[Top][All Lists]
[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">“Consume”</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">“Consumer”</h4>
<p>
-The term “consumer,” when used to refer to computer users,
+The term “consumer,” 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
-“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act”
-which would require copying restriction facilities in every digital
+This kind of thinking leads to travesties such as the CBDTPA
+(“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act”)
+which proposed to require copying restriction facilities in every digital
device. If all the users do is “consume,” then why should
they mind?</p>
<p>
The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends
to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are mere
-“content.”</p>
+<a href="#content">“content.”</a></p>
<p>
To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we
suggest terms such as “individuals” and
@@ -300,20 +303,22 @@
compares them to a deity (“the creator”). 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 “author” instead. However,
-in many cases “copyright holder” is what you really
-mean.</p>
+power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We
+recommend saying “author” instead. However, in many cases
+“copyright holder” is what you really mean. These two
+terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the
+author.</p>
<h4 id="DigitalGoods">“Digital Goods”</h4>
<p>
The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of
authorship, identifies them with physical goods—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">“Digital Locks”</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 — in other words, like handcuffs. Therefore,
+give you the key—in other words, like handcuffs. Therefore,
we call them “digital handcuffs”, not “digital
locks”.</p>
<p>
-A number of campaigns have chosen the unwise term “digital
-locks”; therefore, to correct the mistake, we must firmly reject
-the term. We sometimes support a campaign that criticizes
-“digital locks”, if we agree with the substance; but when
-we do, we state our rejection of that term, and conspicuously say
-“digital handcuffs” so as to set a better example.</p>
+A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term
+“digital locks”; 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 “digital locks” if we agree on the
+substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously
+replace the term with “digital handcuffs” and say why.</p>
<h4 id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights Management”</h4>
@@ -355,26 +360,28 @@
<h4 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</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 “ecosystem,” because that word implies
the absence of ethical judgment.</p>
<p>
The term “ecosystem” 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—such as civil society, democracy, human rights, peace,
-public health, clean air and water, endangered species, traditional
-arts…and computer users' freedom.
+surroundings can decide to preserve things that, without their
+intervention, might vanish—such as civil society, democracy,
+human rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and
+water, endangered species, traditional arts…and computer users'
+freedom.
</p>
@@ -708,22 +715,20 @@
<h4 id="Theft">“Theft”</h4>
<p>
Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and
-“theft” 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—at least in
-the US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is
-“theft.” Copyright apologists are making an appeal to
-authority…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>
+“theft” 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—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">“Trusted Computing”</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>
- www/philosophy words-to-avoid.html,
Richard M. Stallman <=