@Thierry Blancpain Of course our fonts are easily pirated. I keep trying to say this in an offhand way and I can see now that I just need to spell it out.
It is a fundamental truth that we can not stop bad actors from stealing our fonts. It is equally a fundamental truth that it is worth our effort to help well meaning people who start of from the position of trying to license fonts properly to be more aware.
Therefore, we don't require licensees to take security measures to protect their licensed fonts as a means to limit piracy. We do so as a means to increase awareness among those associated with the licensee (staff, contractors, etc) that fonts are valuable commodities that should be treated carefully. Remember that a lot of people only understand they need to get a license and don't understand that continued maintenance that might be required.
We see a direct correlation (I don't have enough data to prove causation) between licensees with bad font license management culture and license infringement. The inverse also seems to be true based on the high percentage of licensees who go through a license enforcement with us and then make additional large license purchases.
Therefore, if we use the opportunity presented by the interactions we have with licensees to make them more thoughtful and respectful of fonts then it seems likely to be useful to us over time.
TNR (or other typical text faces) are systems of parts designed to work together. When I was younger, experimenting with typefaces, I thought some parts of old typefaces looked superfluous and tried removing some of the parts in Fontographer—the ear of a g, the ball of the y etc. The results revealed that each part that was taken away created new problems. Like pulling parts out of a machine without knowing how the machine worked. When the g was followed by other letters, there was now a distracting gap. The y was easily mistaken for a v and no longer fit nicely with the g.
To say a typeface with a lot of parts means those parts are superfluous is like saying only minimalist fixie bikes are ideal—bikes with shifters, 2 brakes, lights, fenders and reflectors are worse because they have too many parts. The fixie might look clever but the other bike is a more comfortable ride.
It's irrelevant to your point, but DIN stands for Deutsches Institut für Normung.
I had been told explicitly that it stands for *both* and which one is meant depends on whether you are referring to the organization/noun or using an adjective (the latter as in the standards). The organization is the Deutsches Institut für Normung (noun) as you say, and standards promulgated *by* that organization are Deutsche Industrie Norm (adjective) standards.
This is somewhat a different topic, but interestingly I've seen that, over the long term, it seems interest in fonts has trended down in the last 20 years. Here's the long view on Google Trends is from 2004 to today.
I wouldn't equate frequency in Google search terms as a straight equivalence with 'interest'. If we look at what has happened during this period in terms of the concentration of font distribution channels and the success of those channels in marketing themselves, it's possible that fewer people are searching for 'fonts' because they've already figured out where they go to find fonts.
Here’s the first page of the Peterborough Chronicle with two examples of thorn and one example of Eth circled.
The Wikipedia article on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives several links to digitized versions of the complete manuscript which you could scour through. Note that both should be very common since Þa/Þan commonly begin sentences (with eth and thorn used fairly interchangeably).
Also a word of warning: if you do decide to go through some old English Manuscripts, be careful not to confuse thorn and wynn — they often look quite similar if you’re not accustomed to dealing with such texts.