www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy words-to-avoid.html


From: Richard M. Stallman
Subject: www/philosophy words-to-avoid.html
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:45:46 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       12/10/18 11:45:45

Modified files:
        philosophy     : words-to-avoid.html 

Log message:
        Many clarifications.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.148&r2=1.149

Patches:
Index: words-to-avoid.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html,v
retrieving revision 1.148
retrieving revision 1.149
diff -u -b -r1.148 -r1.149
--- words-to-avoid.html 25 Sep 2012 09:43:39 -0000      1.148
+++ words-to-avoid.html 18 Oct 2012 11:45:44 -0000      1.149
@@ -225,13 +225,16 @@
 
 <h4 id="Consume">&ldquo;Consume&rdquo;</h4>
 <p>
-It is erroneous to speak of "consuming" digital information, music,
-software, etc., since using them does not consume them.  See the
-following entry,</p>
+"Consume" refers to what we do with food: we ingest it, and use it in
+a way that uses it up.  By analogy, we emply the same word to describe
+using other things in a way that uses them up.  However, it is
+erroneous to speak of "consuming" digital information, music,
+software, etc., since using them does not consume them.  See also the
+following entry.</p>
 
 <h4 id="Consumer">&ldquo;Consumer&rdquo;</h4>
 <p>
-The term &ldquo;consumer,&rdquo; when used to refer to computer users,
+The term &ldquo;consumer,&rdquo; when used to refer to the users of computing,
 is loaded with assumptions we should reject.  Playing a digital
 recording, or running a program, does not consume it.</p>
 <p>
@@ -243,15 +246,15 @@
 presumes a narrow role for them: it regards them as sheep that
 passively graze on what others make available to them.</p>
 <p>
-This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the CBDTPA
-&ldquo;Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act&rdquo;
-which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital
+This kind of thinking leads to travesties such as the CBDTPA 
+(&ldquo;Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act&rdquo;)
+which proposed to require copying restriction facilities in every digital
 device.  If all the users do is &ldquo;consume,&rdquo; then why should
 they mind?</p>
 <p>
 The shallow economic conception of users as &ldquo;consumers&rdquo; tends
 to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are mere
-&ldquo;content.&rdquo;</p>
+<a href="#content">&ldquo;content.&rdquo;</a></p>
 <p>
 To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we
 suggest terms such as &ldquo;individuals&rdquo; and
@@ -300,20 +303,22 @@
 compares them to a deity (&ldquo;the creator&rdquo;).  The term is
 used by publishers to elevate authors' moral standing above that of
 ordinary people in order to justify giving them increased copyright
-power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name.
-We recommend saying &ldquo;author&rdquo; instead.  However,
-in many cases &ldquo;copyright holder&rdquo; is what you really
-mean.</p>
+power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name.  We
+recommend saying &ldquo;author&rdquo; instead.  However, in many cases
+&ldquo;copyright holder&rdquo; is what you really mean.  These two
+terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the
+author.</p>
 
 
 <h4 id="DigitalGoods">&ldquo;Digital Goods&rdquo;</h4>
 <p>
 The term &ldquo;digital goods,&rdquo; as applied to copies of works of
 authorship, identifies them with physical goods&mdash;which cannot be
-copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured and sold.  This
-metaphor encourages people to judge issues about software or other
-digital works based on their views and intuitions about physical
-goods.</p>
+copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured in quantity and
+sold.  This metaphor encourages people to judge issues about software
+or other digital works based on their views and intuitions about
+physical goods.  It also frames issues in terms of economics, whose
+shallow and limited values don't include freedom and community.</p>
 
 
 <h4 id="DigitalLocks">&ldquo;Digital Locks&rdquo;</h4>
@@ -328,16 +333,16 @@
 open and close them.</p>
 <p>
 DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to
-give you the key &mdash; in other words, like handcuffs.  Therefore,
+give you the key&mdash;in other words, like handcuffs.  Therefore,
 we call them &ldquo;digital handcuffs&rdquo;, not &ldquo;digital
 locks&rdquo;.</p>
 <p>
-A number of campaigns have chosen the unwise term &ldquo;digital
-locks&rdquo;; therefore, to correct the mistake, we must firmly reject
-the term.  We sometimes support a campaign that criticizes
-&ldquo;digital locks&rdquo;, if we agree with the substance; but when
-we do, we state our rejection of that term, and conspicuously say
-&ldquo;digital handcuffs&rdquo; so as to set a better example.</p>
+A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term
+&ldquo;digital locks&rdquo;; to get things back on the right track, we
+must firmly decline to follow them in using that term.  We can support
+a campaign that opposes &ldquo;digital locks&rdquo; if we agree on the
+substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously
+replace the term with &ldquo;digital handcuffs&rdquo; and say why.</p>
 
 
 <h4 id="DigitalRightsManagement">&ldquo;Digital Rights Management&rdquo;</h4>
@@ -355,26 +360,28 @@
 
 <h4 id="Ecosystem">&ldquo;Ecosystem&rdquo;</h4>
 <p>
-It is a mistake to describe the free software community, or any human
+It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human
 community, as an &ldquo;ecosystem,&rdquo; because that word implies
 the absence of ethical judgment.</p>
 
 <p>
 The term &ldquo;ecosystem&rdquo; implicitly suggests an attitude of
 nonjudgmental observation: don't ask how what <em>should</em> happen,
-just study and explain what <em>does</em> happen.  In an ecosystem,
-some organisms consume other organisms.  We do not ask whether it is
-fair for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a plant, we only
-observe that they do so.  Species' populations grow or shrink
-according to the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong, merely
-an ecological phenomenon.</p>
+just study and understand what <em>does</em> happen.  In an ecosystem,
+some organisms consume other organisms.  In ecology, we do not ask
+whether it is right for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a
+seed, we only observe that they do so.  Species' populations grow or
+shrink according to the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong,
+merely an ecological phenomenon, even if it goes so far as the
+extinction of a species.</p>
 
 <p>
 By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their
-surroundings can decide to preserve things that, on their own, might
-vanish&mdash;such as civil society, democracy, human rights, peace,
-public health, clean air and water, endangered species, traditional
-arts&hellip;and computer users' freedom.
+surroundings can decide to preserve things that, without their
+intervention, might vanish&mdash;such as civil society, democracy,
+human rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and
+water, endangered species, traditional arts&hellip;and computer users'
+freedom.
 </p>
 
 
@@ -708,22 +715,20 @@
 <h4 id="Theft">&ldquo;Theft&rdquo;</h4>
 <p>
 Copyright apologists often use words like &ldquo;stolen&rdquo; and
-&ldquo;theft&rdquo; as a metaphor for copyright infringement.  At the same
-time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics:
-if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.</p>
-<p>
-So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system&mdash;at least in
-the US&mdash;rejects the idea that copyright infringement is
-&ldquo;theft.&rdquo; Copyright apologists are making an appeal to
-authority&hellip;and misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
-<p>
-The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in
-general.  Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to
-say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things
-upside down.</p>
+&ldquo;theft&rdquo; to refer to copyright infringement.  This is spin,
+but they would like you to take it for objective truth.</p>
 <p>
-Meanwhile, when the name of a legal offense is used as a metaphor
-for something else, that particular law is not relevant at all.</p>
+Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft.  Laws
+about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement.  The
+copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority&mdash;and
+misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
+<p>
+Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many
+circumstances (not all!), but being forbidden doesn't make it wrong.
+In general, laws don't define right and wrong.  Laws, at their best,
+attempt to implement justice.  If the laws (the implementation) don't
+fit our ideas of right and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should
+change.</p>
 
 <h4 id="TrustedComputing">&ldquo;Trusted Computing&rdquo;</h4>
 <p>
@@ -790,7 +795,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/09/25 09:43:39 $
+$Date: 2012/10/18 11:45:44 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]