From 5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tong Hui Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:52:03 +0800 Subject: first --- docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md | 130 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 130 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md (limited to 'docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md') 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. + +
+ +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### 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 for more on DRM. @end +raggedright + +
+ +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ -- cgit v1.2.3