first

1 files changed, 130 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md b/docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3c2f3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Why Call It the Swindle? {#why-call-it-the-swindle .chapter}
+===========================
+
+I go out of my way to call nasty things by names that criticize them. I
+call Apple’s user-subjugating computers the “iThings,” and Amazon’s
+abusive e-reader the “Swindle.” Sometimes I refer to Microsoft’s
+operating system as “Losedows”; I referred to Microsoft’s first
+operating system as “MS-Dog.”[(1)](#FOOT1) Of course, I do this to vent
+my feelings and have fun. But this fun is more than personal; it serves
+an important purpose. Mocking our enemies recruits the power of humor
+into our cause.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2013 Richard
+Stallman\
+ {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+Twisting a name is disrespectful. If we respected the makers of these
+products, we would use the names that they chose…and that’s exactly the
+point. These noxious products deserve our contempt, not our respect.
+Every proprietary program subjects its users to some entity’s power, but
+nowadays most widely used ones go beyond that to spy on users, restrict
+them and even push them around: the trend is for products to get
+nastier. These products deserve to be wiped out. Those with DRM ought to
+be illegal.
+
+When we mention them, we should show that we condemn them, and what
+easier way than by twisting their names? If we don’t do that, it is all
+too easy to mention them and fail to present the condemnation. When the
+product comes up in the middle of some other topic, for instance,
+explaining at greater length that the product is bad might seem like a
+long digression.
+
+To mention these products by name and fail to condemn them has the
+effect of legitimizing them, which is the opposite of what they call
+for.
+
+Companies choose names for products as part of a marketing plan. They
+choose names they think people will be likely to repeat, then invest
+millions of dollars in marketing campaigns to make people repeat and
+think about those names. Usually these marketing campaigns are intended
+to convince people to admire the products based on their superficial
+attractions and overlook the harm they do.
+
+Every time we call these products by the names the companies use, we
+contribute to their marketing campaigns. Repeating those names is active
+support for the products; twisting them denies the products our support.
+
+Other terminology besides product names can raise a similar issue. For
+instance, DRM refers to building technology products to restrict their
+users for the benefit of someone else. This inexcusable practice
+deserves our burning hatred until we wipe it out. Naturally, those
+responsible gave it a name that frames the issue from their point of
+view: “Digital Rights Management.” This name is the basis of a public
+relations campaign that aims to win support from entities ranging from
+governments to the W3C.[(2)](#FOOT2)
+
+To use their term is to take their side. If that’s not the side you’re
+on, why give it your implicit support?
+
+We take the users’ side, and from the users’ point of view, what these
+malfeatures manage are not rights but restrictions. So we call them
+“Digital Restrictions Management.”
+
+Neither of those terms is neutral: choose a term, and you choose a side.
+Please choose the users’ side and please let it show.
+
+Once, a man in the audience at my speech claimed that the name “Digital
+Rights Management” was the official name of “DRM,” the only possible
+correct name, because it was the first name. He argued that as a
+consequence it was wrong for us to say “Digital Restrictions
+Management.”
+
+Those who make a product or carry out a business practice typically
+choose a name for it before we even know it exists. If their temporal
+precedence obligated us to use their name, they would have an additional
+automatic advantage, on top of their money, their media influence and
+their technological position. We would have to fight them with our
+mouths tied behind our backs.
+
+Some people feel a distaste for twisting names and say it sounds
+“juvenile” or “unprofessional.” What they mean is, it doesn’t sound
+humorless and stodgy—and that’s a good thing, because we would not have
+laughter on our side if we tried to sound “professional.” Fighting
+oppression is far more serious than professional work, so we’ve got to
+add comic relief. It calls for real maturity, which includes some
+childishness, not “acting like an adult.”
+
+If you don’t like our choice of name parodies, you can invent your own.
+The more, the merrier. Of course, there are other ways to express
+condemnation. If you want to sound “professional,” you can show it in
+other ways. They can get the point across, but they require more time
+and effort, especially if you don’t make use of mockery. Take care this
+does not this lead you to skimp; don’t let the pressure against such
+“digression” push you into insufficiently criticizing the nasty things
+you mention, because that would have the effect of legitimizing them.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright Take action against iThings, at
+[u.fsf.org/ithings](u.fsf.org/ithings), against the Swindle, at
+[u.fsf.org/swindle](u.fsf.org/swindle) and
+[u.fsf.org/ebookslist](u.fsf.org/ebookslist), and against Windows, at
+[upgradefromwindows.org](upgradefromwindows.org). @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See <https://u.fsf.org/drm> for more on DRM. @end
+raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\