There was a lively panel discussion at TypeCon 2008 on the issue of embedded fonts on the web [an overview can be found here]. A pretty controversial subject because there are 2 problems that need to be solved — the web designer’s desire to use typography, and the type designer’s desire to be paid for their work. However these are not technical problems, like every other content provider coming to grips with modern computing the questions are not “how can we do it”, but have rather become “how do we prevent the piracy of our work.”

A number of solutions were discussed, notable was the announcement of Ascender Corp.’s FontEmbedding.com and Ted Harrison’s (of FontLab) EEULAA. Unfortunately the current wave of discussion seems to be following the music industries failed attempts at Digital Rights Management (DRM). I say failed, as previous attempts have been, but what I mean is fundamentally flawed. The premise being that you can control what someone’s remote machine reads and stores, but the technical reality is that only someone with physical access (with applicable knowledge) has the capacity for absolute dominion over the machine. Or to try and apply it more succinctly to the world of fonts — if my eyes can see the typeface on the screen, the computer can also see the typeface. If the computer can see it, it can scrape it, produce outlines, look up a kerning table and write it out to a different name. All of which may even be legal because you cannot currently copyright a letter form, only the “software package” it comes bundled in. There is no format that can overcome this, just like in the “real world” where you cannot stop someone from cutting out letters in a magazine and creating new words.

But to me it seems there is a difference between music, which is format based, and with something like fonts, which is more application based. Let’s say we look a little more upstream to where designers are actually making choices and making typeface decisions. The vast majority are using applications like InDesign, Illustrator, Flash, Photoshop, etc, in short Adobe. So my question is, if Adobe, or any large application developer is effectively acting as a host system for interaction with copyrighted material, don’t they have a certain obligation to restrict offending material? If YouTube gets a complaint about a video infringing on copyright they take it down. MySpace has certain systems in place that will prevent you from uploading a song that matches the metrics of a known song, can’t such a measure be implemented by Adobe? What if there was a look-up system where they could evaluate the metrics of a particular font being used against those listed in a licensed based registry? Even if they did not want to go that route with enforcement, would they not also be in a better position to gauge usage statistics? They could effectively become the primary means of distribution, payment, and royalties — effectively becoming what iTunes is to music.

Of course this is not a perfect system, there will continue to be technical paths around this.  But if you are looking at ways to stop the “casual” pirate then I think looking upstream at the choke points is a better philosophy then trying to use your finger to plug all the leaks that sprout up. You’re going to have offenders, but the question should be how do I make the best out of the current situation by making the most money off regular customers without restricting and alienating them?