[log in to unmask] wrote: > There is a saying... 'the boss is always right'... so is hegemony, > always right... because they make the rule so their saying is always > right :-) > > so regarding IPR, priority watch list, censorship, wiretapping... if > you are the boss then you may with reason of course,... if not,then > you are against the rule :-) > > i agree with 'Evil of one kind in country A does not excuse evil of > another kind in > country B' > > rr - apwkomitel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Richard Stallman <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* rusdiah <[log in to unmask]> > *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; > [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; > [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Wed, November 18, 2009 7:10:54 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Wsis-pct] Obama calls for free Internet in China... is > Internet really free afterall ? : For Information: IGF 2009 event > rattled by UN Security Office > > Internet is not as free after all, every country in the world has > censorship policy and wiretapping policy of its own... > > Not all countries block access to particular Internet sites. (The US > does not.) It is true that many countries have such policies or are > trying to establish them. This is an injustice no matter where it is > done, and no matter what the excuse. > > Obama does not favor an "open internet". Outside of countries such as > China, the nastiest form of restriction of the internet is the War on > Sharing, which Obama supports. So he is being hypocritical here. > > How should we respond to his hypocrisy? Should we reject criticism of > China, just because someone who also does wrong joins in the > criticism? Certainly not! What we should do is criticize the US > _also_. > > Evil of one kind in country A does not excuse evil of another kind in > country B. > > How about also free software movement... freeing people from monopoly > licensing of proprietary (IPR) > > I agree with the sentiment, but it is not good to use the term "IPR". > It doesn't refer to anythin coherent. What it SEEMS to mean is a > false picture of actual laws, and a false idea of their motives. > > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html. > > >