I think this is a far more reasonable and defendable position than Mark Pilgrim's (albeit unreadable - I second the recommendation of Arc90's Readability). These are simple, achievable actions that will provide type creators with a modicum of protection from font-thieves, without making life hellish for people who want to use fonts legitimately. Sure, it's not absolute protection, but absolute protection is impossible, so let's not waste time trying.
As for the "but stock photos don't need these protections", type is different - a stock photo of a smiling baby is and can only ever be a photo of a baby, and will probably be cropped and aligned and coloured and scaled down and made part of the rest of the layout, effectively unusable for any other purpose and hence not worth stealing. A font can be taken and made into a thousand unrelated things, each just as perfect as the original.
Comments
I think this is a far more reasonable and defendable position than Mark Pilgrim's (albeit unreadable - I second the recommendation of Arc90's Readability). These are simple, achievable actions that will provide type creators with a modicum of protection from font-thieves, without making life hellish for people who want to use fonts legitimately. Sure, it's not absolute protection, but absolute protection is impossible, so let's not waste time trying.
As for the "but stock photos don't need these protections", type is different - a stock photo of a smiling baby is and can only ever be a photo of a baby, and will probably be cropped and aligned and coloured and scaled down and made part of the rest of the layout, effectively unusable for any other purpose and hence not worth stealing. A font can be taken and made into a thousand unrelated things, each just as perfect as the original.