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 ;-)"