Metaphors-Can They Create Better Software Laws?

This Clan Anonymous Coward philosopher wished to warp your brains with this train of thought: "Metaphors are extremely important in human thought. We use them constantly to help us think about new things in a way we can understand. If we could collaborate to produce some really compelling metaphors, I think they could help the EFF and others to argue for reasonable laws. A good metaphor should permit a convincing mapping of concepts in both directions." This seems like a good idea, especially since the use of metaphors can sometimes facilitate communication (between the technical and the non-technical for example). However, there can be danger in spending too much time promoting (or debating) the metaphor rather than the issues you are trying to discuss.

"Start with this:

• Programs are like recipes.
• A shrink-wrapped software suite is like a cook-book.
• Operating systems are like kitchens.
• Digital music files are like piano rolls.

Applied to familiar physical objects, the rights asserted by proprietary software makers to control use, after the sale, often sound ridiculously overreaching. The car metaphor is popular. Imagine Ford or GM trying to tell you how you may use your copy of their 2000 edition Mustang or Corvette after you've paid for it!

Sensing a possible loss of control, software makers are now going try the analogy of car leasing. And they will no doubt try to obscure the difference that makes leasing a bad analogy: The owner of a car (an instance of a proprietary design) has an ongoing economic interest in the state of the leased car, otherwise it would be a sale. You can destroy an instance of downloaded 'leased' software and there is absolutely zero economic impact on the 'owner.' There is nothing to be returned. Can this legitimately be called a 'lease?' I don't think so, but watch for metaphor spin ;-)

I suppose another possibility is the metaphor of program execution as performance, to tap into the kinds of control traditionally available to authors of plays and musical scores (which I don't know about, other than copyright). Of course, if you are singing emm-I-see, kay-eewhy, emmo, ew-ess, eee, then there's probably trademark rights involved (gee, I hope that was fair use ;-)"

Comments

Well...

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

Programs are like recipes.

Kinda. Programs are more deterministic than recipes, but OK.

A shrink-wrapped software suite is like a cook-book.

Yes and no. A library is like a cookbook, surely. A shrink-wrapped software suite is...a recipe you pay for. No analog.

"Operating systems are like kitchens."

Kitches aren't made of recipes. Operating systems are like...holding a banquet while you cook. (running programs to make other programs)

"Digital music files are like piano rolls."

AAHHH! No! This is exactly what digital music files are NOT. Piano rolls are a manufactured product that has a cost in physical materials. Digital music files have no physical parts--they are pure information. Once you have created one music file, you can have as many copies made as you want at zero cost.
--

Re:Well...

[gmhowell]

Programs are like recipes.

Kinda. Programs are more deterministic than recipes, but OK.

Source code is like a recipe. Sometimes it comes out right. Sometimes, you code fails to compile, like a bad souffle

A shrink-wrapped software suite is like a cook-book.

Yes and no. A library is like a cookbook, surely. A shrink-wrapped software suite is...a recipe you pay for. No analog.

A library is like a cookbook. Shrink-wrapped software is like those deli-party platters, and just about as edible. Or perhaps like a store-bought cake.

"Operating systems are like kitchens."

Kitches aren't made of recipes. Operating systems are like...holding a banquet while you cook. (running programs to make other programs)

Under my new metaphor, I think an OS might again be a kitchen.

Gee. This is fun. Oh, I know: the MS Developer Toolkit (or whatever it is called) is like a 50 watt microwave that still manages to explode every potato you put into it. GCC and friends are like a 30,000 BTU convection oven that also explodes potatoes, but in a much cooler way!

Re:Well...

[chaobell]

"Digital music files are like piano rolls."
AAHHH! No! This is exactly what digital music files are NOT. Piano rolls are a manufactured product that has a cost in physical materials. Digital music files have no physical parts--they are pure information.

Well, if you're not thinking too hard about the way they're distributed as opposed to how they work, it's not too bad a metaphor. A piano roll is a roll of paper with holes poked in it. When a hole passes over an opening in the little suckerbarthingy (IANAplayerpianotechnician), the piano plays a note. If you think about it this way (warning: IANAprogrammer either, obviously, but bear with the bad fake code example):

if $hole=1 {play_note}
else {nothing} #or, in other words, if $hole=0

it's not so much of a stretch. ^_^

Re:Metaphors should be considered harmful

[remande]

Hard logic has little place in the world of law.

I don't say this as a standard "kill the lawyers" gripe, but as a statement of fact. Indeed, I would not want to live somewhere where law was based on true, Lewis Carrol-style logic.

The wonder of logic is that, given enough information, it produces perfect results. The problem with logic is that, given insufficient information, it is silent. While this is fine in a math class, this is not good enough for the legal situations we place ourselves or wind up in.

Hell, we humans are good at illogic, exactly because life rarely gives us all the information in advance. BTW, this is likely a problem for AI.

Yes, the measure of truth in law is convincing a judge or jury that your argument is superior or correct. That is because we haven't found the Cosmic Truthmeter, and a judge or jury is the closest thing we can find. Don't complain unless you can find something better ;^>

More harm than good

[toh]

Analogies to the real world - which is what you're really getting at here - are only useful to a point. More specifically, they're only a good idea if you're prepared at any moment to back out and remember that you're not really discussing the analogised object, but something new and different. The problem is that most people seem incapable of doing this, and they get mired by the analogy and end up making stupid decisions based on it that have no real validity otherwise. This is how the Kevin Mitnicks and such get locked up and bizarrely restricted for their whole lives - after all, they were wandering around a neighbourhood with unlocked doors breaking in, rifling through people's possessions and leaving obscene grafitti, right? Only they weren't - they were sitting at computers with weird hackish curiousity manipulating bits on a wire. Analogies are always "half-useful, and thus half-misleading" (adapted from Michael Shields, sorry dude).

The only real way to learn about and discuss some new thing in the world is to confront it directly and figure out what it really means to you and to everyone else. Using a metaphor to consider it may seem a leapfrog tool to get over the learning curve, but the danger of instilling a sort of idée fixe and being unable to see the real ramifications of the new thing is too real, and too evident from past attempts in this direction. I'd be particularly careful what metaphors you present to legistlatively powerful neophytes, because the mind pollution they can create is very hard to undo.

Metaphors should be considered harmful

[alispguru]

Thinking in metaphors is equivalent to reasoning by analogy, a weak form of induction that makes you feel good about your conclusions but has no real logical validity.

IANAL, but I gather that reasoning by analogy is what passes for logic in the law. This only makes sense when you realize that what's important in court or the legislature is convincing the judge/jury/lawmakers that your argument is the correct one - verisimilitude rather than reality.