《信息科学类专业英语》课件第12章

Lesson12WhySoftwareshouldnotHaveOwners?(第十二课为什么软件不应当有所有者？)

Vocabulary(词汇)ImportantSentences(重点句)QuestionsandAnswers(问答)Problems(问题)

Digitalinformationtechnologycontributestotheworldbymakingiteasiertocopyandmodifyinformation.Computerspromisetomakethiseasierforallofus.

Noteveryonewantsittobeeasier.Thesystemofcopyrightgivessoftwareprograms“owners”,mostofwhomaimtowithholdsoftware’spotentialbenefitfromtherestofthepublic.Theywouldliketobetheonlyoneswhocancopyandmodifythesoftwarethatweuse.

Thecopyrightsystemgrewupwithprinting—atechnologyformassproductioncopying.Copyrightfitinwellwiththistechnologybecauseitrestrictedonlythemassproducersofcopies.Itdidnottakefreedomawayfromreadersofbooks.Anordinaryreader,whodidnotownaprintingpress,couldcopybooksonlywithpenandink,andfewreadersweresuedforthat.

Digitaltechnologyismoreflexiblethantheprintingpress:wheninformationhasdigitalform,youcaneasilycopyittoshareitwithothers.Thisveryflexibilitymakesabadfitwithasystemlikecopyright.That’sthereasonfortheincreasinglynastyanddraconianmeasuresnowusedtoenforcesoftwarecopyright.ConsiderthesefourpracticesoftheSoftwarePublishersAssociation(SPA):

Massivepropagandasayingitiswrongtodisobeytheownerstohelpyourfriend.[1]

Solicitationforstoolpigeonstoinformontheircoworkersandcolleagues.[2]

Raids(withpolicehelp)onofficesandschools,inwhichpeoplearetoldtheymustprovetheyareinnocentofillegalcopying.[3]

Prosecution(bytheUSgovernment,attheSPA’srequest)ofpeoplesuchasMIT’sDavidLaMacchia,notforcopyingsoftware(heisnotaccusedofcopyingany),butmerelyforleavingcopyingfacilitiesunguardedandfailingtocensortheiruse.[4]

AllfourpracticesresemblethoseusedintheformerSovietUnion,whereeverycopyingmachinehadaguardtopreventforbiddencopying,andwhereindividualshadtocopyinformationsecretlyandpassitfromhandtohandas“samizdat”.Thereisofcourseadifference:themotiveforinformationcontrolintheSovietUnionwaspolitical;intheUSthemotiveisprofit.Butitistheactionsthataffectus,notthemotive.Anyattempttoblockthesharingofinformation,nomatterwhy,leadstothesamemethodsandthesameharshness.

Ownersmakeseveralkindsofargumentsforgivingthemthepowertocontrolhowweuseinformation:

Namecalling.

Ownersusesmearwordssuchas“piracy”and“theft”,aswellasexpertterminologysuchas“intellectualproperty”and“damage”,tosuggestacertainlineofthinkingtothepublic—asimplisticanalogybetweenprogramsandphysicalobjects.

Ourideasandintuitionsaboutpropertyformaterialobjectsareaboutwhetheritisrighttotakeanobjectawayfromsomeoneelse.Theydon’tdirectlyapplytomakingacopyofsomething.Buttheownersaskustoapplythemanyway.

Exaggeration.

Ownerssaythattheysuffer“harm”or“economicloss”whenuserscopyprogramsthemselves.Butthecopyinghasnodirecteffectontheowner,anditharmsnoone.Theownercanloseonlyifthepersonwhomadethecopywouldotherwisehavepaidforonefromtheowner.

Alittlethoughtshowsthatmostsuchpeoplewouldnothaveboughtcopies.Yettheownerscomputetheir“losses”asifeachandeveryonewouldhaveboughtacopy.Thatisexaggeration—toputitkindly.[5]

Thelaw.

Ownersoftendescribethecurrentstateofthelaw,andtheharshpenaltiestheycanthreatenuswith.Implicitinthisapproachisthesuggestionthattoday’slawreflectsanunquestionableviewofmorality—yetatthesametime,weareurgedtoregardthesepenaltiesasfactsofnaturethatcan’tbeblamedonanyone.[6]

Thislineofpersuasionisn’tdesignedtostanduptocriticalthinking;it’sintendedtoreinforceahabitualmentalpathway.

It’selementarythatlawsdon’tdeciderightandwrong.EveryAmericanshouldknowthat,fortyyearsago,itwasagainstthelawinmanystatesforablackpersontositinthefrontofabus;butonlyracistswouldsaysittingtherewaswrong.

Naturalrights.

Authorsoftenclaimaspecialconnectionwithprogramstheyhavewritten,andgoontoassertthat,asaresult,theirdesiresandinterestsconcerningtheprogramsimplyoutweighthoseofanyoneelse—oreventhoseofthewholerestoftheworld.(Typicallycompanies,notauthors,holdthecopyrightsonsoftware,butweareexpectedtoignorethisdiscrepancy.[7])

Tothosewhoproposethisasanethicalaxiom—theauthorismoreimportantthanyou—IcanonlysaythatI,anotablesoftwareauthormyself,callitbunk.

Butpeopleingeneralareonlylikelytofeelanysympathywiththenaturalrightsclaimsfortworeasons.

Onereasonisanoverstretchedanalogywithmaterialobjects.WhenIcookspaghetti,Idoobjectifsomeoneelseeatsit,becausethenIcannoteatit.Hisactionhurtsmeexactlyasmuchasitbenefitshim;onlyoneofuscaneatthespaghetti,sothequestionis,which?Thesmallestdistinctionbetweenusisenoughtotiptheethicalbalance.

ButwhetheryourunorchangeaprogramIwroteaffectsyoudirectlyandmeonlyindirectly.Whetheryougiveacopytoyourfriendaffectsyouandyourfriendmuchmorethanitaffectsme.Ishouldn’thavethepowertotellyounottodothesethings.Nooneshould.

Thesecondreasonisthatpeoplehavebeentoldthatnaturalrightsforauthorsistheacceptedandunquestionedtraditionofoursociety.

Asamatterofhistory,theoppositeistrue.TheideaofnaturalrightsofauthorswasproposedanddecisivelyrejectedwhentheUSConstitutionwasdrawnup.That’swhytheConstitutiononlypermitsasystemofcopyrightanddoesnotrequireone;that’swhyitsaysthatcopyrightmustbetemporary.Italsostatesthatthepurposeofcopyrightistopromoteprogress—nottorewardauthors.Copyrightdoesrewardauthorssomewhat,andpublishersmore,butthatisintendedasameansofmodifyingtheirbehavior.

Therealestablishedtraditionofoursocietyisthatcopyrightcutsintothenaturalrightsofthepublic—andthatthiscanonlybejustifiedforthepublic’ssake.

Economics.

Thefinalargumentmadeforhavingownersofsoftwareisthatthisleadstoproductionofmoresoftware.

Unliketheothers,thisargumentatleasttakesalegitimateapproachtothesubject.Itisbasedonavalidgoal—satisfyingtheusersofsoftware.Anditisempiricallyclearthatpeoplewillproducemoreofsomethingiftheyarewellpaidfordoingso.

Buttheeconomicargumenthasaflaw:itisbasedontheassumptionthatthedifferenceisonlyamatterofhowmuchmoneywehavetopay.Itassumesthat“productionofsoftware”iswhatwewant,whetherthesoftwarehasownersornot.

Peoplereadilyacceptthisassumptionbecauseitaccordswithourexperienceswithmaterialobjects.Considerasandwich,forinstance.Youmightwellbeabletogetanequivalentsandwicheitherfreeorforaprice.Ifso,theamountyoupayistheonlydifference.Whetherornotyouhavetobuyit,thesandwichhasthesametaste,thesamenutritionalvalue,andineithercaseyoucanonlyeatitonce.Whetheryougetthesandwichfromanownerornotcannotdirectlyaffectanythingbuttheamountofmoneyyouhaveafterwards.

Thisistrueforanykindofmaterialobject—whetherornotithasanownerdoesnotdirectlyaffectwhatitis,orwhatyoucandowithitifyouacquireit.

Butifaprogramhasanowner,thisverymuchaffectswhatitis,andwhatyoucandowithacopyifyoubuyone.Thedifferenceisnotjustamatterofmoney.Thesystemofownersofsoftwareencouragessoftwareownerstoproducesomething—butnotwhatsocietyreallyneeds.Anditcausesintangibleethicalpollutionthataffectsusall.[8]

Whatdoessocietyneed?Itneedsinformationthatistrulyavailabletoitscitizens—forexample,programsthatpeoplecanread,fix,adapt,andimprove,notjustoperate.Butwhatsoftwareownerstypicallydeliverisablackboxthatwecan’tstudyorchange.

Societyalsoneedsfreedom.Whenaprogramhasanowner,theuserslosefreedomtocontrolpartoftheirownlives.

Andaboveallsocietyneedstoencouragethespiritofvoluntarycooperationinitscitizens.Whensoftwareownerstellusthathelpingourneighborsinanaturalwayis“piracy”,theypolluteoursociety’scivicspirit.

Thisiswhywesaythatfreesoftwareisamatteroffreedom,notprice.

Theeconomicargumentforownersiserroneous,buttheeconomicissueisreal.Somepeoplewriteusefulsoftwareforthepleasureofwritingitorforadmirationandlove;butifwewantmoresoftwarethanthosepeoplewrite,weneedtoraisefunds.

Fortenyearsnow,freesoftwaredevelopershavetriedvariousmethodsoffindingfunds,withsomesuccess.There’snoneedtomakeanyonerich;themedianUSfamilyincome,around$35k,provestobeenoughincentiveformanyjobsthatarelesssatisfyingthanprogramming.

Foryears,untilafellowshipmadeitunnecessary,ImadealivingfromcustomenhancementsofthefreesoftwareIhadwritten.Eachenhancementwasaddedtothestandardreleasedversionandthuseventuallybecameavailabletothegeneralpublic.ClientspaidmesothatIwouldworkontheenhancementstheywanted,ratherthanonthefeaturesIwouldotherwisehaveconsideredhighestpriority.

TheFreeSoftwareFoundation(FSF),atax-exemptcharityforfreesoftwaredevelopment,raisesfundsbysellingGNUCD-ROMs,T-shirts,manuals,anddeluxedistributions,(allofwhichusersarefreetocopyandchange),aswellasfromdonations.Itnowhasastaffoffiveprogrammers,plusthreeemployeeswhohandlemailorders.

Somefreesoftwaredevelopersmakemoneybysellingsupportservices.CygnusSupport,witharound50employees[whenthisarticlewaswritten],estimatesthatabout15percentofitsstaffactivityisfreesoftwaredevelopment—arespectablepercentageforasoftwarecompany.

CompaniesincludingIntel,Motorola,TexasInstrumentsandAnalogDeviceshavecombinedtofundthecontinueddevelopmentofthefreeGNUcompilerforthelanguageC.Meanwhile,theGNUcompilerfortheAdalanguageisbeingfundedbytheUSAirForce,whichbelievesthisisthemostcost-effectivewaytogetahighqualitycompiler.[AirForcefundingendedsometimeago;theGNUAdaCompilerisnowinservice,anditsmaintenanceisfundedcommercially.]

Alltheseexamplesaresmall;thefreesoftwaremovementisstillsmall,andstillyoung.Buttheexampleoflistener-supportedradiointhiscountry[theUS]showsit’spossibletosupportalargeactivitywithoutforcingeachusertopay.

Asacomputerusertoday,youmayfindyourselfusingaproprietary(18kcharacters)program.Ifyourfriendaskstomakeacopy,itwouldbewrongtorefuse.Cooperationismoreimportantthancopyright.Butunderground,closetcooperationdoesnotmakeforagoodsociety.Apersonshouldaspiretoliveanuprightlifeopenlywithpride,andthismeanssaying“No”toproprietarysoftware.

Youdeservetobeabletocooperateopenlyandfreelywithotherpeoplewhousesoftware.Youdeservetobeabletolearnhowthesoftwareworks,andtoteachyourstudentswithit.Youdeservetobeabletohireyourfavoriteprogrammertofixitwhenitbreaks.

Youdeservefreesoftware.

1. nastyadj.污秽的,肮脏的,令人厌恶的,淫秽的,下流的,凶相的,威胁的。

2. propagandan.宣传，传播。

3. solicitationn.恳请，征求，请求。

4. prosecutionn.进行,经营,检举,起诉。Vocabulary

5.  censorn.审查员,负责审查书籍、电影或其他材料并删去或削减其中被认为在道德上、政治上或其他方面有不宜内容的人；信件检查员,负责检查私人信件和官方急件并删去其中被认为是秘密或危及安全的信息，如军队里的信息；谴责者，监察者v.tr.检查和删节。

6. smearv.tr.弄脏,用扩散或涂抹的方法粘着油滑或肮脏的物质,弄污；污蔑，诋毁玷污或企图毁掉某人的名誉，诽谤v.intr.被弄脏，变脏,被涂上污点，变得有污点，变脏n.污点,由于涂抹而产生的记号，污点或污渍；诽谤，诋毁,毁坏名誉的企图；污蔑或诽谤。

7. analogyn.模拟,模拟设备；类比,类推。

8. discrepancyn.相差,差异,矛盾。

9. axiomn.公理。

10. decisivelyadv.决然地,果断地。

11. legitimateadj.合法的,遵照法律的；正规的,与建立起来或被接受的典范和标准一致的；建立在逻辑推理之上的，合乎逻辑的；真正的，真实的。v.tr.使合法；正式批准，授权正式地或以官方名义批准；授权。

12. empiricallyadv.以经验为主地。

13. intangibleadj.难以明了的,无形的。

14. compilern.编译程序，(又称)编译器。

15. cost-effectiveadj.性价比。

[1]Massivepropagandasayingitiswrongtodisobeytheownerstohelpyourfriend.

大量宣传说违背所有者(的意愿)去帮助你的朋友是错误的。

[2]Solicitationforstoolpigeonstoinformontheircoworkersandcolleagues.

用诱饵引诱以控告合作者和同事。ImportantSentences

[3]Raids(withpolicehelp)onofficesandschools,inwhichpeoplearetoldtheymustprovetheyareinnocentofillegalcopying.

对办公室和学校实施突击检查(在警察的帮助下)，要人们证明自己没有进行非法拷贝。

[4]Prosecution(bytheUSgovernment,attheSPA’srequest)ofpeoplesuchasMIT‘sDavidLaMacchia,notforcopyingsoftware(heisnotaccusedofcopyingany),butmerelyforleavingcopyingfacilitiesunguardedandfailingtocensortheiruse.

(美国政府在SPA的请求下)控告麻省理工学院的DavidLaMacchia，不是因为他拷贝软件(他也没有被指控拷贝)，而仅仅是因为他没有看管好拷贝工具和审查这些工具的使用。

[5]Alittlethoughtshowsthatmostsuchpeoplewouldnothaveboughtcopies.Yettheownerscomputetheir“losses”asifeachandeveryonewouldhaveboughtacopy.Thatisexaggeration—toputitkindly.

简单的一点思考就可以知道这些人中的大多数都不会买那些拷贝。但是所有者们却以在每个人都会买一份的情况下计算他们的损失。说得善意一点，这是一种夸张。

[6]Ownersoftendescribethecurrentstateofthelaw,andtheharshpenaltiestheycanthreatenuswith.Implicitinthisapproachisthesuggestionthattoday’slawreflectsanunquestionableviewofmorality—yetatthesametime,weareurgedtoregardthesepenaltiesasfactsofnaturethatcan’tbeblamedonanyone.

所有者们经常在我们面前提及国家法律和他们可以实行的严厉惩罚来威胁我们。这种作法暗示，当今的法律反映的是无可非议的道德观点，而与此同时，又迫使我们去相信这些处罚是自然而然的，不能去怪罪任何人。

[7]Authorsoftenclaimaspecialconnectionwithprogramstheyhavewritten,andgoontoassertthat,asaresult,theirdesiresandinterestsconcerningtheprogramsimplyoutweighthoseofanyoneelse—oreventhoseofthewholerestoftheworld.(Typicallycompanies,notauthors,holdthecopyrightsonsoftware,butweareexpectedtoignorethisdiscrepancy.)

作者们经常声称他们与他们编写的程序之间的联系，然后进一步声称他们对这些程序的要求和利益比其他任何人，甚至是世界上所有的人都重要(一般情况下，是公司而不是作者掌握着软件的版权，而我们却被指望去忽视这种区别)。

[8]Butifaprogramhasanowner,thisverymuchaffectswhatitis,andwhatyoucandowithacopyifyoubuyone.Thedifferenceisnotjustamatterofmoney.Thesystemofownersofsoftwareencouragessoftwareownerstoproducesomething—butnotwhatsocietyreallyneeds.Anditcausesintangibleethicalpollutionthataffectsusall.

但如果程序有了所有者，就会很大程度上影响它本身，也影响人们购买了一个拷贝后可以如何处置它。这里的区别不只是一个钱的问题。软件所有者的制度鼓励软件所有者们去生产那些社会并不真正需要的东西。同时所产生的对伦理观念的无形污染会影响我们每个人。

1. Accordingtothecontentbefore“Namecalling”,answerthefollowingquestions.

(1) Whodoesn’twanttheprocessofcopyingandmodifyinginformationtobeeasy?()

A. Thepublic.

B. Theuser.

C. Theowner.

D. Allofthem.QuestionsandAnswers

(2) Whatrightofthereaderisrestrictedwhencopyrightiscombinedwithprinting?()

A. Reading.

B. Masscopy.

C. Copywithpenandpaper.

D. Allofthem.

(3) Whichofthefollowingtechnologyismoreadvancedthanprintingpress?

A. Digitaltechnology.

B. Draconianmeasuresnowusedtoenforcesoftwarecopyright.

C. Hand-copying.

D. Noneofabove.

(4) WhichofthefollowingisnotameasuretakenbySPAtoenforcesoftwarecopyright?()

A. Widespreadpersuasionsofabsoluterightoftheowners.

B. Promotingmonitoringamongworkers.

C. Unexpectedraidstosomeinstitutions.

D. Usehi-techdevicestobugthepublic.

(5) TheauthormentionsSovietUnioninordertoprovethepracticeofSPAis().

A.favorable

B.nasty

C.democratic

D.allofabove

2.  Accordingtothecontentbetween“Namecalling”and“Economics”,answerthefollowingquestions.

(1) Allofthefollowingwordsexcept()areusedtodescribetheuser’scopying.

A. piracy

B. theft

C. improvement

D. damage

(2) Theauthorthinkstheanalogybetweenprogramsandphysicalobjectsis().

A. persuasive

B. accurate

C. simplistic

D. respectable

(3) Theauthorthinksthecopying().

A.hasaloteffectontheowner,anditharmseveryone

B.hassomeeffectontheowner,anditharmssomepeople

C.hasalittleontheowner,butitharmsnoone

D.hasnodirecteffectontheowner,anditharmsnoone

(4) Howdotheownerscomputetheireconomicloss?()

A. Theysupposetheoneswhoneedthesoftwarewouldhaveboughtacopy.

B. Theysupposehalfoftheuserwouldhaveboughtacopy.

C. Theysupposeeveryonewouldhaveboughtacopy.

D. Theysupposetheoneswhoarewillingtopayeveryonewouldhaveboughtcopy.

(5).Theownerscansuffergreatlossonlyif().

A. thepersonwhomadethecopywouldotherwisehavepaidforonefromtheowner

B. wheneveracopyismade

C. wheneversomeonedoesn’tpay

D. thepotentialconsumersarescaredbythecopyright

(6) Whydotheownersoftendescribethecurrentstateofthelaw,andtheharshpenaltiestheycanthreatenuswith?()

A. Tomakeushaveaninsightofthecopyright.

B. Tomakeusformahabitualmentality.

C. Tomakeusknowhowsensibletoimportthecopyright.

D. Tomakeuschallengetheunquestionableviewofmorality.

(7) Whichofthefollowingstatesmentsisright?()

A. Weareurgedtoblametheownersforthepenalties.

B. Theownerspersuasioncanstanduptocriticalthinking.

C. Lawsdeciderightandwrong.

D. Rightandwrongcannotbeverifiedbylaws.

(8) Whoholdthecopyrightsonsoftware?()

A. Theauthors.

B. Thecompanies.

C. Theusers.

D. Allofthem.

(9) Theauthordeemstheanalogywithmaterialobjectsis().

A. reasonable

B. nonsense

C. accurate

D. persuasive

(10) WhichofthefollowingsaysingsisWrong?()

A. Peoplehavebeentoldthatnaturalrightsforauthorsistheacceptedandunquestionedtraditionofoursociety.

B. TheConstitutionstatesthepurposeofcopyrightistopromoteprogress—nottorewardauthors.

C. TheConstitutionsaysthatcopyrightmustbetemporary.

D. Realestablishedtraditionofoursocietycannotbejustifiedforthepublic’ssake.

3. Accordingtotherestcontent,answerthefollowingquestions.

(1)