However, complaining that people who make their own product freely available, for whatever reason (be it for demo, ideological, political, etc purposes), is taking away compensation from those who don't make their product freely available doesn't help the cause to get people to pay for things, or their equivalents, they can otherwise get for free. Adobe charges high prices for their tools because they can, and people will pay because it is considered there are no better tools, free or otherwise. People pay for stock photos because it's actually easier and often cheaper to do so rather than risk having to deal with being caught not paying. Trying to convince the engineers who control the format to add DRM bits, which is what the OP was responding to, is exactly the wrong way to go about maintaining control and is a losing battle.
That's almost completely impractical. How would you find out when someone steals your typeface?
Image libraries and photo agencies face a similar problem (I used to work for one.)
Interestingly, one of the well known cases for keeping a trademark is that you make moves to protect it by stopping infringers. In some respects, it makes sense that those who want other, similar kinds of intellectual property protections be subject to the same requirements. Trademarks and copyrights both protect things that don't have hard physical manifestations that provide inherent limits on their reproducibility, so it may be reasonable that they are both afforded the same methods of protection.
Or pay for someone else to do it - but then, how would you enforce it? The costs of hiring a lawyer to threaten to sue would be greater than the money made from selling the typeface.
> There's no DRM on a JPG from Getty or Corbis
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/search/label/watermar...