Yeah, integrating Type.World into any self-hosted font site takes like a day for any web dev worth their salt. The documentation is exhaustive; I have a flask sample server that you just need to rewire to your DB; it's all there.
Having a Type.World API endpoint on your website is like having a download page for your customer’s purchased fonts in their user account. You're essentially outputting the same data, but as JSON. (And you need to make the fonts available on request as binaries, too).
I'm not saying it's perfectly simple. It is complicated for anyone who's not a web dev or can hire one, which applies to a lot of small type shops and individuals. Many people can't even fathom the required effort of integrating it into their site, so they don’t even bother. Those are the people that complain but will only accept a 100% turn-key solution.
Anyway, so Type.World is indeed kind of abandoned. If you tried it now you would find that the app is not reacting to the instant update notifications, because I had to rewrite the notification system, which the central server already uses, but got stuck compiling new apps because Python is a dependency mess. I could still make an update of the app, but for who?
But thanks for not asking and just assuming. That's very motivating.
Anyway, the whole idea of Type.World didn't work out, and that's okay. I did learn one important lesson: If it doesn't generate revenue for the the foundries, it's not gonna work. I thought that exactly the open-source part of it would be appealing, but now I think it's more of a burden to the success of the project. There is no trust or interest in open-source in the type industry. People want the convenience of a professional service but at the same time more revenue.
So if I ever work on that new idea, I would make sure to put it on a solid business foundation, which is arguably not my strong side. So yeah, Type.World doesn't have any marketing.
Thanks for posting the background on type.world and I am sorry to hear you’ve been subjected to derogatory treatment on TypeDrawers. To be clear, I certainly did not intend my own comments to be derogatory, and I am sorry if what I wrote came across wrong. I was trying to suggest to Dave a reason why there might not have been a lot of engagement with type.world, and to be clear it might not be the actual reason or necessarily the only reason. It also is not in itself a good reason, and I think the points you made about the lack of willingness to collaborate are very apt. The irony of a tool that focuses on decentralisation is that the people and companies who would need to embrace it—for the tool to progress to a technology—are already too decentralised. Dave is talking about individual foundries integrating type.world into their individual websites, but what percntage of foundries would need to do so before it becomes a paradigmatic shift in the business, supporting something like your FairFonts search engine as something more than another boutique? That’s why I think a collective discussion about technologies is something we need right now, as part of any talk of collaboration and organisation.
I am sorry to hear you’ve been subjected to derogatory treatment on TypeDrawers.
Not here. That was on the typo.social Mastodon server and in other communication channels.
Since you ask for technological solutions explicitly, I should indeed take the time to sketch out the blockchain-based idea, because it's truly elegant technically (which type.world isn't, sadly) and 100% decentralized. I should at least put it out there and get slammed for it
Is there a model for what real operating costs are for resellers?
I doubt you'll see this kind of information made public, because it would make even a 20% platform cut seem like utter exploitation. But a little research and experience with this sort of thing allows you to come up with a very loose per-distributor ballpark figure.
The common line about this is the more money you sink into the distribution operation, the more return you will have. So we want more cut for marketing and site/experience improvements, therefore your next payment will be less. But of course the cut you give up ends up being spent on neither. Gotta love it when the CEO of your favourite distributor gives himself a three-million dollar bonus just before he quits the company.
Wow, I wish this forum software had a way of splitting threads.
Anyway, I think the idea of disallowing contractors is absurd and not worth more discussion. It’s like that meme where someone suggesting we make things a bit better is mocked because they have no choice but to participate in the current system. Before we even get to who can and can’t be a part of this, we would need to figure out what exactly we want “this” to do.
Regarding Type.World, I hesitate because I never know how long these sort of one-person projects are going to be supported; I only have so much time I can spend on non-essential stuff and investing it all into a solution that gets abandoned in a few years just isn’t worth it for me.
I’m posting this here because John Hudson asked specifically for technical proposals, among other. I’ve been contemplating the below for quite some time, but in secret in fear of ridicule, and it feels like a good opportunity to share.
Everything below is based on my reading alone. Not a single line of code has been written.
# Rough sketch for a blockchain-based, decentralized, independent font shop
Okay, this is gonna be a stretch for many people, especially if you think that *blockchain causes the Fentanyl crisis* or *crypto is used by criminals* or *Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme* or such, or you think that everything should stay as it is in general. Then kindly move on to the next proposal and don’t bother. If you’re open to hear new ideas, please stay. But this is gonna be quite the paradigm shift for selling fonts in a way that Type.World wasn’t.
# How did I get here?
While I made Type.World, at a stage where I was already beyond the point of no return, I *did* realize how complicated the backend of Type.World is for the average people. It’s a neat idea, but it’s overwhelming for people to implement on their side, and no less complicated on my side. And I wasn’t truly able to deliver on the decentralization, because there is one central server left that hosts the user accounts, which records which user is subscribed to which outlet’s fonts. The fonts are then hosted and pulled directly from each foundry’s server, but if Type.World was to disappear, the user accounts would be gone initially. It would be cumbersome but possible to re-establish everything using a different server that people could resurrect from the open source code and reconnect each other, but it would be a bit messy.
At the same time I fell in love with blockchain technology from a technical perspective and realized that 90% of the complicated distributed database setup has already been solved by other projects and that I would have to just start using it (and convince people to follow, which is arguably the hardest part here).
# Why blockchain?
So, I don’t know how to break it to you, but blockchains are here to stay. You’re free to reject that, but it won’t help you or anyone.
You need to come to terms with the fact that today, young adults are in decision-making positions who are *native* to blockchains (as far as the conscious part of their lives are concerned).
These are people who have a different understanding of digital ownership than you do.
The digital gaming industry is currently undergoing a strong shift towards blockchain-based game releases where gamers get to *truly* own the assets that they either purchase in-game with real money or earn through playing, investing their time. There have been too many instances where centralized game companies go out of business or otherwise disappear, essentially robbing people of their rightfully earned assets. Gamers are embracing the idea of blockchain-based games where each asset is truly owned by them, recorded on an immutable ledger, and they get to resell it for money if they like, or keep forever.
These gamers will be decision-makers in the design industry before you know it, and they will not understand why they can’t own the fonts and are not allowed to resell them.
Even I don’t understand why I’m not allowed to own fonts, but only an obscure entitlement to a very restrictive usage, and I’m 41.
So in many ways, NFTs behave much more like physical objects than digital objects, and the idea laid out here is a bit like returning to ownable metal type. We’ve been here before.
# Immutable
One of the projects I’m following in the crypto space is called Immutable, an Australian company that’s focussed on delivering blockchain solutions for gaming companies, and they’re the perfect fit for selling fonts as NFTs.
Here’s the biggest paradigm shift of the idea: Fonts become resellable, because NFTs are resellable by nature. But here’s the twist: The publishers get to earn guaranteed royalties on every resale. NFTs created on the Immutable system can technically only be resold on platforms that respect the guaranteed royalties.
So initially, a font NFT would sell for X money, 20% for the platform and 80% for the publisher. Later, users can put up their fonts for resale, asking for Y money plus another 30% markup, of which again 20% go to the platform and 80% to the publisher. (All numbers here are completely made up and only examples)
My idea here is that foundries are not against reselling. They are against infinite copies of their fonts out there that can get resold/shared without them benefitting. NFTs put a stop to that by being non-fungible, and an app similar in user experience to Type.World would be responsible for pulling the files from the internet only for rightful holders of the NFTs.
One problem with NFTs is that there is no easy solution to actually technically gate the release of the asset files to NFT holders. The app would be a weak guard here. Because it would again (have to) be open-source, it would be possible to recreate the extraction process even without the NFTs. (There is a way to *actually* gate the access, called *submarining*, but I haven’t fully gotten into it yet.) It is very easy to token-gate font file assets using a self-implemented centralized server, but then you’re again betting on a centralized service with a single point-of-failure which we’re trying to overcome here. My point here is that today in the age of web fonts, there is no security layer left anymore to restrict the dissemination of commercial fonts into the wild anyway, so there's no much harm in the NFT approach. NFTs provide a legal framework for rightfully owning assets that are otherwise fungible. Such a framework hasn’t existed yet for digital assets.
Another innovation of Immutable is their so-called Passport Wallet, set to be fully released in the near future. With it, they managed to reduce wallet onboarding to an email-based single-sign-on, dramatically streamlining the onboarding process and removing the insecurity that can come with self-custodianship of digital assets (like losing your seed phrase). This is a huge step forward in usability.
# The shop front end
So technically speaking, each foundry would mint NFTs of their fonts on the font shop’s website (just for convenience), and then put them up for sale on one of the NFT marketplaces that are supported by Immutable’s guaranteed royalty system; and it doesn’t matter which one, because they’re all connected. The font shop would then provide a shop website that looks like it’s dedicated to fonts, but in reality it's just a front-end to the existing NFT marketplace infrastructure provided by Immutable and partners.
The font assets are hosted on IPFS, the interplanetary file system. It’s a form of decentral hosting of files where assets are addressed not by a server URL, but by their digital signature, their *hash* key. So a file ID would be ipfs://QmQqzMTavQgT4f4T5v6PWBp7XNKtoPmC9jvn12WPT3gkSE, which can be translated to a web URL of https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQqzMTavQgT4f4T5v6PWBp7XNKtoPmC9jvn12WPT3gkSE (or similar but on another server). It’s a distributed database system.
Nothing in the blockchain space is free, because it’s decentral. There is no one who will pay for your server costs except you, because suddenly you’re not the product anymore that corporations can monetize. So initially the font shop would maybe pay for the asset hosting from the fees, but you as a foundry are encouraged to host the same file somewhere else on IPFS (called *pinning* an asset) and pay for it yourself, *taking responsibility for your own business* and the continued availability of the asset. Since the font shop here is merely a front-end to existing NFT marketplaces, there is *actually* no central font shop anywhere to be found. Someone else can make a similar-looking front-end on another website, and someone else can release a similar app to access the fonts on your computer using the same approach (remember, the app is open-source).
# The shopping user experience
So there would be a website to browse fonts, similar in functionality to the existing store fronts, with type testers, images and all. Once you decide to buy a font, you would log in with your funded wallet and pay. In return, your wallet receives the font ownership NFT. Then you would fire up the app on your computer, again log in with your wallet, and install the font on your computer.
Or, the font shop could also be loaded directly in the app, so that browsing, paying, and installing fonts becomes all the same experience. You can buy a font on your phone in the subway on the way to work, and when you arrive, your computer already has it.
Existing Type.World functionality like receiving font updates etc. would also be supported but I’m gonna skip over the techy part here.
My colleague Eli Heuer envisions a situation where the font NFT is really just a proof-of-ownership that’s not tied to a physical font asset. A back-end (again solved decentrally via NFTs) would see the proof-of-ownership and distribute whichever font file version suits your environment the best; think fonts that work around bugs in Indesign, or different web fonts for different browsers, or a different font format for VR/AR space, or what have you. Technology evolves, the ownership stays.
You may transfer the font to another wallet, be it your own or someone else’s (upon which of course the font asset gets deleted from your computer, because the app instance loses the ownership rights). So you can sell a font NFT to your friend in return for a dinner, any favor, or really anything or nothing. You can do that because it’s *your* font. Alternatively, you can put up the font for sale through the app, which means it goes back on the NFT marketplace, and people can buy the font for whatever you ask plus the markup which goes back to the font shop and the publisher. Fonts may get resold indefinitely, and publishers would keep earning their cut indefinitely.
There is no human intermediary in selling the NFTs, not even the NFT marketplace. The smart contracts that make Ethereum what it is are the intermediaries. They exchange your money for the NFT and instantly distribute the revenue to all involved parties.
The font publishers are the rightful and legal vendors of the fonts, and the font shop merely channels the customers towards them. NFTs would get eternally and immutably recorded on the blockchain as belonging to your wallet, until sold or transferred, while the font assets are recorded on IPFS until everyone stops paying for them. So there simply isn’t a font shop that can disappear.
# A different market
So, you’ve noticed how this sounds quite a bit different from what we’re used to today.
On top of fonts becoming resellable, the pricing model could and will possibly change. Because with NFTs you can choose to issue only 9999 copies, or 99, or just a single one, and then the market would discover their price, not you. Fonts could become auctions, and designers and firms could start to compete to use highly regarded but scarce fonts. I’m not saying that I’m a fan of that model (actually I’m not), but it could and probably will happen. You can still choose to mint a lot of copies of your fonts and sell them for "normal" prices.
On top of all this, I want to introduce you to [this blog post](https://www.nan.xyz/txt/libre-type-as-a-veblen-good) by Eli Heuer, who believes that the font industry is heading towards this direction: Fonts will either become Veblen Goods (highly expensive, scarce, sought-after), or Public Goods, such as OFL fonts already are. In both cases, NFTs would be the vehicle to fund their development. This probably means that more fonts than today will become public goods, which is not a problem for many authors as long as their work gets funded by *someone*. Eli’s direction is to establish a revenue channel for libre font creation outside of Google Fonts, while I’m interested in the commercial equivalent.
And I’m afraid that I have to agree with him. This all sounds extremely inevitable and just a case of when and who, not if. To anyone with a slightly-above-average understanding of blockchains, the design outlined here is self-evident.
So you can bash me all you want, but some day you’ll see exactly what I outlined here be a reality, except it may have been someone else making it and quite possibly without ever reading this. Remember that the demographics are working against you, and the technology for all this is already in place today.
Also, this idea shouldn’t have to irritate skeptics, because it’s not asking to become a replacement for existing revenue channels. Instead, it would act as an *additional* revenue channel for all those customers that value its design, and revenue would alternate freely between the traditional and the modern approach as demand fluctuates. But at least there would be *one* viable channel to sell fonts in the metaverse before the tipping point is reached and you’re not onboard.
There are of course a couple of problems with this approach. While book-keeping in general is automated because every transaction is already recorded on the blockchain, business accounting may still be a problem. For instance, Germany accepts blockchain-based gains and losses as the result of your transactions and taxes you accordingly, but that also means that invoices must become obsolete, because otherwise we may have a double-taxation situation. There may be countries where such conduct is not possible or illegal. But it’s the responsibility of those countries to fix those problems. The EU has just agreed on a rather progressive regulatory framework for blockchain business, and other countries will follow suit. The blockchain network effect is already too strong for a country like the US to keep their backwards stance on blockchain business forever.
Another problem is licensing. It won’t disappear, only change. And I don’t know much about licensing except that it *can* be a complicated business and I’m not sure today whether *all* licensing situations can be covered by the above model.
The biggest difference for me here is that this would be a viable business model that people could trust, where Type.World wasn’t.
So this proposal seems to exclude almost everyone already within arms reach of making a living drawing type.
I didn’t spell it out, but the distinction for contract workers would not apply to those who had worked for Big Tech in the past, but for those who wished to be members of the new IATD.
If you join the IATD, you can no longer work for Big Tech, payroll or contract, although you may still have them work for you, as distributors.
I find the idea of excluding designers who take “big company” commissions startling.
The fault line is between commissioned work and self-published work. Look at it this way: if Big Tech can choke out indie income from royalties, then they can get commissioned work for less. And by commissioning a typeface for a one-time fee, they will not have to pay ongoing royalties for reselling licences for that typeface, had it been indie-published. It’s a vicious circle.
But that is the systemic nature of the beast, and while it may seem that individual “rights” to do business with whoever one chooses are sacrosanct, some of that would have to be sacrificed to change the system.
As I see it, the IATD’s primary concern is indie royalties, and if this means that commissioned work for distributors is considered scabbing, so be it.
If you join the IATD, you can no longer work for Big Tech, payroll or contract
So you’re asking me to willfully abandon my primary source of income to join an association that has a completely empty track record of helping me secure alternative income the next month?
I have to admit I do have a visceral reaction to "blockchain" technologies, but... (posting this in the hope that it might help others with the same visceral reaction) before there was the blockchain, there were a whole series of distributed/decentralized databases and data-transfer protocols.
It wasn't called "blockchain" then, it was called "peer-to-peer", and it powered Skype and Napster and BitTorrent and various other things. (There was even Freenet, an implementation of HTTP on top of peer-to-peer protocols so you could have web servers and web sites whose content was distributed throughout the network - even if it was mainly used for kiddy porn.)
Although the blockchain is claimed to be the foundation of "Web 3.0", peer-to-peer protocols were a massive part of Web 2.0; it's literally the same damn thing but with a nasty crypto-dudebro smell. I remember Tim O'Reilly raving about this stuff 20 years ago now.
In short, I think running a decentralised font distribution network on the blockchain is a bloody stupid idea; I also think that a decentralised font distribution network over a peer-to-peer network is actually really, really smart.
When you associate you exclude those who don't fit your "rule of association". Be it a religious one (the worst), a philosophical one (copy of the worst like Freemasonry), a "Rotary", "Lions", "Porsche", "Harley-Davidson" or other "fan club".
I notice here the same kind of association/exclusion rules. That's a pity!
I'm an amateur typedrawer, never asking a cent for my fonts. They are free as this is my personal choice. Will I be accepted as a member of such an association? I really don't care.
Meanwhile, in the type designer domain, I think there is a place for an association to try to struggle against piracy.
I was baffled to see one of my fonts (remember, an amateur font, free for personal use) offered on a dozen of pirate sites, even for 13$ on one.
So, I support your project. But don't exclude! Unless for very, very good reasons. For instance, be careful with a "Trump" typeface!
Not sure the industry needs another big association. It needs a variety of working groups that coalesce around areas of interest. Scale brings bureaucracy and slow pace. You need fast-working and nimble groups that have small scale goals and tasks. Think of NGOs rather than the UN.
Also, would be nice if there is a word limit on posts on the forum.
I don’t understand how what I described isn’t peer-to-peer. These are the layers:
* The database layer is peer-to-peer, consisting of a network of nodes that contain the data, who constantly update and validate each other’s data, of which you can and should run a node yourself to secure the network and trust the data. * The file system is peer-to-peer, consisting of a network of nodes that each mirror a subsets of files, of which you can and should run a node yourself to secure the network and increase the data redundancy. In IPFS, the concept of self-hosting is the only concept that exists. You self-host a file either on your own server, or pay someone for the convenience of not having to do it yourself, but it’s still your responsibility alone. If you stop paying, the file disappears, because no one will do anything for you for free. * The font sale happens directly between seller and buyer.
It really doesn’t get any more peer-to-peer, all the while reducing internet traffic because nodes are also a CDN and you connect to your closest one.
So the only notable difference is the immutability and transparency of the database layer. That’s a plus in my opinion, because it removes the option of anyone doing any shady business, of which I’m not a fan. I noticed that it was brought up here earlier that you can’t look into the distributor’s books. The essence of the blockchain is the trust, which I consider a strong argument
I don’t think many consumers of type would want to buy it via blockchain tech. It may sound exciting to a few type designers but if consumers were willing to use that tech to purchase things* I suspect we would have seen it somewhere by now.
*By “things,” I mean things that existed before blockchain, so not NFTs.
I don’t understand how what I described isn’t peer-to-peer.
It's exactly peer-to-peer, that's what I was saying. Describing it as "blockchain" makes me cringe, but describing it as "peer-to-peer" makes me a lot more comfortable (even though it's exactly the same thing)...
I’m not sure how many here are gamers, but let me dispel this nonsense:
The digital gaming industry is currently undergoing a strong shift towards blockchain-based game releases where gamers get to *truly* own the assets that they either purchase in-game with real money or earn through playing, investing their time. There have been too many instances where centralized game companies go out of business or otherwise disappear, essentially robbing people of their rightfully earned assets. Gamers are embracing the idea of blockchain-based games where each asset is truly owned by them, recorded on an immutable ledger, and they get to resell it for money if they like, or keep forever.
Gamers *hate* anything crypto/blockchain related. There are very few actual games, let alone popular ones, that incorporate this tech. Major publishers backed away real quick from a mere notion of using them after customer backlash.
Even if you did “own” an “asset” in a game (weapon, skin, vehicle, etc) it would immediately cease if the game’s owner went out of business, disappeared or server was pulled. Congrats, you now own a database entry. Lots of games get sunset and associated assets are rendered useless.
I don’t think many consumers of type would want to buy it via blockchain tech. It may sound exciting to a few type designers but if consumers were willing to use that tech to purchase things* I suspect we would have seen it somewhere by now.
*By “things,” I mean things that existed before blockchain, so not NFTs.
I think the reason we haven't seen much outside self referential commodities is that it requires bridging the chain property with off chain - real world - property.
Thanks for taking the time to write-up your blockchain idea, @yanone. As you say, the fact that it involves blockchain might be the hardest sell, but from a first read—and I intend to read it several more times—there are interesting ideas present.
I think my concern with it is that although, as you say, it is already the case that digital fonts are poorly protected against easy copying and distribution, the use licensing model provides a way in which what a customer may do with a font can be legally circumscribed by license terms, and unlicensed use is fairly easy to identify. Once a digital font, by virtue of being purchased as a non-fungible asset, becomes something like a case pf metal type that is owned by the customer rather than licensed, what legal restrictions exist against copying, redistributing, producing and distributing derivative works, and other things possibly circumscribed by use licensing? You have identified specifically reselling of the font as a benefit of the blockchain idea, but some use licenses already permit resale and with specific conditions relating to ceasing of use by the reseller and deletion of all copies of the font in their control. In the case of a non-fungible font, while official ownership of the digital asset can be sold—and even with royalties on the resale passed back to the original foundry/designer, which is a nice idea—, what circumscribes continued use of the digital asset by the person who no longer owns it or, indeed, anyone else who doesn’t own it.
Use-based licensing still seems to me the only halfway decent model of monetising easily reproducible creative works, and that is the case whether the rights involved are an ‘n obscure entitlement to a very restrictive usage’ or OFL: they’re all based on recognising that value is derived from use, and the more useful a font the more valuable it is (ending in the paradox that the most valuable fonts are sometimes the ones that are free).
On the subject of exclusion: I wonder if you would be willing to re-post your blockchain concept in a different TypeDrawers board (Type Business?), @yanone, where it can be more openly discussed, independent of the topic of this thread? Feel free to edit it in the process, of course, and add of remove anything that strikes you as appropriate for a public posting.
Regarding Type.World, I hesitate because I never know how long these sort of one-person projects are going to be supported; I only have so much time I can spend on non-essential stuff and investing it all into a solution that gets abandoned in a few years just isn’t worth it for me.
Even if you did “own” an “asset” in a game (weapon, skin, vehicle, etc) it would immediately cease if the game’s owner went out of business, disappeared or server was pulled. Congrats, you now own a database entry. Lots of games get sunset and associated assets are rendered useless.
James, since type.world is almost or entirely libre software, if you or anyone invests in adoption and Yanone bails, everything is there to take it forward by yourself, or if there's stuff people were indeed using that they don't have access to, I expect Yanone would be happy to provide a smooth transition. There is only so many hours a day, sure, but as Yanone said, adoption of type.world into an exiting foundry web cart should be a weekend project.
Kris, similarly, assuming a decentralized and independent chain, the continued access and control of the database entry beyond the life of the initial game isn't useless, because other games can interact with it. The database lives on.
It may sound exciting to a few type designers but if consumers were willing to use that tech to purchase things* I suspect we would have seen it somewhere by now.
I want to point out a logical fallacy with that: Any such a technology, be it Type.World or a peer-to-peer marketplace, needs to exist and be implemented before it can be used and requested by consumers.
You said yourself you don’t want to integrate Type.World. What you’re saying is like putting it on your own customers to not want to use Type.World before it exists.
Publishers need to 1) identify the opportunities, 2) move forward with integrating them, before customers can benefit and in turn the business can improve, regardless of which proposal.
I don’t mean to disregard the blockchain (or, rather, peer-to-peer) idea entirely, but most people don’t want to “own” (much less resell) fonts. They just want to use them. So I have to agree with John that the core value to track is font usage.
I don’t mean to disregard the blockchain (or, rather, peer-to-peer) idea entirely, but most people don’t want to “own” (much less resell) fonts. They just want to use them. So I have to agree with John that the core value to track is font usage.
Sure, but owning a NFT isn't the same as owning a thing. I would even say, since data is inherently non-rival, it can not BE owned; the closest is remaining private. Once made public, it exists in a natural state of common ownership by each person who accesses it, and keeping things from being made public is increasingly difficult.
What is colloquially referred to as 'ownership' of data is the ownership of government-granted rights such as copyrights or trademarks; with that made explicit, then, it seems logical to me to see blockchains as sort of weird reflection of privately-granted rights - over public database entries.
The use of those database entries as money as an alternative to the government-granted entries in databases decentralized across Barclays, Chase, etc, is currently the primary use-case, isn't it?
Once a digital font, by virtue of being purchased as a non-fungible asset, becomes something like a case pf metal type that is owned by the customer rather than licensed, what legal restrictions exist against copying, redistributing, producing and distributing derivative works, and other things possibly circumscribed by use licensing?
As I understood it, the proposal isn't for "non fungible fonts" but "non fungible tokens that are receipts to restrictive font license terms", and so its nothing like a case of metal type, and exactly like a restrictive font license whose terms allow resale.
The usage permitted by the license is available to the older of the receipt, and when they transfer the receipt to someone else, their usage permissions go out the door, they ought to remove all copies etc etc - just the same.
As I understood it, the proposal isn't for "non fungible fonts" but "non fungible tokens that are receipts to restrictive font license terms", and so its nothing like a case of metal type, and exactly like a restrictive font license whose terms allow resale.
That makes some sense, Dave, but what @yanone wrote was:
So in many ways, NFTs behave much more like physical objects than digital objects, and the idea laid out here is a bit like returning to ownable metal type.
...we would need to figure out what exactly we want “this” to do.
I guess what it would need to do is try to address the primary grievance, which evidently is dissatisfaction with royalty-based distribution platforms and their increasing control/strongarming/abuse of the toll fees. This is a brief that is much more complicated than it sounds. What's been tried so far, over and over, is adding more and more platforms. The results have been pretty unimpressive every time. Check the falsely attributed definition of insanity there.
The distribution platforms are just a way for us, independents or otherwise, to make our fonts available to people who may want to license them. So what if we collectively went to those people and told them Hey, these guys are just taking too much cut from us, so we'd appreciate it if you licensed the fonts directly from their publishers/designers/foundries instead of the distributor you're familiar with? You've got to believe people who actively look to buy font licenses are reasonable and would most likely rather not be part of a shakedown transaction/practice.
I remember in the early-ish years when the internet and software booms were crossing paths, all the software companies talked about "user education" and "evangelizing". These days all that stuff is bundled under some kind of targeted advertising umbrella. So basically this collective thing would probably be best formed as some kind of mom-and-pop, buy-direct, support-the-independent trade/lobby group of folks who are willing to dissociate themselves either partially or fully from the mainstream distributors with whom they have grievances. The dissociation part would be the sticking point for most of us. But I tell you: I've tried it myself, and I couldn't be happier with the results. The distribution channels have increasingly become little more than costly, privately-run and quite rigged search engines for people who already know which fonts they want to license, so why not use the main (free) highways instead of the toll bridges to lead them directly to you.
Of course, this whole thing is just talk until some people get together and come up with a plan, road map, cost/time risks, guidelines, etc. Human nature being what it is, most of us will be on the fence until whatever the group aims for seems to be within reach, then it just may grow into something bigger. I'm sure Dave can get us some kind of targeted advertising deal with the gods of digital marketing
The distribution platforms are just a way for us, independents or otherwise, to make our fonts available to people who may want to license them. So what if we collectively went to those people and told them ‘Hey, these guys are just taking too much cut from us...’
If it were that simple, there would be no distribution platforms, at least not for foundries that have their own online licensing platforms integrated into their websites, which I would say is one of the definitions of being a foundry these days (as distinct from someone who sells only through distributors).
Foundries use distributors to access more potential customers than they can reach directly and, in the case of established distribution platforms, to try to leverage an existing platform customer base and apparently effective marketing strategies. If it were possible to directly communicate with all the customers of a distribution platform, who would use distrbutors?
Something like an advertising campaign to encourage customers to buy direct from foundries seems likely to have limited impact, because there is no clearly associated action path, at least not one that competes with the convenience of one-stop shopping at a big distribution platform like MyFonts.
Comments
Having a Type.World API endpoint on your website is like having a download page for your customer’s purchased fonts in their user account. You're essentially outputting the same data, but as JSON. (And you need to make the fonts available on request as binaries, too).
I'm not saying it's perfectly simple. It is complicated for anyone who's not a web dev or can hire one, which applies to a lot of small type shops and individuals. Many people can't even fathom the required effort of integrating it into their site, so they don’t even bother. Those are the people that complain but will only accept a 100% turn-key solution.
Anyway, so Type.World is indeed kind of abandoned. If you tried it now you would find that the app is not reacting to the instant update notifications, because I had to rewrite the notification system, which the central server already uses, but got stuck compiling new apps because Python is a dependency mess. I could still make an update of the app, but for who?
But thanks for not asking and just assuming. That's very motivating.
Anyway, the whole idea of Type.World didn't work out, and that's okay. I did learn one important lesson: If it doesn't generate revenue for the the foundries, it's not gonna work. I thought that exactly the open-source part of it would be appealing, but now I think it's more of a burden to the success of the project. There is no trust or interest in open-source in the type industry. People want the convenience of a professional service but at the same time more revenue.
So if I ever work on that new idea, I would make sure to put it on a solid business foundation, which is arguably not my strong side. So yeah, Type.World doesn't have any marketing.
Thanks for posting the background on type.world and I am sorry to hear you’ve been subjected to derogatory treatment on TypeDrawers. To be clear, I certainly did not intend my own comments to be derogatory, and I am sorry if what I wrote came across wrong. I was trying to suggest to Dave a reason why there might not have been a lot of engagement with type.world, and to be clear it might not be the actual reason or necessarily the only reason. It also is not in itself a good reason, and I think the points you made about the lack of willingness to collaborate are very apt. The irony of a tool that focuses on decentralisation is that the people and companies who would need to embrace it—for the tool to progress to a technology—are already too decentralised. Dave is talking about individual foundries integrating type.world into their individual websites, but what percntage of foundries would need to do so before it becomes a paradigmatic shift in the business, supporting something like your FairFonts search engine as something more than another boutique? That’s why I think a collective discussion about technologies is something we need right now, as part of any talk of collaboration and organisation.
Not here. That was on the typo.social Mastodon server and in other communication channels.
Since you ask for technological solutions explicitly, I should indeed take the time to sketch out the blockchain-based idea, because it's truly elegant technically (which type.world isn't, sadly) and 100% decentralized. I should at least put it out there and get slammed for it
The common line about this is the more money you sink into the distribution operation, the more return you will have. So we want more cut for marketing and site/experience improvements, therefore your next payment will be less. But of course the cut you give up ends up being spent on neither. Gotta love it when the CEO of your favourite distributor gives himself a three-million dollar bonus just before he quits the company.
If you join the IATD, you can no longer work for Big Tech, payroll or contract, although you may still have them work for you, as distributors.
@Ruixi Zhang
The fault line is between commissioned work and self-published work.
Look at it this way: if Big Tech can choke out indie income from royalties, then they can get commissioned work for less.
And by commissioning a typeface for a one-time fee, they will not have to pay ongoing royalties for reselling licences for that typeface, had it been indie-published.
It’s a vicious circle.
But that is the systemic nature of the beast, and while it may seem that individual “rights” to do business with whoever one chooses are sacrosanct, some of that would have to be sacrificed to change the system.
As I see it, the IATD’s primary concern is indie royalties, and if this means that commissioned work for distributors is considered scabbing, so be it.
So you’re asking me to willfully abandon my primary source of income to join an association that has a completely empty track record of helping me secure alternative income the next month?
That's a pretty bold strategy, I must say.
It wasn't called "blockchain" then, it was called "peer-to-peer", and it powered Skype and Napster and BitTorrent and various other things. (There was even Freenet, an implementation of HTTP on top of peer-to-peer protocols so you could have web servers and web sites whose content was distributed throughout the network - even if it was mainly used for kiddy porn.)
Although the blockchain is claimed to be the foundation of "Web 3.0", peer-to-peer protocols were a massive part of Web 2.0; it's literally the same damn thing but with a nasty crypto-dudebro smell. I remember Tim O'Reilly raving about this stuff 20 years ago now.
In short, I think running a decentralised font distribution network on the blockchain is a bloody stupid idea; I also think that a decentralised font distribution network over a peer-to-peer network is actually really, really smart.
When you associate you exclude those who don't fit your "rule of association". Be it a religious one (the worst), a philosophical one (copy of the worst like Freemasonry), a "Rotary", "Lions", "Porsche", "Harley-Davidson" or other "fan club".
I notice here the same kind of association/exclusion rules. That's a pity!
I'm an amateur typedrawer, never asking a cent for my fonts. They are free as this is my personal choice. Will I be accepted as a member of such an association? I really don't care.
Meanwhile, in the type designer domain, I think there is a place for an association to try to struggle against piracy.
I was baffled to see one of my fonts (remember, an amateur font, free for personal use) offered on a dozen of pirate sites, even for 13$ on one.
So, I support your project. But don't exclude! Unless for very, very good reasons. For instance, be careful with a "Trump" typeface!
I have no concerns about that plan!
Also, would be nice if there is a word limit on posts on the forum.
I don’t understand how what I described isn’t peer-to-peer. These are the layers:
* The database layer is peer-to-peer, consisting of a network of nodes that contain the data, who constantly update and validate each other’s data, of which you can and should run a node yourself to secure the network and trust the data.
* The file system is peer-to-peer, consisting of a network of nodes that each mirror a subsets of files, of which you can and should run a node yourself to secure the network and increase the data redundancy. In IPFS, the concept of self-hosting is the only concept that exists. You self-host a file either on your own server, or pay someone for the convenience of not having to do it yourself, but it’s still your responsibility alone. If you stop paying, the file disappears, because no one will do anything for you for free.
* The font sale happens directly between seller and buyer.
It really doesn’t get any more peer-to-peer, all the while reducing internet traffic because nodes are also a CDN and you connect to your closest one.
So the only notable difference is the immutability and transparency of the database layer. That’s a plus in my opinion, because it removes the option of anyone doing any shady business, of which I’m not a fan. I noticed that it was brought up here earlier that you can’t look into the distributor’s books. The essence of the blockchain is the trust, which I consider a strong argument
*By “things,” I mean things that existed before blockchain, so not NFTs.
There are people working on that, like https://Matterum.com
I think my concern with it is that although, as you say, it is already the case that digital fonts are poorly protected against easy copying and distribution, the use licensing model provides a way in which what a customer may do with a font can be legally circumscribed by license terms, and unlicensed use is fairly easy to identify. Once a digital font, by virtue of being purchased as a non-fungible asset, becomes something like a case pf metal type that is owned by the customer rather than licensed, what legal restrictions exist against copying, redistributing, producing and distributing derivative works, and other things possibly circumscribed by use licensing? You have identified specifically reselling of the font as a benefit of the blockchain idea, but some use licenses already permit resale and with specific conditions relating to ceasing of use by the reseller and deletion of all copies of the font in their control. In the case of a non-fungible font, while official ownership of the digital asset can be sold—and even with royalties on the resale passed back to the original foundry/designer, which is a nice idea—, what circumscribes continued use of the digital asset by the person who no longer owns it or, indeed, anyone else who doesn’t own it.
Use-based licensing still seems to me the only halfway decent model of monetising easily reproducible creative works, and that is the case whether the rights involved are an ‘n obscure entitlement to a very restrictive usage’ or OFL: they’re all based on recognising that value is derived from use, and the more useful a font the more valuable it is (ending in the paradox that the most valuable fonts are sometimes the ones that are free).
Kris, similarly, assuming a decentralized and independent chain, the continued access and control of the database entry beyond the life of the initial game isn't useless, because other games can interact with it. The database lives on.
I want to point out a logical fallacy with that: Any such a technology, be it Type.World or a peer-to-peer marketplace, needs to exist and be implemented before it can be used and requested by consumers.
You said yourself you don’t want to integrate Type.World. What you’re saying is like putting it on your own customers to not want to use Type.World before it exists.
Publishers need to 1) identify the opportunities, 2) move forward with integrating them, before customers can benefit and in turn the business can improve, regardless of which proposal.
Sure, but owning a NFT isn't the same as owning a thing. I would even say, since data is inherently non-rival, it can not BE owned; the closest is remaining private. Once made public, it exists in a natural state of common ownership by each person who accesses it, and keeping things from being made public is increasingly difficult.
What is colloquially referred to as 'ownership' of data is the ownership of government-granted rights such as copyrights or trademarks; with that made explicit, then, it seems logical to me to see blockchains as sort of weird reflection of privately-granted rights - over public database entries.
The use of those database entries as money as an alternative to the government-granted entries in databases decentralized across Barclays, Chase, etc, is currently the primary use-case, isn't it?
As I understood it, the proposal isn't for "non fungible fonts" but "non fungible tokens that are receipts to restrictive font license terms", and so its nothing like a case of metal type, and exactly like a restrictive font license whose terms allow resale.
The usage permitted by the license is available to the older of the receipt, and when they transfer the receipt to someone else, their usage permissions go out the door, they ought to remove all copies etc etc - just the same.
The UK has an "Artist Resale Right" that is similar to the smart contract logic Yanone described, btw: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/artists-resale-right
That makes some sense, Dave, but what @yanone wrote was:
I'm sure Dave can get us some kind of targeted advertising deal with the gods of digital marketing
Foundries use distributors to access more potential customers than they can reach directly and, in the case of established distribution platforms, to try to leverage an existing platform customer base and apparently effective marketing strategies. If it were possible to directly communicate with all the customers of a distribution platform, who would use distrbutors?
Something like an advertising campaign to encourage customers to buy direct from foundries seems likely to have limited impact, because there is no clearly associated action path, at least not one that competes with the convenience of one-stop shopping at a big distribution platform like MyFonts.