It's doubly tricky with fonts because typefaces have a complicated legal status. Typeface designs cannot be copyrighted, though individual implementations (i.e. ttf files) can be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface#Legal_aspects
The question you want to be asking is if it will help anyone. The response to yours is yes, thousands of people. Google for anti-copyright for readings.
I'm familiar with the anti-copyright arguments, but my point was that it seems inconsistent to have copyright on so many types of creative works except typefaces.
So what happens when some big corporation has managed to lawyer their way to copyright over pretty much all basic font designs, and anything remotely sensible is close enough to be considered a derivative work? Now no-one can use writing to communicate. There is no sane universe in which a tax on writing is in the interests of society.
Font files, as in the programs that describe the shape of a font in vector or bitmap terms, are already copyrightable, but I think the US gets this one absolutely right by specifically excluding font designs from being monopolised.
If you're so cynical that you think someone could successfully claim copyright over stuff that's hundreds of years old, I think it's pointless to argue with you.
There are musical works that have been under copyright for longer than the average human lifetime. In most places, singing "Happy Birthday" to a child in the street is an infringement of copyright. Amazon successfully patented "one click". Other people have patented inventions that contradict the laws of physics as we know them. Mike Rowe got harassed by one of the largest and most recognisable brands in the world for making a joke out of the similarity between his name and theirs.
If you're so deluded as to think that common sense always works in the area of intellectual property law, I think it's pointless to argue with you.
