of the Fonts created by these designers used in old stock and bond certificates that it started me looking at some of the others, sure enough I found some from advertisements for Pharmacy labels, old cutouts from circulars, and quite a few from font foundries that were no longer in business. My point here is that one one hand ol' Chuck would like to use the argument that "I can see a day when creativity has been stifled so severely that the only fonts being created are simply knock-offs of other fonts" I find this funny since a lions share of his business is just that and he seems fine with it, worse his clients are fine with it, and he makes a profit with no problems. Then he says "After all, who wants to spend months creating an original typeface only to have it pirated the first week it's released?" But does it really take months on end to recreate a font? I've done my bit of design with font's and while I don't want to take the time on a lot of projects to design a font, when I have do so it has never taken months, and I am in no way as skilled as many of these artist when it comes to font design, and yet when you factor in the source material allowing the artist to lift a majority of the lettings then you really only have to scan, clean up the lines and recreate maybe a 1/3 or 26 letters and 10 numbers maybe 12 characters. If that takes months of work then these guys are not the pro's I thought them to be.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment