summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html182
1 files changed, 182 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..23524ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html
@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+<title>Why call it the Swindle
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-call-it-the-swindle.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Why Call It The Swindle?</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<p>I go out of my way to call nasty things by names that criticize
+them. I call Apple's user-subjugating computers the
+&ldquo;iThings,&rdquo; and Amazon's abusive e-reader the
+&ldquo;Swindle.&rdquo; Sometimes I refer to Microsoft's operating
+system as &ldquo;Losedows&rdquo;; I referred to Microsoft's first
+operating system as &ldquo;MS-Dog.&rdquo;[<a href="#f1">1</a>] 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.</p>
+
+<p>Twisting a name is disrespectful. If we respected the makers of
+these products, we would use the names that they chose &hellip; 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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: &ldquo;Digital Rights Management.&rdquo; This name is the basis
+of a public relations campaign that aims to win support from entities
+ranging from governments to the W3C.[<a href="#f2">2</a>]</p>
+
+<p>To use their term is to take their side. If that's not the side
+you're on, why give it your implicit support?</p>
+
+<p>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 &ldquo;Digital Restrictions Management.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Neither of those terms is neutral: choose a term, and you choose a
+side. Please choose the users' side and please let it show.</p>
+
+<p>Once, a man in the audience at my speech claimed that the name
+&ldquo;Digital Rights Management&rdquo; was the official name of
+&ldquo;DRM,&rdquo; the only
+possible correct name, because it was the first name. He argued that
+as a consequence it was wrong for us to say &ldquo;Digital Restrictions
+Management.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Some people feel a distaste for twisting names and say it sounds
+&ldquo;juvenile&rdquo; or &ldquo;unprofessional.&rdquo; What they mean
+is, it doesn't sound humorless and stodgy&mdash;and that's a good
+thing, because we would not have laughter on our side if we tried to
+sound &ldquo;professional.&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;acting like an adult.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>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 &ldquo;professional,&rdquo; 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 lead you to skimp; don't let the
+pressure against such &ldquo;digression&rdquo; push you into
+insufficiently criticizing the nasty things you mention, because that
+would have the effect of legitimizing them.</p>
+
+<h3>Footnotes</h3>
+
+<ol>
+<li id="f1">Take action against these products:
+<a href="https://u.fsf.org/ithings">u.fsf.org/ithings</a>,
+<a href="https://u.fsf.org/swindle">u.fsf.org/swindle</a>,
+<a href="https://u.fsf.org/ebookslist">u.fsf.org/ebookslist</a>,
+<a href="https://upgradefromwindows.org">upgradefromwindows.org</a>
+</li>
+<li id="f2"><a href="https://u.fsf.org/drm">u.fsf.org/drm</a></li>
+</ol>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2013, 2018 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:39 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>