The 'You Wouldn't Steal a Car' Campaign Used a Pirated Font (torrentfreak.com) 54
The iconic "You Wouldn't Steal a Car" anti-piracy campaign, which dramatically equated digital piracy with physical theft, appears to have used a pirated font in its own materials. New evidence indicates the campaign utilized "XBAND Rough," a free clone of the commercial "FF Confidential" font, which requires a license.
TorrentFreak independently confirmed campaign materials from 2005 embedded the XBAND Rough font rather than the original created by Just Van Rossum in 1992. Researchers discovered the font in PDF files hosted on the campaign's official website. Van Rossum, FF Confidential's creator, called the revelation "hilarious" when informed by TorrentFreak. "I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough," he said.
TorrentFreak independently confirmed campaign materials from 2005 embedded the XBAND Rough font rather than the original created by Just Van Rossum in 1992. Researchers discovered the font in PDF files hosted on the campaign's official website. Van Rossum, FF Confidential's creator, called the revelation "hilarious" when informed by TorrentFreak. "I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough," he said.
XBAND Rough," a free clone of the commercial... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:XBAND Rough," a free clone of the commercial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: XBAND Rough," a free clone of the commercial.. (Score:2)
My understanding of the clone is that it is an unlicenced copy, meaning any copies of it are also unlicensed by the rights holder, meaning it's a de-facto pirated font.
"You wouldn't steal a font...oh wait..."
Re: XBAND Rough," a free clone of the commercial.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather like copyright fanatic Orin Hatch, whose web site has repeatedly been caught using pirated software.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the fonts I download say "for personal use only". An ad campaign probably doesn't qualify as "personal use".
THANK YOU (Score:1)
Someone who actually knows a morsel of copyright law. Copyright law DOES NOT PROTECT FONT DESIGNS for a very obvious reason, imagine that every book printed with an Adobe font was subject to Adobe's copyright on Baskerville, or whatever. Now instead of just getting permission from the author to reprint a chapter, or the publisher, you have to talk to Adobe -- how the fuck do you think that would go? Why the fuck would you want Adobe to be a gatekeeper on other people's intellectual property? Literally every
Re: (Score:2)
There are a bunch of conflated issues in your post. Let's break them down.
- You're right that fonts generally cannot be copyright. However, they can be protected with design patents.
- Printing a book in a particular font does not convey "gatekeeper" status on someone else's IP. If the publisher wanted to reprint the book using Adobe's font, they'd need to talk to Adobe because, well, it's Adobe's font. But the publisher could choose some other font and Adobe could do nothing about it. They own the font, not
Car theft? (Score:1)
Isn't car theft pretty much just another occupation now? At least in large parts of the US the police don't even investigate it and no one does time for it.
Re:Car theft? (Score:5, Informative)
The motor vehicle theft rate in Texas is actually above the national average at around 400/100,000 inhabitants vs around 300 nationally. It turns out mindless tough talk does not actually deter crime like people think it does.
Re:Car theft? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe we've simply misunderstood the AC. "Come try that shit in Texas ... it's easier here than anywhere else!"
Re: (Score:3)
Don't believe media sensationalism. Car theft peaked in 1991 at a rate of 659/100,000 residents. While there was a 2022 spike, we are at less than half that now:
https://counciloncj.org/wp-con... [counciloncj.org]
A lot of the increase came from the revelation that many Hyundais and Kias shipped without any security in the ignition. There was supposed to be a chip to perform an electronic "handshake", but none was to be found. A USB key would work to start the car.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there wasn't "supposed to". It wasn't mandated on these vehicles. That was a conscious decision by Hyundai.
It's poorer than that. It's only mandated in some markets, so they only did it in some markets. And the cost difference is pretty small, the hardware is not very expensive.
when you get repairs done at non dealer locations (Score:2)
when you get repairs done at non dealer locations you are stealing our IP!
lol... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Font faces cant be copyrighted in the USA.
But they can be protected with a design patent. I'm not sure whether the font-owners have one.
Re: (Score:3)
If they had a design patent it would have expired in 2006.
This seems to be a case of hypocrisy, not criminal infringement.
Re: lol... (Score:2)
So still within the protected period
Re: Its not theft to use free software. (Score:4, Insightful)
The original creator called it a "pirated clone"...
Re: (Score:2)
A clone is usually made to avoid pirating the original. Look at all the softwares that are "clones" of some popular originals. Someone said there should be a free alternative and created one instead of pirating the original one. The question is, if material of the original was used, I guess one can proof something like that when for example all ligatures are the same, which is probably unlikely if the original wasn't used.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That never stopped the FSF from using that very argument. According to them, similarity is proof of copying. You don't have to copy everything in order to have copied something.
"Just because the fonts look nearly the same doesn't mean there's any licensing issues."
Tell that to Stallman.
"Open source or free fonts are used by people every day, and a fast google search for ""XBAND Rough" shows its freely available for free with no license issues."
BitTorrent could say the same. A copier isn't off the hook by
The IT Crowd (Score:5, Informative)
You wouldn't steal a Policeman's helmet [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Typefaces are not Copyrightable (Score:5, Insightful)
Typefaces are not copyrightable in the US. The font file is copyrightable, but unless the "clone font" is just literally the same files just renamed or something, it's perfectly legal. It is common for fonts to be "cloned" by re-creating the font outlines in font authoring software. I'm guessing this is the case here because they were able to tell it was specifically *that* clone font, so there must be some distinctive change they made when tracing the original font.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The look of the font is not copyrightable. The actual typeface itself is. Font foundries, which predate computers by centuries, have long existed by selling font blocks used when typesetting. They got another boost thanks to the Linotype machines which produced lines of type (hence Linotype) using font blocks that impressed hot lead. Those lines of lead type were then arranged into blocks for printing newspapers and such.
And later on those same foundries sold their typefaces for typewriters
The shape of the
Re: (Score:2)
The Bitstream Font Collection included with CorelDRAW! and later versions of WordPerfect included around 80% pirated fonts. The fonts had glyphs and geometry data that was exactly the same but only the font names in the TTF files were changed.
It was called the biggest font heist in computing history.
NBC Universal was sued for $3.5M for just this (Score:3)
lies, this is false on it's face (Score:2)
A clone font is not piracy, it's a clone, and it's completely legal. There is no irony here and no piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't piracy distribution of clones? Piracy isn't a legal term. a cloned font is not piracy but a cloned movie is, right?
No one is going to confuse your post with a good faith effort to engage. You sound just like the people who say downloading isn't theft. Dancing with the meanings of words isn't very interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
YES, it is!
Far from completely legal; you have to get a judge to rule that it's 20% different or more because that is the USA's legal history. Making almost exactly the same font almost as if you just imported/exported the file or converted the file is not legal.
Correction. no. (Score:2)
NOT IN THE USA. Typefaces have an exemption. However, for some odd reason a mathematical description of a typeface is complex enough they classify it as software and so software rights apply to font files. Which then does mean that you can convert the file and change the splines a bit simply thru that process and it's "new software." It gets more odd in that computer authored files are not human "programmed" so then they shouldn't get any more rights than an AI does...
Design patents are allowed in the USA
Clone or pirated? (Score:2)
The article seems unclear. First they say its pirated, then a free clone was used, then pirated again, then it even says its a pirated clone. So what is the situation for the font that was actually used?
So the Font, and the Music.... (Score:2)
Did they pay for the actors, and voiceover artist ?
Just Van Rossum (Score:2)
That's pretty amazing, normally it takes a whole team of typographers and experts to design a font.
Intellectual "property" is not tangible property (Score:3)
In the USA, secure ownership of tangible property is taken as a given in the Constitution and can not be ended, except by due process (5th Amendment).
OTOH, intellectual "property" is treated as a whole separate concept in the Constitution, showing that tangible and intangible property are not regarded as equivalent: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Now, the key things to note:
1. The reason for this clause is "To promote the Progress..." in general.
2. The rights are granted (i.e. are not inherent), and that only for a "limited Times".
Recognizing that perpetual rights will not promote progress, and nor will no rights at all. So there is an optimum time duration which both incentivizes inventors and at the same time promotes societal progress. This duration is left up to Congress.
It is my contention that Congress has extended the duration way beyond the point where progress is promoted or maximized. In fact, progress is retarded, otherwise we would not suffer flogging the Marvel and Star Wars franchises to death, or drug patents that permit exorbitant profit at the expense of the sick, for example.
As our government has so abjectly failed in its duty to promote progress, I do not feel bound by copyright or patent legislation. If I find myself on a jury in such a case, nullification will be immediate.
Anyone who pretends that piracy is the same as car theft, is a scoundrel. They should be dismissed with contempt.
Re: Intellectual "property" is not tangible proper (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks that people wouldn't make free copies of a car for their own use, hasn't spent much time around people. If a matter-duplicator ever becomes available, there are going to be a lot of pirated cars driving around :)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks that people wouldn't make free copies of a car for their own use, hasn't spent much time around people. If a matter-duplicator ever becomes available, there are going to be a lot of pirated cars driving around :)
Watch out for the one with the RIAA vanity plate and the key marks down the side.
Re: (Score:2)
It is my contention that Congress has extended the duration way beyond the point where progress is promoted or maximized.
I agree.
As our government has so abjectly failed in its duty to promote progress, I do not feel bound by copyright or patent legislation.
I think this is reasonable if the copyright or patent in question is sufficiently old that an IP regime that would promote progress would no longer apply to it. If the movie/game/whatever is only, say, five years old, though, it's clear that a good IP regime would still be protecting it. If you feel free to infringe the copyright anyway, then I don't believe you're actually taking a moral stand here, you're just concocting an elaborate excuse to make yourself feel better about your amoral act.
If
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
But I have little sympathy for those corporations who take advantage of the system broken on their behalf, when they whine about theft of their property. People (not you!) are losing respect for the law, which is a poor outcome for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't buy a car, but I could loan one (Score:2)
I wouldn't steal a car nor would I buy one, but I could loan one for free.
Do we even need to own cars? Wouldn't it be better if cars would just belong to everyone and everyone would be free to use them?