mark@epsoft.UUCP (Mark Chamberlain) (04/11/91)
I've recently built up a fairly decent ATM library of fonts under Windows 3. Now these are all Adobe Type 1 fonts - how can I use them on my NeXT? I have a set of files with pfb and pfm extensions - how do I build these into .font files? TIA, Mark ---- Mark Chamberlain, Epsilon Software Limited, London, England uunet!ukc!epsoft!mark
glang@henry (Gary Lang) (04/16/91)
In article <9104110216.AA19711@epsoft> mark@epsoft.UUCP (Mark Chamberlain) writes: > I've recently built up a fairly decent ATM library of fonts under > Windows 3. Now these are all Adobe Type 1 fonts - how can I use them > on my NeXT? I have a set of files with pfb and pfm extensions - how > do I build these into .font files? > > TIA, Mark > ---- > Mark Chamberlain, Epsilon Software Limited, London, England > uunet!ukc!epsoft!mark For starters buy a copy form Adobe; it's illegal for you to use them on your Windows AND NeXT machines. Pay for the software you use please. That said, I too would likek to know how to do it since I'm retiring my PC now that I've got a FAX modem and Framemaker for my cube. -g
cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (04/17/91)
Path: helios!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!autodesk!henry
From: glang@henry (Gary Lang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Date: 15 Apr 91 19:02:39 GMT
References: <9104110216.AA19711@epsoft>
Sender: news@Autodesk.COM
Lines: 19
In article <3973@autodesk.COM> glang@henry (Gary Lang) writes:
I too would likek to know [... etc ...]
your sendmail has munged your email address
--
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster,
and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzscheasmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (04/19/91)
glang@henry (Gary Lang) writes: > In article <9104110216.AA19711@epsoft> mark@epsoft.UUCP (Mark Chamberlain) > writes: > > I've recently built up a fairly decent ATM library of fonts under > > Windows 3. Now these are all Adobe Type 1 fonts - how can I use them > > on my NeXT? I have a set of files with pfb and pfm extensions - how > > do I build these into .font files? > > > > TIA, Mark > > ---- > > Mark Chamberlain, Epsilon Software Limited, London, England > > uunet!ukc!epsoft!mark > > For starters buy a copy form Adobe; it's illegal for you to use them on your > Windows AND NeXT machines. Pay for the software you use please. Is this, strictly and not-so-strictly true? I was under the impression that is a bit of a grey area. Consider this... If I invest a shitload of money in buying a large collection, or perhaps the entire, Adobe library of typefaces and store them on a printer's disk. Should I have to pay AGAIN for these fonts so that I can use them on another computer that accesses the same printer? I would be paying hundreds of dollars for a new set of .afm files. hardly seems fair. What is needed is for Adobe to bang their two heads together and come up with a fair solution. This is becoming an increasingly common problem, and as such must be dealt with. I think that a "per printer" license is probably somewhat fair, and a site license possibly the most fair solution. Should an entire art department pay to have a new set of fonts on every machine? Not unless they are going to be REALLY cheap, and noone is going to see that happen in a hurry. Anyone else got a reaction? ########################################################################## asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca The Chameleon Papers - Vancouver, BC Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy - NeXT user Human beings are a great disappointment to me, and it doesn't help one bit that I am one --SF ########################################################################## Fingers Down The Throat Of Love
hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy)) (04/20/91)
This has even broader implications: if I have paid money for, e.g., Wordperfect for MS-Dos and later for a Macintosh, whcy shouldn't I be entitled to Wordperfect on the NeXT and just pay for the media/manual? Greetings, Hardy -------****------- Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy); Department of Physics, University of California Irvine CA 92717; (714) 856 5543; hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu or MMAYER@UCI.BITNET
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (04/21/91)
hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy)) writes: > This has even broader implications: if I have paid money for, e.g., > Wordperfect for MS-Dos and later for a Macintosh, whcy shouldn't I be > entitled to Wordperfect on the NeXT and just pay for the media/manual? > > Greetings, > Hardy There is a legitimate reason for paying for software again. The manufacturer had toi rewrite the program. in the case of WordPerfect, the overhaul could not have been more major. If they were being fair, (yeah, right) they would offer you a deal, seeing as how you bought there product over the competitors the first time. Besides, they ought to be trying to keep you "in the fold". But PostScript fonts are device independent. There is VERY little that changes when a PostScript font changes platforms. In fact, in it's ascii form, nothing changes. If Adobe wants to be really know for device independent solutions to age-old problems, they ought to pioneer the licensing issues that ensue. ########################################################################## asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca The Chameleon Papers - Vancouver, BC Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy - NeXT user Human beings are a great disappointment to me, and it doesn't help one bit that I am one --SF ########################################################################## Fingers Down The Throat Of Love
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (04/21/91)
Hardy writes > This has even broader implications: if I have paid money for, e.g., > Wordperfect for MS-Dos and later for a Macintosh, whcy shouldn't I be > entitled to Wordperfect on the NeXT and just pay for the media/manual? Why *should* you be entitled to it? It's an entirely different product. Just because you have more than one computer doesn't mean that you should get more than one copy of the software for free. The only reason you even consider this a possibility is because you can generate perfect copies of digital media, so it seems less like a product to many people. Even if the files were binary identical, you are not entitled to a free copy. They are different products. I bought a set of five tires for my Jeep Cherokee the other day. I was really incensed when the tire dealer didn't give me a free set of tires for my Chevy; after all, I had already *paid* for the *very same product* for my Jeep. All they did was make the same tire in a slightly different size, and they want me to pay full price for it. Sheesh :-) As it is, an enormous amount of software is pirated. Indignant users tend to forget the damage that they do to the entire industry (and hence themselves) by stealing software that they are "entitled to". Just because the media cost is so low and copying is so easy doesn't lessen the value of the product. The printing industry went through something like this, I believe, when the photocopier was invented. It's still not entirely settled, and they don't even get a copy that's as good as the original. -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us NeXT/PostScript developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785 (fax 851-1470)
aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) (04/21/91)
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes: > Hardy writes > > This has even broader implications: if I have paid money for, e.g., > > Wordperfect for MS-Dos and later for a Macintosh, whcy shouldn't I be > > entitled to Wordperfect on the NeXT and just pay for the media/manual? > > Why *should* you be entitled to it? It's an entirely different product. > > Just because you have more than one computer doesn't mean that you should > get more than one copy of the software for free. The only reason > you even consider this a possibility is because you can generate > perfect copies of digital media, so it seems less like a product to many > people. > > Even if the files were binary identical, you are not entitled to a free > copy. They are different products. > > I bought a set of five tires for my Jeep Cherokee the other day. I was > really incensed when the tire dealer didn't give me a free set of tires > for my Chevy; after all, I had already *paid* for the *very same product* > for my Jeep. All they did was make the same tire in a slightly different > size, and they want me to pay full price for it. Sheesh :-) > > As it is, an enormous amount of software is pirated. Indignant users > tend to forget the damage that they do to the entire industry (and hence > themselves) by stealing software that they are "entitled to". Just because > the media cost is so low and copying is so easy doesn't lessen the value > of the product. > If I recall, the original topic here was about using ATM fonts for some other computer on the NeXT. I think that some people, in their zeal for political software correctness, are kind of missing the point and getting carried away. This bit about WordPerfect is a bit of a dead horse - clearly, the person that wrote the above passage had a misunderstanding about the relationship between software versions for different platforms. As for the guy with the fonts, why shouldn't he use them on his NeXT if he can convert them? The conversion process is trivial, and he probably isn't going to be using them on BOTH computers! There are some that would argue in favor of one-computer licenses, and some companies attempt to enforce this by various copy protection schemes. This would mean that if you upgraded, say, a Mac Plus to a Mac IIfx, you would have to buy all new software? That's ridiculous. How about when you upgrade your hard disk? Or your 030 motherboard to an 040? Although this is fundamentally different from upgrading an IBM to a NeXT, ethically I say it is the same - if you can't keep whatever software that you can still use in the IBM-NeXT upgrade, the same thing should apply to a Mac-MacII upgrade, or whatever. As a final note - I don't agree with piracy, but there are degrees of piracy, some worse than others. An entire accounting firm, making millions of dollars a year, using copies of some accounting program written by some small, struggling software company and having pirated it, sure, that is unconsciable. But what about the starving student, who has a choice between Microsoft Word and his tuition, while Bill Gates frets about importing his $600,000 Porsche into the country? I would frankly advise him to copy it. Likewise, I will confess that I have pirated software in my day, for the sake of curiosity, to see what a product is like. If I don't use it, and wouldn't buy it anyway, nobody knows and nobody is worse off. However, if I do use it and find it important to me, I'll buy it for upgrades, manuals, support, and in order to do my fair share supporting the company by paying them what is rightly theirs. There are no cut and dry solutions - the software industry is in a very strange state right now, and can't really be compared to the publishing industry. (Actually, the only comparason I can make is in the publication of orchestral scores, where the royalties can be so exorbitant that they are actually curtailing the production of modern music where royalties must still be paid to the composer.) Time will sort things out - I can only hope that the resolution is *not* elaborate 1-CPU copy protection schemes! --- Anthony Berno (aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca) The QUESTOR Project: Free Public Access to Usenet & Internet in Vancouver, BC, Canada, at +1 604 681 0670.
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (04/21/91)
> As it is, an enormous amount of software is pirated. Indignant users > tend to forget the damage that they do to the entire industry (and hence > themselves) by stealing software that they are "entitled to". Just because > the media cost is so low and copying is so easy doesn't lessen the value > of the product. > > The printing industry went through something like this, I believe, when > the photocopier was invented. It's still not entirely settled, and they > don't even get a copy that's as good as the original. With all due respect Glenn, and I DO mean that, the software industry is not without it's unethical behavious on the other side of that fence. A quick look at most software licenses will confirm that. I agree with you that piracy is in almost every way unethical and illegal and happens far too often. I would also like to point out that in spite of your equating the book and software publishing industries battles with "piracy" (copyright infringement actually), there have been no book publishers to the best of my knowledge that have gone out of business becuase of the advent of the photocopier. I hope you caught my comments in a separate post. I'd be interested in hearing your reactions/opinions. cheers adam ########################################################################## asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca The Chameleon Papers - Vancouver, BC Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy - NeXT user Human beings are a great disappointment to me, and it doesn't help one bit that I am one --SF ########################################################################## Fingers Down The Throat Of Love
jjwcmp@isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) (04/22/91)
In article <LZLm14w164w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) writes: >glang@henry (Gary Lang) writes: > >> In article <9104110216.AA19711@epsoft> mark@epsoft.UUCP (Mark Chamberlain) >> writes: >> > I've recently built up a fairly decent ATM library of fonts under >> > Windows 3. Now these are all Adobe Type 1 fonts - how can I use them >> > on my NeXT? I have a set of files with pfb and pfm extensions - how >> > do I build these into .font files? >> > >> >> For starters buy a copy form Adobe; it's illegal for you to use them on your >> Windows AND NeXT machines. Pay for the software you use please. > >Is this, strictly and not-so-strictly true? > >I was under the impression that is a bit of a grey area. > After I received my Font Company CD ROM and read their license (more on that later), I called Adobe and asked about their license. Adobe's license is for one printer, and an unlimted number of workstations using ATM or DPS. Additional printers are licensed as follows (prices are for a typical $185 list package): Printers 2-5: $185 (for all printers) Printers 5-10: $185 and so on... So to add a license for 3 (or 4 or 5) additional printers, it would only cost $185. The Font Company licenses their fonts for 1 high res printer (over 600dpi), 2 low res printers (below 600 dpi) and 10 rendering stations. Disclaimer: This is what the droid at Adobe told me... Jeff -- | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |INTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| |Ask me about the Desktop Publishing Mailing list -- All platforms welcome. |
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (04/22/91)
Anthony Berno writes > glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes: > > > I bought a set of five tires for my Jeep Cherokee the other day. I was > > really incensed when the tire dealer didn't give me a free set of tires > > for my Chevy; after all, I had already *paid* for the *very same product* > > for my Jeep. All they did was make the same tire in a slightly different > > size, and they want me to pay full price for it. Sheesh :-) > > > As for the guy with the fonts, why shouldn't he use them on his NeXT if he > can convert them? The conversion process is trivial, and he probably isn't > going to be using them on BOTH computers! If he doesn't use them on both computers, then it's legal, as far as I know. But if you do use them on both computers, it's not. > As a final note - I don't agree with piracy, but there are degrees of > piracy, some worse than others. An entire accounting firm, making millions > of dollars a year, using copies of some accounting program written by some > small, struggling software company and having pirated it, sure, that is > unconsciable. But what about the starving student, who has a choice between > Microsoft Word and his tuition, while Bill Gates frets about importing his > $600,000 Porsche into the country? I would frankly advise him to copy it. > Likewise, I will confess that I have pirated software in my day, for the > sake of curiosity, to see what a product is like. If I don't use it, and > wouldn't buy it anyway, nobody knows and nobody is worse off. However, if I > do use it and find it important to me, I'll buy it for upgrades, manuals, > support, and in order to do my fair share supporting the company by paying > them what is rightly theirs. That's like saying that the people in the ghetto should rightfully be able to steal from Bill Gates because after all, he has so much money that he ought to share it with the poor starving people. And I'm not trying to be sensationalist; it really is equivalent, to argue that law should be bent depending on how "deserving" people are. > There are no cut and dry solutions - the software industry is in a very > strange state right now, and can't really be compared to the publishing > industry. (Actually, the only comparason I can make is in the publication of > orchestral scores, where the royalties can be so exorbitant that they are > actually curtailing the production of modern music where royalties must > still be paid to the composer.) Time will sort things out - I can only hope > that the resolution is *not* elaborate 1-CPU copy protection schemes! One thing that people forget is what might happen if there were no software piracy. That is, it was physically impossible, in the same sense that you cannot make a copy of your Jeep tires for your Chevy when no one is looking. For one thing, a font might cost $10 instead of $185. Really. I've heard estimates that only 2-3 percent of the fonts "out there" are actually paid for. Of course that drives the price up. Wouldn't you all love to be able to buy fonts for $10 a piece? Well you can't, and perhaps a large reason for that is the number of them that are copied without being paid for. There is a cut-and-dried solution. Software should be paid for item by item, the same way auto parts are paid for, or the same way CD's are paid for. And I buy a lot of software, so it's not just from the point of view of a software publisher that I speak. The prices would come down and the availability of truly excellent software would go up. A few years ago every bit of software in the Mac environment was copy-protected. Severe public outcry caused copy-protection to be removed from essentially all software. And you know what? The prices have gone up. You now pay $595, $695, $995 for major desktop publishing packages. In other words, it's not all about "political correctness". There is a very direct and serious economic impact from the rampant theft of software. Many good products don't hit the market because the market will not pay for them. The market wants everything, and they want to pay nothing for it. This forces software houses to charge high prices, and it makes it very difficult for small companies to survive. We should probably move this from comp.sys.next, or else just quit talking about it :-) -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us NeXT/PostScript developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785 (fax 851-1470)
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (04/22/91)
> > For one thing, a font might cost $10 instead of $185. Really. I've heard > estimates that only 2-3 percent of the fonts "out there" are actually paid > for. Of course that drives the price up. Wouldn't you all love to be able > to buy fonts for $10 a piece? Well you can't, and perhaps a large reason > for that is the number of them that are copied without being paid for. > Which is the chicken and which is the egg? ########################################################################## asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca The Chameleon Papers - Vancouver, BC Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy - NeXT user Human beings are a great disappointment to me, and it doesn't help one bit that I am one --SF ########################################################################## Fingers Down The Throat Of Love
hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy)) (04/22/91)
Sorry to have raised this question, but I was misunderstood: I did not mean to use get new "tires" for my other vehicle -- just be able to use them if I buy new rims (i.e, media/manuals), since I got rid of the frustrating Mac in favor of the next, and am slowly phasing out the PC-s in my life too.. In fact, Wordperfect did offer a substantial discount on the Mac version on the basis of having gotten my money for version 4.2, 5.0, etc. I don't think they do this for NeXT-owners, and expect that few people will spend an extra few hundred dollars for Wordperfect on the NeXT if they can do all the editing/typesetting with the bundled Writenow/Emacs/TeX. So let's leave it here ... Greetings, Hardy -------****------- Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy); Department of Physics, University of California Irvine CA 92717; (714) 856 5543; hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu or MMAYER@UCI.BITNET
johnw@reed.UUCP (John B. Windberg) (04/22/91)
All this bantering aside, please someone tell me, how does one transfer
type 1 or 3 font files from mac files to NeXT. For my curriosity more than
anything else.
I do own several fonts legally and all, but I do not yet own a machine of any
variety. I own legally software for many as I end up using many, never my own.
Why shouldn't I be able to move my fonts from machine to machine as long as I
am the only person ever using them?
johnw
p.s. Sorry about that last paragraph, it just slipped in.
--
_ _ Duh! |
O/.V.\O / johnw@reed (John B. Windberg) | UNIX and Beer....
/ ^ \ 2345 SE Ankeny #1 | Gotta do it!
\__U__/ Portland, Oregon 97214 |jjwcmp@isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr21.190925.9916@isc.rit.edu> jjwcmp@isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) writes: > >Adobe's license is for one printer, and an unlimted number of >workstations using ATM or DPS. Additional printers are licensed as >follows (prices are for a typical $185 list package): > >Printers 2-5: $185 (for all printers) >Printers 5-10: $185 >and so on... > Well, here I am following up my own message. I must have written it down wrong, or misunderstood what I was told. Anyway, I rec'd the info in the mail from Adobe today, and this is their multiple printer license stucture: Retail price per package Printers $95 $145 $185 $275 $370 2-5 $95 $145 $185 $275 $370 6-10 $190 $290 $370 $550 $740 11-15 $285 $435 $555 $825 $1110 The Font Folio (various packages grouped on a hard disk) are sold as follows: Packages Retail Price 1-69 $9,600 1-105 $14,200 1-150 $16,900 CD-Rom $15,900 The Font Folio comes with a 2 printer license, and the same price buys a 3-10 printer license. Additional hard disks are $2,000 each. Disclaimer: I don't work for Adobe, and probably won't even buy any more fonts from them (hello Font Company?). Jeff -- | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |INTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| |Ask me about the Desktop Publishing Mailing list -- All platforms welcome. |
bb@math.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (04/23/91)
The following posting is quite long, and consists mainly of social commentary. It a meta-discussion purporting to show that people arguing the details of liscensing, copyright, patent, and "intellectual property" laws should pause, step back, and decide what behavior they are truly trying to encourage. Facts: ----- Laws are arbitrarily-created rules by which we structure our society. In this country, the people at large get to choose what rules they want to live by. In fact, the ability to arbitrarily create that very freedom was a keystone of motivation for the Europeans that settled in North America. A strong suspicion: ------------------ Laws are more "natural" and require less effort for people to comply with them when they follow the grain and style of what they regulate. Some examples: ------------- Laws describing the prohibition of chemicals (alcohol, cannabis, etc.) are "bad" because they don't work in practice. To repair these laws a new attitude could be adopted whereby drug use is considered a health problem rather than a crime. Sweden does this already. They save 90% of the money we spend treating the equivalent amount of drug symptoms by using a medical approach rather than a criminal one. Legally allowing the worship of your personal choice of deities is another arbitrary law. It happens to work very well. The patent laws are creating a big mess in the computer software industry right now because the time period they grant for a legal monopoly hasn't been updated to match current software-building practice. The laws aren't doing what they were originally designed to do (keep innovations from being lost to society as a whole) and instead are being used as a way to a keep business advantage to the detriment of society. The League for Programming Freedom has some suggested repairs for these arbitrarily-created laws, and they are far more eloquent than I am. Send me mail if you are curious. Thusly: ------ Laws relating to programming, copyrights, and digital media are as arbitrary as any other laws. They should be created to fill a specific need in a way that most people agree with. Laws relating to digital media will be more "natural" and require less effort for people to comply with them when they follow the grain and style of digital media. For instance, lawmakers have realized that XEROX copies are easy and cheap to make. They have responded by making small quantities of them containing copyrighted material legal. Nobody bothers to XEROX whole books - it's more expensive, and the final output is worse. However, lawmakers haven't yet recognized the ease of making exact digital copies. Therefore we have laws that try to prevent actions easy and natural to digital media users - and Prohibition didn't work for Alcohol, either. These laws were created to enforce (obsolete?) notions of "intellectual property". Conclusion: ---------- Perhaps we should stop discussing tweaks to old laws, accept that digital copying is immensely useful (if it wasn't useful people wouldn't do it) and here to stay, and form new laws that create an environment that society (and programmers) can benefit from more than the one we have now. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
uad1077@dircon.co.uk (Ian Kemmish) (04/25/91)
Interested parties should probably check out comp.fonts and comp.lang.postscript. A few months ago there was a spate of font decrypting programs posted. Someone from Adobe (I think it was Glenn Reid) posted an official notice of their policy on this: they are I beleive quite sanguine about you copying and/or decrypting Type 1 fonts *so long as* it is for personal use (I think the statement defined this more carefully than I am doing. Basically, you should be OK so long as you use only one of your Windows or NeXT machines at a time. But you should probably ask Adobe for clarification if you want to be sure. -- Ian D. Kemmish Tel. +44 767 601 361 18 Durham Close uad1077@dircon.UUCP Biggleswade ukc!dircon!uad1077 Beds SG18 8HZ United Kingdom uad1077@dircon.co.uk
chan@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Chan Benson) (04/26/91)
> However, lawmakers haven't yet recognized the ease of making > exact digital copies. Therefore we have laws that try to > prevent actions easy and natural to digital media users - and > Prohibition didn't work for Alcohol, either. These laws > were created to enforce (obsolete?) notions of "intellectual > property". Okay. How about if we adapt your argument? However, lawmakers haven't yet recognized the ease of shooting people in the head. Therefore we have laws that try to prevent actions easy and natural to automatic weapons users - and Prohibition didn't work for Alcohol, either. These laws were created to enforce (obsolete?) notions of "individual liberty". -- Chan