Slashdot Mirror


Swedish File-Sharers File For Religious Status

nloop writes "A group of file-sharers in Sweden have requested that their religion, Kopimism, be officially recognized in Sweden. Although this status has been denied once in the past the struggle for religious freedom from persecution continues. Aside from deeming CTRL+C CTRL+V as sacred symbols other beliefs include the flow of information being ethically right and closed source software being 'akin to slavery.'"

420 comments

  1. What do they share? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does the average swedish file sharer use p2p for?

    Is the majority of it produced in Sweden, or elsewhere? If so, where?

    1. Re:What do they share? by JustinRLynn · · Score: 1

      Now with 90% more logical fallacy per communiqué!

    2. Re:What do they share? by euphemistic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what you're trying to tell us is that it already has a lot in common with a vast array of existing religions?

    3. Re:What do they share? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fisking

    4. Re:What do they share? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Curiously most of the stuff they share is produced in the US.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:What do they share? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If that is true, it seems much less noble.

    6. Re:What do they share? by halowolf · · Score: 1

      I'd still rather have this than Scientology.

    7. Re:What do they share? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

      The way Hollywood's been remaking Scandinavian and Swedish films you could argue they're just taking back what's theirs :-)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    8. Re:What do they share? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wonder who they hired. The former head of TASS or him.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:What do they share? by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      I'd still rather have this than Scientology.

      Scientology wants all your money. Kopimism wants you to keep it.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re:What do they share? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      No, offence, but you suck at breaking up the quotes. Channel 5 has better cutting!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    11. Re:What do they share? by Sene · · Score: 0

      Fisting

      FTFY

    12. Re:What do they share? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The way Hollywood's been remaking Scandinavian and Swedish films you could argue they're just taking back what's theirs :-)

      I'm not sure they want to. To pick one at random, Let Me In (the Hollywood remake of Let the Right One In / Låt den rätte komma in) made just $84000 in Sweden. The original made 20× as much.

      The remake made twice as much money as the original in the UK. With the attraction of watching the film in English one could be surprised it didn't do better, but everyone I know here didn't bother to see the remake as they knew it would be shit.

    13. Re:What do they share? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You suck at commas. And don't call me "offense", bitch.

    14. Re:What do they share? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen that particular film, but in general I think Hollywood remakes are always worse because Americans are uncomfortable around boobies.

    15. Re:What do they share? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      what hypocritical, authority who throw read herrings and straw men at you would have you believe religion is.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  2. Them swedes. by unity100 · · Score: 0, Insightful

    they are at it again. defending the principles of modern society against private greed. because, most others that purported to do that, failed. like americans.

    1. Re:Them swedes. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?

    2. Re:Them swedes. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      do you see the irony of requiring compensation on something that will not be ever used on a lifetime, and the same thing also being reproduceable/copiable faster than the original author can say 'copyright' ?

    3. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      do you see the irony of requiring compensation on something that will not be ever used on a lifetime, and the same thing also being reproduceable/copiable faster than the original author can say 'copyright' ?

      So most of the western world is pretty fucked then, if IP has no value then the only value is in manufacturing, which is almost always outsourced because labor costs are too high locally.

    4. Re:Them swedes. by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      So most of the western world is pretty fucked then

      Yes, pretty much.

    5. Re:Them swedes. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Well, no, I don't see the irony. The copying costs were never really the main consideration at any point - they were more the baseline costs.

      Maybe you can explain the irony to me.

    6. Re:Them swedes. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Oh and if you like, take a stab at answering my original question. 10+ years of Slashdot and I've never had that one answered.

    7. Re:Them swedes. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How is breathing air without paying the trees that scrubbed the CO2 out of it anything other than personal greed?

    8. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You refer to this question:

      Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?

      I guarantee it has been answered in the past ten years. You have just not been paying attention. But I will answer it again.

      Having free access to more oxygen than can be consumed in a human lifetime is not considered personal greed. Why not? Because the good is abundant. Same for data. Once it exists, it is even more abundant than oxygen. It can be duplicated endlessly without costing anyone anything. Therefore, performing such replication is not greedy.

      If my copy of it prevented you from having a copy of it, then grabbing up more than I need would be greed. Since that isn't the case, the word greed does not apply.

      There you go, answered. You might disagree (and you would be wrong) but you can no longer claim that it hasn't been answered.

    9. Re:Them swedes. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet it's been answered hundreds of times. But that your response was "nuh uh" or "that's still greed" or such. Or perhaps some simply said "yes it is personal greed, just like it's personal greed that I want to greedily hold onto the land my parents left me and not share it with others." Greed isn't inherently illegal or immoral. It's greed to use it without paying for it. But then, it's greed to use it after paying for it. So I'm not sure what your point is, but it appears to be "I'll make silly meaningless statements and then use people responding to those silly meaningless statements with other silly meaningless statements as proof that my actual personal belief, hidden through my propensity to play devil's advocate, is correct and no one has or ever will prove me wrong." Or something like that.

    10. Re:Them swedes. by ailnlv · · Score: 1

      do you see the irony of requiring compensation on something that will not be ever used on a lifetime, and the same thing also being reproduceable/copiable faster than the original author can say 'copyright' ?

      i don't know about that, some of those lawyers can say 'copyright' pretty damn fast

    11. Re:Them swedes. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having free access to more oxygen than can be consumed in a human lifetime is not considered personal greed. Why not? Because the good is abundant. Same for data. Once it exists, it is even more abundant than oxygen. It can be duplicated endlessly without costing anyone anything. Therefore, performing such replication is not greedy.

      Movies aren't like oxygen. If people don't pay to watch them the businesses that make movies will do something else instead. Talking about the costs of making a copy (zero) and neglecting the cost of making the original movie (hundreds of millions of dollars) completely misses the point that the reason people are willing to invest money in making movies is because they expect to get that money back and more from selling the right to see it. If everyone pirated it rather than paying to see it there would be no reason to invest money in making future movies. Thus movies would not get made.

      So the people that pirate are reducing the chance of future movies from being made by reducing the profits on the ones that exist. They are a bit like customers that go to a restaurant and eat their fill but don't pay - in the long run they will force the restaurant out of business. That could easily be described as greedy by other non free loading patrons. Not to mention by the owner.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and if you like, take a stab at answering my original question. 10+ years of Slashdot and I've never had that one answered.

      You have a seven-digit UID yet you claim 10+ years of slashdot? I call bullshit.

    13. Re:Them swedes. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If only there was some way we convince those third-world political forces to respect our "IP" authority. We face a greater ethical dilemma; is it right to enforce IP protection by military power? I think most americans would say no, but what alternative do we have? Once the cat is out of the box there's little that can be done to right it, and from what I understand the developing world (our manufacturing outsource channel of choice) continues to build 1960's car designs from both GM and VW. These designs don't sell in developed countries (likely only due to trade embargos), but with trade balance against us, that type of problem will be minimized for the "pirates" of these corporate machine countries. Is it time that our annual trillion+ dollar defense budget brought some sort of return on investment?

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    14. Re:Them swedes. by Americano · · Score: 2

      Two points:

      1) movies are not necessary for life, nor are they naturally-occurring phenomena in nature;
      2) Greed has to do with an outsize desire for something; It doesn't require that you wanting (or taking) lots of it create a scarcity for someone else;

      If you desire vast quantities of something which requires time, effort, and investment by other people to create, then yes, that is greed. The cost of duplication is a fractional amount of the value of the time and effort that went into creating it. And it's probably one of the smaller fractions, once you break it all down, and greed is marked by an intense desire to possess something, not by whether or not that something is scarce.

    15. Re:Them swedes. by gamricstone · · Score: 2

      In your scenario they are depriving the restaurant of a physical object, copying data deprives no one of anything. If they could print out any amount of meals for the cost of running a computer yet did not lower prices (substantially), that could easily be described as greedy.

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
    16. Re:Them swedes. by brit74 · · Score: 1

      > "How is breathing air without paying the trees that scrubbed the CO2 out of it anything other than personal greed?"

      So, in your view, musicians, authors, software developers, movie and TV creators are just like trees - who neither desire payment, nor have a need to buy food or shelter? Maybe if my grocery store didn't require payment for food, my local auto-dealer would just give me free cars, and my mortgage company would just forgive my mortgage then I could afford to make software for your personal entertainment. Out of curiosity, what do you do, and what do you think of people who think you shouldn't be paid for doing it?

    17. Re:Them swedes. by capnkr · · Score: 1

      It's very possible - UID is only an indication of when a particular account was created. I'm not the OP, yet I've 7 digits in my UID, and have been a reader/participant here since '98 or '99. Somewhere in the /. DB I have one or two other usernames, created when needed and forgotten now because sometimes I will go a long time between reading or posting due to work or other circumstances. Shit happens. :)

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    18. Re:Them swedes. by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about said authors do the right thing: Just /stop/. If you're not making money off of it, and you need said money, stop making things! Maby we'll end up with /less/ crappy movies and formula fiction. The only thing that would be left is A, things that were done for free /just because/, and B, stuff that relies on other buisness models(Like advertising - you don't pay to watch it). You might even see crowdsourced stuff: Pay upfront and everyone gets it.
      Sure, you wouldn't have many 100m+ budget movies... but do you need it? People will figure out ways to do things cheaper, and you'd have a /lot/ less corporate parasitism.

      I suspect we'd see a lot less crap, an overall reduction in total volume, and a better signal-to-noise ratio. And that's a good thing.

    19. Re:Them swedes. by WNight · · Score: 2

      Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?

      You've seriously never had a single answer to this in ten years?

      It's not greed based for an archivist, a genre-fan, a generous person, anyone annoyed at the concept of missing Shakespeare plays, people who want different files but who want to help seed for others, people studying a subject or era, someone collecting media for a group trip, anyone making a time capsule,...

      In a digital world where having more is having more chances to share, having more is good, not greedy. No hoarding or denying of access is involved.

    20. Re:Them swedes. by Securityemo · · Score: 2

      No it is not. For the same reason you don't shoot shoplifters.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    21. Re:Them swedes. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      So, in your view, musicians, authors, software developers, movie and TV creators are just like trees - who neither desire payment, nor have a need to buy food or shelter?

      No, but if you keep making up enough lies, maybe some day you'll get one right, even if only by accident.

      Out of curiosity, what do you do, and what do you think of people who think you shouldn't be paid for doing it?

      I'm not some idiot "creator" who creates things no one wants then complains no one buys it. I am an "employee." That's where I show up when they tell me to and they send me money. "Creators" who want that also get to do that. It's called a "job." Or just create works that are commissioned.

      Why do artists want to get paid forever for something they did once long long ago? And you call us freeloaders? We work for a living.

    22. Re:Them swedes. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 3, Informative

      copying data deprives no one of anything

      What about the person/group/corporation that originally created the data? Do you think it costs no money or time to make a movie? Do they just push a button and the Automatic Movie Generator Machine System spits one out? Well that machine cost them money, too. And what about the people who built that machine. That took years of R&D.

      There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something. Sure, you're copying data rather than taking it, but that's why there's something called "licensing". It costs money to produce entertainment media and licensing is how you recoup your investment.

      (Does this mean I agree with how the **AA are handling things? No. They're a bunch of assholes that need to be shot. But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money. And that doesn't make Kopimism or whateverthefuck any less stupid.)

    23. Re:Them swedes. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but then I don't listen to lunatics.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Them swedes. by dryeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      he reason people are willing to invest money in making movies is because they expect to get that money back and more from selling the right to see it

      They don't make money and haven't for the longest time yet they still keep making movies so obviously they aren't doing it to make money.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    25. Re:Them swedes. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      People still want films that haven't been made yet. So, in a world where you can't get people to pay for something after it's been made, pay will occur, mostly, before, rather than after production - which is how it used to be with music and theater.

      Think "Kickstarter" was known producers and directors: if enough fans want something, they pay five or ten dollars and it goes into an escrow account until the film is made. If it stinks, the reputation-capital of the people involved drops and they have trouble getting funded for their next project.

      This restores things like music and film making to what they should be: a service. Otherwise, the film industry is a textbook case of what is called "rent-seeking behavior."

    26. Re:Them swedes. by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something.

      Oh please, not this one again.

      If you want n dollars for a movie, I have n * 0.1 dollars and I instead copy the movie, have I deprived you of n dollars? Had I offered you 0.1 * n dollars you would've spit in my face...

      What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?

      These are both perfectly reasonable and likely situations.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    27. Re:Them swedes. by Needlzor · · Score: 3, Funny

      So not only can the pirates watch movies for free, but they also reduce the chances a multi-billion dollars CGI piece of crap will be released in the future ? Sounds like a win-win to me.

    28. Re:Them swedes. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?

      Then don't watch it. The movie studios don't make money from you watching their movie, they make money from you BUYING their movie.

    29. Re:Them swedes. by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      from what I understand the developing world continues to build 1960's car designs from both GM and VW

      no idea about GM but at least VW designs are built in China by FAW-Volkswagen, a joint-venture. Production started in 1991 with the Jetta, a derivative of the 1984 VW Jetta II.

      "IP theft" may be a problem but your example is a bit fishy...

    30. Re:Them swedes. by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want n dollars for a movie, I have n * 0.1 dollars and I instead copy the movie, have I deprived you of n dollars?

      Yes you have. You (as an average person) might have bought the movie at a later point in time when you did have n dollars.

      Statistically, some people will actually save up money in order to buy the movie so, statistically, you ARE depriving them of money. Not n dollars but rather n * chance_of_somebody_saving_up_money_and_buying_it_later dollars.

      Now it could be that you as an individual simply don't want to save up money in order to buy something. But if that is the case, then we're discussing moral values, not economics.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    31. Re:Them swedes. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I'm not some idiot "creator" who creates things no one wants then complains no one buys it. I am an "employee." That's where I show up when they tell me to and they send me money. "Creators" who want that also get to do that. It's called a "job." Or just create works that are commissioned.

      Yeah! Fuck those so-called "creators". All they ever do is make new and wonderful things that the rest of the world enjoys. Why can't they just be factory drones like the rest of us?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    32. Re:Them swedes. by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      That's not an answer to my point which was that you were wrong in categorically stating that when pirating something you're always depriving somebody of something.

      Please troll^H^H^Hy again.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    33. Re:Them swedes. by mikael_j · · Score: 2

      Yes you have. You (as an average person) might have bought the movie at a later point in time when you did have n dollars.

      No, as you yourself wrote, I MIGHT end up buying the movie later on. This is an uncertainty and neither you nor I can say how likely it is that this person would later have purchased the movie.

      And while you try to twist it into "it's all about economics" the truth is that morality is also a part of this, if I feel a movie isn't worth my money but I have a choice between pirating that movie and watching paint dry I may still choose to pirate and watch the movie. You may consider this inherently wrong but I just don't see it.

      There's also the fact that it may not be a "want" but a "can" in the saving money department. That is to say, a person with a very low income may very well choose to pirate a movie rather than going without (and please, if you come back with a reply about how this person should clearly get a second job rather than waste his/her time watching movies then may I suggest you kill yourself and spare the world of your cynical asshattery? (Yes, I've heard that "counter-argument" way too many times to count)).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    34. Re:Them swedes. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main failure of the Western world is believing that you're not engaged in abuse of your fellow man just because you outsource poor treatment of workers which you would find unacceptable (and illegal) in your own country.

      If WTO wanted to live up to its ostensible aims, it would equalise the playing field across countries by requiring broadly equal worker treatment across countries engaged in free trade. In fact, all it has produced is a careful concoction of newspeak and slave management.

    35. Re:Them swedes. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you had an IQ above the mid 30s and the ability to read English. There's nothing that prevents those with paychecks from creating. In fact, the vast majority of those employed in the creative arts are paid by the paycheck, not royalties. It's only "creators" who refuse paychecks, refuse work-for-hire, and instead hold out for perpetual copyright to aim for their one hit so they can never work again and just sit in a creativeless coma and whine about all the freeloaders while they have an explicit plan to never work again in their lives.

      I guess nobody ever enjoyed the Sistine Chapel, since the guy that painted the ceiling didn't own the copyright on it. Because we all know, if copyright wasn't held by the owner, then the result can't ever be enjoyed and the creator would never create anything ever again.

    36. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Movies aren't like oxygen. If people don't pay to watch them the businesses that make movies will do something else instead.

      And yet, according to the **AAs, piracy in movies and music have been rampant for the past 15 years. Strange that both are still multi billion dollar industries. Is it just possible that this isn't an either/or situation but that there may be a happy medium where some people copy, others don't, and other forms of monetising productions bridge the gap?

    37. Re:Them swedes. by sarahbau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something.

      Oh please, not this one again.

      If you want n dollars for a movie, I have n * 0.1 dollars and I instead copy the movie, have I deprived you of n dollars? Had I offered you 0.1 * n dollars you would've spit in my face...

      What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?

      These are both perfectly reasonable and likely situations.

      Not THIS argument again. People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them. They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If something costs n dollars, and you have n*0.1 dollars, either wait until it costs less or you've saved more. It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.

    38. Re:Them swedes. by silanea · · Score: 1

      I would like to see those statistics, please, because I am quite certain that there is a figure in them that says "x people will save up money in order to buy the $media AND pirate it for the time being". I know I do this.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    39. Re:Them swedes. by silanea · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You folks always talk about the cost of producing movies/books/music, as if it were of any relevance to the debate. The cost of producing anything is an economic risk that lies squarely with the producer. Whether you are recording an album or manufacturing a car is irrelevant. What we should be talking about is the value of things. People pay significant premiums to have an Adidas logo on their running pants or a BMW sign on their car. The retail prices of both the pants and the car have very little to do with the cost of producing either but everything to do with how much people are willing to pay for having them, ie.: their value.

      Apparently the perception of media's value has changed over the last decades. Where the producers - or more to the point: the distributors - see the value stable or even going up, the consumers see it going down. Way down. Films, music, books have become a commodity. IMDb gives 4,579 films released in 1970 and 20,578 in 2010. Those numbers may not be completely representative but they do get the point across: There is so much media competing with each other that the value of individual works has decreased. Add to that the vastly reduced cost of reproduction and you end up with a product which is seen as almost worthless by its supposed consumers.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    40. Re:Them swedes. by delinear · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if the logic is that you might have bought the movie if you didn't download it and are therefore liable for a percentage based on this chance, then what else could this apply to? If the shop is busy and you don't want to queue can they go after the retailer for the chance that you would have bought the DVD if they'd had more staff? If a review website tells you the movie sucks can they go after the website owners? When you start allowing damages based on a theoretical premise you open a whole different can of worms. Not to mention, if their argument was "there is X% chance you might have bought this movie had you not downloaded it" the obvious counter argument would be that there's an X% chance you still might - admittedly X is rapidly diminishing as a reaction to being sued...but maybe they can sue their legal team for the difference.

    41. Re:Them swedes. by delinear · · Score: 1

      It's also tarring everyone with the same brush. If I was to say "If a movie exec saw you dying in the gutter and took your wallet would you call him greedy and heartless" the answer is obviously yes, but that doesn't automatically mean every movie exec would react the same way. GP is essentially saying ALL downloaders are greedy, but I suspect the people who hoard are a minority (I also think they have very different reasons to greed for downloading so much - like most people who collect they have a compulsion, but we don't call stamp collectors greedy) and most people download only what they can consume. GP's question is nothing more than a strawman, he's trying to get you to answer the question of whether someone who takes beyond their needs is greedy without answering the bigger question of whether the majority do take beyond their needs.

    42. Re:Them swedes. by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The above is actually a much more important point than it seems. According to this guy (about 9 mibutes in) the Copenhagen summit consensus panel estimated that loosening of trade barriers and subsidies in the US and EU would result in pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in only 2-3 years and result in massive gains for the world economy. This would result also in wages going up in third world countries, making outsourcing less profitable and in turn putting money in the pockets of workers in the first world countries. The reason this isn't done is because it is more profitable for the corporations operating in those countries to have this poverty. To bring this train of thought back on topic, economically, sharing and globalism have an end result of making everyone better off. The question with copyright law as with free/fair trade is corporate profits vs social gains. Now choose.

    43. Re:Them swedes. by satinyou · · Score: 1

      so me watching a movie is a bad thing? I would argue that me being able to access more content is a good thing and that the studios should get some money for producing a good movie. However they should not have the right to prevent me from accessing it if I don't pay, because of the invasions of privacy nescessary to enforce it is Orwellian and removal of my fundamental right of privacy cannot be justified by any amount of economic gain.

    44. Re:Them swedes. by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "So the people that pirate are reducing the chance of future movies from being made by reducing the profits on the ones that exist."

      I can live with Tom Cruise only getting 50,000$ per movie.

    45. Re:Them swedes. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?

      The whole trouble with the current copyright thing isn't that the producers want compensation, but that they interfere with my freedom in order to get at that compensation. Be it stuff like DMCA and DRM that prevents me from watching my legally purchased content or that copyright has been extended into infinity (works created in my life time not entering public domain in my lifetime is pretty much equal to infinity). Plenty of other issues get of course mixed in as well, such as that the compensation doesn't actually go to the creators, but to the ones owning the distribution rights, which does nothing more then secure their market dominance with no benefit to society.

      Completely abolishing copyright might not be the best idea, but the way copyright currently works is really a perversion of the original idea that needs to get fixed.

    46. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wait? Do you ever shop around? Maybe FYE sells a CD for $19.99. Amazon might sell it for $12.99. Wal-Mart might be overstocked and sell it for $5 in the bargain bin. So, what is the CD worth? Should I be required to purchase it at FYE to maximize the income for the artist? (Yeah right.) In fact, I can obtain it for $0 and keep my money to invest elsewhere. The artist never knows the difference, never feels that sting, because (s)he hasn't lost anything! Corporations attempt to maximize their revenues and minimize their costs. They even buy politicians to write laws to help them do so. So, they have no bitch, no moral high-ground, when I play the SAME GAME by breaking the laws they get their political friends to draft.

    47. Re:Them swedes. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      It is fair to compensate the Creators (vs. the copyright holders with their "leave all rights to me or don't get published" contracts) for the work they publish in exchange for payment.
      It is also fair to punish those who violate copyright IN PROPORTION TO THE ACTUAL DAMAGE done, which doesn't happen with those terror IP campaigns.
      It is also fair that once a work is acquired, the guy who bought it can format shift it and archive it through 3rd parties, that ownership of a copy gives right to public performing it (venues can pay taxes, if you want).
      It is also fair that creators do not plunder existing work and put it under copyright (music makers would be mostly SOL).
      It is also fair that copyright doesn't extend more than 75 years.
      It would be fair to ban free airing of material whose copyright protection is going to be strongly enforced. Doing otherwise is a form of entrapment.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    48. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's not entertainment only they are talking about it is all bout the holy information in any form

      All knowledge for everyone
      the seeking of knowledge is holy
      the sharing of knowledge is holy
      the act of sharing information is holy

    49. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus movies would not get made.

      Really tho? This has always seemed a rather stupid argument
      to be made by informed people.

      -@|

    50. Re:Them swedes. by ifrag · · Score: 1

      making outsourcing less profitable

      Is the general consensus that outsourcing as a whole tends to be profitable? Maybe my experience is sub-optimal, but it seems to fit within the "you get what you pay for" model. I've not really seen the exchange as unfair. Perhaps others are getting more out of it.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    51. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a bad argument. We can rent movies for 1$ each here.. Downloading is not about being cheap, it`s about the lost time getting the movie and taking it back. I would rent for perhaps 10$ per month.. Rather, I purchase the movies I enjoy, and end up spending about 80$ per month, in average. So, how am I cheap by downloading some movies ?

    52. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS, just pay $5 to watch the fucking movie, you fucking leech.

    53. Re:Them swedes. by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I would prefer you not watch my movie, but despite it being my movie and my work effort you have decided on your own that choice is not acceptable and taken it against the lawful owner's will and desire.

      If you want to watch my movie I suggest you collect up "n" and let me know you're ready. Then I'll decide if I like you attitude enough to let you see it.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    54. Re:Them swedes. by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I for one almost never rewatch a movie after I've seen it once. I think that's true of most people and most movies. That's why video rental is such a big business.

      For that group, a download does equal never purchase.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    55. Re:Them swedes. by ChocNut · · Score: 0

      How do I mod you up? I've been using slashdot for a while but I don't understand the moderation system at all :(

    56. Re:Them swedes. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Only until we repeal the bans on child labor and sweat shops for immigrants. Then we'll be right up there with the east again!

    57. Re:Them swedes. by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      Data does not translate into "movie" necessarily.

      ---But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money.

      Then physically show me what they are being deprived of, offer some proof other than your words which amount to "this is how the system works license invest blah blah"

      Deprive: to take away possessions from someone

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
    58. Re:Them swedes. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Maintaining low labor costs has problems of its own. China is starting to see the negative side of relying on cheap labor alone as the means to sustain economic growth. They are starting to wrestle with rising inflation that if left unchecked will eliminate their low labor cost advantage. Trying to protect IP is damn hard these days. As soon as a new technology hits the market it is open to dissection and reproduction by others. China is an expert at this stragtegy. Why spend billions of dollars on research and development when you can just copy someone else's work? Pragmatism to the nth degree.

    59. Re:Them swedes. by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      You missed the point of his question. The greed is not the collecting, but rather the lack of compensating the creators. It requires effort to produce ideas and why should taking risks to create ideas not be rewarded. While I don't agree with much of how copyright is currently enforced, it is substantially important to reward those who create and is greedy to expect them to work for nothing by simply consuming what they make without providing some compensation for it.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    60. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody mod this guy up. I have no points today, and he is making good sense.

    61. Re:Them swedes. by DamienRBlack · · Score: 1

      No it is not. For the same reason you don't shoot shoplifters.

      Speak for yourself. I don't even work in a store, I just shoot shoplifters. Fun fact, 90% of shoplifters are babies.

    62. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, dear ... not THIS argument again.

      You see, the problem (well, one of them - there are many) is this:

      If I really want to see a movie, I pay to do so, either in the theatre, or at home, or somewhere else, legally.

      If I don't want to see a movie, due to me knowing beforehand that it's shite, or suspecting it might be, or just not being interested in it in the first place, I don't pay to see it, and - crucially - I don't see it.

      In the latter case, I am invariably lumped together with those who saw the movie without paying for it, and thus added to the tally count of pirates, without actually being one.

      Not paying is no longer an option. If I don't pay - even if I don't see the movie - I'm counted as a pirate and used to enact even more stupid laws and draconian measures.

      The music and movie (and the gaming and electronic book too, for that matter) industries can all die today for all I care. They have outlived their right to exist and need to be replaced. The sooner the better.

      Actually, I think I WILL start to pirate stuff. They fuck me, so I can damn well fuck them back. It's only fair.

    63. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think it costs no money or time to make a movie? Do they just push a button and the Automatic Movie Generator Machine System spits one out?

      Judging by quality, I have to admit I did kind of assume that is exactly what they did.

    64. Re:Them swedes. by Denogh · · Score: 1

      Do they just push a button and the Automatic Movie Generator Machine System spits one out?

      It seems that way sometimes.

    65. Re:Them swedes. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Wait, why are you railing on people that have library cards?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    66. Re:Them swedes. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Thus movies would not get made.

      Considering what's been coming out of Hollyweird the last couple of decades I don't see the down side.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    67. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, not this one again.

      If you want n dollars for a movie, I have n * 0.1 dollars and I instead copy the movie, have I deprived you of n dollars? Had I offered you 0.1 * n dollars you would've spit in my face...

      What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?

      These are both perfectly reasonable and likely situations.

      Or you could just not watch his movie. The only reason you personally aren't paying for that movie, is because you chose not to pay for it. Not because it was necessarily over priced, or you were under funded. So don't pay "N"... skip the movie. It's not worth the money, don't watch it. Forget about depriving or not depriving him of money... deprive yourself of something that you feel isn't worth your hard earned money.

      You're a pirate and a thief... even if you don't think you are hurting anyone, and even if you don't agree that it should be considered wrong.

    68. Re:Them swedes. by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      And while you try to twist it into "it's all about economics" the truth is that morality is also a part of this, if I feel a movie isn't worth my money but I have a choice between pirating that movie and watching paint dry I may still choose to pirate and watch the movie. You may consider this inherently wrong but I just don't see it.

      It IS about economics, also though. You might look at *1* individual movie, and say "I would never pay for that, I'll just watch it. I'm not HURTING anyone, because I wasn't going to pay anyway." That's possibly true, but if you took EVERY movie into the equation, the situation changes quite a bit. If you stopped pirating, and did not pay for movies... you would NEVER see those movies again. And most people who enjoy movies, would rather see them sometimes, then NEVER. So in that scenario (absent of piracy), most of these people WOULD spend some money on movies. Piracy removes that from the equation, allowing some people to never spend a dollar on a movie, that they darn well would have otherwise.

      The only reason the movies you watch are still available, are because not EVERY person who watches them are stealing them, and breaking copyright law in the process. Some people still pay to watch in a theater, or buy on DVD or BluRay, or subscribe to a premium movie channel, or get from NetFlix that they've paid a fee for, or whatever. If everyone stopped doing those things, and we all just starting torrenting our movies, eventually ... there wouldn't really be a lot of movies, would there?

      Now you're comment about the low income person... does that even apply to you? PS: I've been that person, and I saw less movies. There's nothing moral and ethical about stealing movies. Do I sympathize with someone stealing groceries who can't get them any other way? Sure! But either go pay for Tron, or do something else.

    69. Re:Them swedes. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Didn't you notice? Greed is the only principle modern society has anymore.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    70. Re:Them swedes. by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      That's a failure, certainly, but calling it the 'main failure' is a bit of a hyperbole, IMO.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    71. Re:Them swedes. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Do you think it costs no money or time to make a movie?

      dont come up with this stupid argument ever, ever again.

      it takes much more time and money to produce a single car model and sell it. yet, the company selling it to you is not asking you to pay money over and over and over and over again, and dictate ways you can use your car, or prevent you from selling your car if you want.

      a car is much harder to produce than a software. yes, it is. because with a car, you start with an idea, you pass through abstract design, you DO create software in the middle to manage the car, and you go through all the horrors of manufacturing AND distributing, and THEN you go through servicing of that car for its lifetime. you cant just produce one copy of the car and copy it over and over without any effort and just give it to people over internet.

      moreover, most of the intellectual property makes out their initial investment and multiples of profit in short notice. there is nothing that says people should be able to produce a single product and make money over and over again without adding any additional value to society.

    72. Re:Them swedes. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      he wants to pay $1. he and everyone else thinks movie is worth $1 or less. they are the market. the producers are trying to force down their price. simple.

    73. Re:Them swedes. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      To be fair BMWs do cost more to produce (the engine and transmission of BMWs are built to much higher quality and tighter tolerances, often using better materials and advanced manufacturing processes. The brakes and suspension are far better than your average econobox too. Shame to put all that stuff on an old man's luxo-barge). But there are many other manufacturers that do overprice their cars you could point to (about 1/3 of the cost of a Ferrari is just a donation to their racing team - has nothing to do with the cost of the car whatsoever - and then there are the "classy re-badges" like Acura, Lexus, Cadillac, Buick...).

      There are also the Italian sport bikes that cost 1.5-3x the price of their Japanese competition for no reason apparent in the final product.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    74. Re:Them swedes. by phoenix321 · · Score: 2

      If the only thing that prevents the collapse of the Western World is protection of intellectual property, then be sure to have a good bug-out location.

      Maybe I'm just too jaded, but relying on intellectual property that can be copied digitally, perfectly within a few seconds is probably not the most sustainable basis for an economy.

      When all you have is something that can be multiplied a millionfold within a few hours, you're hosed. Sorry to break it to you, but it's true.

      Of course we can make laws and enforce them, but unlike physical crimes like theft and murder, it is no real harm done, but all hypothetical musings on "potential lost sales". And it is nothing but statistics and vague guesswork. I think many people have bought real, genuine Bluray-discs of movies they already possessed pirated copies of. Actual loss of sale = 0, probably even better, since they may not ever heard of that movie before. And I think many people have seen pirated copies of movies they would have never spent a single dime on and regretted every minute of time wasted for it. Actual loss of sale = 0 as well.

      You cannot make reliable assumptions on potential sales lost. Therefore, you cannot judge about a fair punishment on it. Something that cannot be punished fairly cannot not be punished without hurting tangible, actual rights. If the business model of the Western world relies on that, I'd sell my stock in them, fast.

    75. Re:Them swedes. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      They don't make a profit. They do make money.

      E.g

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples

      A WB receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper.

      Following the link

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml

      For example, a bunch of you sent in the example of how Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, under "Hollywood accounting," ended up with a $167 million "loss," despite taking in $938 million in revenue. This isn't new or surprising, but it's getting attention because the income statement for the movie was leaked online, showing just how Warner Bros. pulled off the accounting trick:

      The movie cost $150 million. So really it made $788 million income (i.e. $938-150). Profits are income less expenses. Techdirt shows you how they did it. As they put it

      The really, really, really simplified version is that Hollywood sets up a separate corporation for each movie with the intent that this corporation will take on losses. The studio then charges the "film corporation" a huge fee (which creates a large part of the "expense" that leads to the loss).

      Now it seems to me like someone - whoever the fee is paid to - will need to pay tax on this income. There's nothing illegal about any of this. If you run a business I think you're obliged to take advantage of any loopholes you can. And they do.

      Incidentally Harry Potter was going to make money no matter what. A better example of the effects of piracy would be Serenity. That had a budget of $39 million and gross revenues of $38 million. No one is going to make movies like Serenity if the profit margin is that slim.

      Serenity has a target audience - geeky 20-30s males - that is more likely to download than Harry Potter's family audience. And Serenity was the first HD movies to be cracked

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/hd-dvd_crack/

      Now hardcore fans will insist they'll both download and buy. Of course buying something is lower priority if you've already got a copy for free. It's a lot cheaper to talk loudly about how you're going to do it than actually doing it. More convenient too. So have you wonder whether Serenity would have been profitable if it wasn't for the piracy.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    76. Re:Them swedes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking about the costs of making a copy (zero) and neglecting the cost of making the original movie (hundreds of millions of dollars) completely misses the point that the reason people are willing to invest money in making movies is because they expect to get that money back and more from selling the right to see it.

      No pal, we don't miss that point - we just don't agree with.

      Even if you are right, in that the only reason anyone makes a movie these days is to make money, it still isn't a good enough reason to continue propping up the industry by sacrificing our natural rights to access our culture.

      But you aren't right - there's at least half-a-dozen other reason infinitely more altruistic that 'makin moneyz' - and if you have trouble understanding or believing that, then it's you who has the problem mate, and it's you who is going to fall behind as the world moves on.

      Art and culture don't exist because it's possible to make a profit on them - they exist because people enjoy creating things for people to enjoy. It brings satisfaction and enrichment (of the spiritual variety) for both parties. All of which is further enriched by each individual that views or experiences it. If it can be monetized without damaging either party, then great. But we're repeatedly seeing that it just can't be, at least not without opportunistic fuckwits trying to take control of the whole thing.

      If taking back control of our culture means that it has to suffer for a generation or two, then so be it. Rather that than bring my children up in a world where micro-transactions are barring the way between them and learning about their country/people/history/environment/[everything].

      Much like that oft mentioned Tree of Liberty, that occasionally requires watering with a bit of tyrant blood, the roots of our culture must be allowed to spread far and wide - to be fed and to feed all those they run under.

    77. Re:Them swedes. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      When you have (via random selection) the option to Moderate, you will see a dropdown list on each post near the 'Reply to this' link which has selections like "Normal" ,"Insightful", "Interesting", "Funny", "Troll", "Flamebait", and "Off Topic". When you select one, it moderates that post. (Sadly, this reply will probably get moderated off-topic.)

      Posting a comment on an article will undo any moderation in that article you've done, and will bar you from further moderation on the topic. (It's useful when you mis-click a moderation and select something bad instead of good.) The moderation happens when you select it, with no confirmation other than the dropdown list changing to text of what you selected.

      I believe that moderation frequency (and number of mod points) correlates with your karma. Post nicely, well, and moderate in a manner that is consistent with the moderation guidelines, and you're likely to get more of them more often. If you neglect to use them, I don't know if it gives them less often. I sometimes get multiple sets of 15 points in a week, and other times (like now) I can go a month without seeing any.

    78. Re:Them swedes. by gosand · · Score: 1

      Not THIS argument again. People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them. They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If something costs n dollars, and you have n*0.1 dollars, either wait until it costs less or you've saved more. It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.

      I don't really understand why people put this in black and white terms. Why is it that people who download things aren't willing to pay for them? Example: I missed an episode of The Office. Because I am on the west coast, it was up on bittorrent about an hour after it aired. I was able to download and watch it (no, I don't have a DVR). I could have waited a few days and watched it on nbc.com. Who did I deprive of anything? Another example: I have a movie my kids watch a lot. I have a DVD player with usb port, and have a 320GB hard drive with divx files on it. I could have ripped their DVD and put it on there, but instead I downloaded it. I own the DVD. To me, this is different than downloading a movie I don't own.

      There are many more examples of gray areas, that aren't just people "trying to get something for free". How about we focus on making downloading and digital copies a valid way of doing business instead of pointing out the illegal ways to use it? This reminds me of how the music industry fought against MP3s instead of embracing them. And let's not forget all of the old material that is out there, movies, tv shows, music - that will not be marketed by anyone but there's a market for. Make it a business. If "downloading" is a valid business model, then it's more likely to be recognized as a true religion.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    79. Re:Them swedes. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Wait, you know of Serenity fans who did NOT buy it? I can't speak for the rest, but I doublt I'm the only Serenity fan to have bought the DVD set and the movie. Serenity's a bad example, IMO -- I expect that just about everyone interested in the movie or TV show is rabid enough in their fandom to want to own it, watch it, etc. They also happen to be predominantly nerds. What do you THINK would be more likely to be chosen as a crack target, Serenity or Pride and Prejudice?

    80. Re:Them swedes. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      No, the way copyright is being enforced is a perversion of the original idea - because the way copyright is being massively, willfully infringed is a violation of the social contract.

      It's not like we're choosing between good and evil here - I just have a hard time having sympathy for people who take the position that their greed is somehow morally correct.

    81. Re:Them swedes. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Statistically, some people will actually save up money in order to buy the movie so, statistically, you ARE depriving them of money. Not n dollars but rather n * chance_of_somebody_saving_up_money_and_buying_it_later dollars.

      Statistically, yes; in reality, no.

      If I have no intent of buying your movie, my downloading it is meaningless. No one lost money, not even fictional, statistical, money. Downloading a movie also does not preclude me buying it at a later date (in fact this has happened several times in my life). There has been studies showing that music pirates buy more music than non-pirates.

      A lot use piracy as a means of quality control. They will pirate your movie, they will watch it. If it sucks, it is deleted and no second thought is ever spared. If they like it, there is a pretty damn good chance they will buy it.

      But, you ask, would you buy something you can get free? Why, I answer, to support the people who produced something you enjoy. Wait, so their making money on merit and not coercion and faux scarcity? No wonder studios hate it. Also physical copies are superior to digital ones most of the time, so buying the actual physical disk does provide some value added over the content itself.

      That said, I always found the "I can't afford it, so I pirate it" argument the weakest and most inane, since it does imply some silly form of entitlement and also implies the absolute necessity of partaking in the latest forms of entertainment. But even if it is the silliest argument, it does illustrate very well that piracy doesn't equal direct harm, no matter the moral or ethical situation.

      Also, I dislike arguments that rely on the term "may". They "may" save up to buy a movie, that "may" is completely negated by the fact that they "may" also not save up.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    82. Re:Them swedes. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Either that or they don't want to waste their money on something that may well be crap. They'd rather get it free, see if its crap, and then shell out cash for it on DVD.

      I do this all the time to games without demos. I'll get the full game, I'll play it for an hour-day, and if I like it I will be the full copy, if I don't it is deleted and no money is spent. I suppose this might be a lost sale, since I could have bought a game that was crap since I couldn't find out before hand and thus the publishers would have gotten money for being crappy. Which is good for them, but not for me. And when it comes down to legal fictions or me, I will pick me every single time.

      Remember being young? Remember buying a CD, realizing that it was absolute crap (but that one song on the radio was "bitchin'"), and then just being stuck with Queensryche's Greatest Hits (or whatever) sitting in a box in your closet, shaming you for years until you finally unload it for 5% of the purchase price at a used store? The internet fixed this, but letting me download the album, realize it sucks, and then NOT give money to anyone for the privilege of sampling something I hated.

      I'm depriving Queensryche's record label of profit they would have gotten otherwise in the previous, technologically limited, model, I guess. But I'm perfectly okay with that in this scenario. It might be illegal, but it is completely ethical.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    83. Re:Them swedes. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Still not quite accurate.

      I won't re-watch around 90% of movies I watch... But 10% of them are so awesome that I have to own them and watch them annually. I will never part with the Godfather, the original StarWars trilogy, Apocalypse Now!, or my full, complete, collection of David Lynch or Romero's "x of the dead" movies.

      Also, even if a movie is so-so, I'll probably pick it up for $5.00 in a discount bin. I'm not going to pay 30 for the BluRay, or 17 for the DVD. I will pay $5.00, since its well into the "impulse buy" range.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    84. Re:Them swedes. by grumbel · · Score: 2

      because the way copyright is being massively, willfully infringed is a violation of the social contract.

      No, thats just how the world works and always has been working. Before the Internet people would lend books to friends, record stuff from TV or radio and so on. Copying and lending stuff has always been done without the copyright holder consent, it wasn't even illegal most countries. The thing that changed with the Internet is that you can now lend your stuff to the whole world at once. Its not the behaver of sharing that has changed, but the underlying technology that makes it a lot easier.

      And while the enforcing is troublesome, the underlying and biggest problem is simply the timescale of copyright, copyright that last longer then a human lifetime means that you essentially no longer have a public domain of culturally relevant stuff. And that is a big issue for society, as cultural goods essentially become controlled by a few big cooperations.

      I just have a hard time having sympathy for people who take the position that their greed is somehow morally correct.

      Greed implies ownership and possession, keeping things for oneself. Sharing things with the world is as far away from greed as you can get.

    85. Re:Them swedes. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Movies aren't like oxygen. If people don't pay to watch them the businesses that make movies will do something else instead.

      But people *do* pay to watch them.

      The problem is that the MPAA, et al, don't think they pay _enough_.

      When a handful of individuals involved in the production of a movie aren't being paid millions - if not tens of millions - of dollars each, the argument that people aren't prepared to pay to see movies might barely start to carry some weight.

    86. Re:Them swedes. by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Depends what you're outsourcing.

      Software development can be cheaper but often isn't.
      Sewing cheap clothes is clearly significantly cheaper.
      Many manufacturing activities are a lot cheaper.

      Is it unfair? Yes, I get to buy a t-shirt for around ten minutes wages, and the shop I bought it from gets a 40% markup on it too. Meanwhile the person making it can't afford a computer..

    87. Re:Them swedes. by ifrag · · Score: 1

      Oh right. Guess I should have specified software development only. I suppose those other items really are where the big gains are.

      My experience in software is you get something unmaintainable which is in need of immediate maintenance because it's only partially working.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    88. Re:Them swedes. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Both VW and Mercedes-Benz are reporting double digit growth percentages in China (Benz being down from triple digits last year because the govt stopped giving incentives for buying compact cars). The Chinese consumers don't trust their locally designed cars and turn to foreign products instead. Production of cars for China happens in China but the R&D happens in the West and the Chinese subsidiaries pay dividends to the main company.

      Source: Tagesschau (German)

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    89. Re:Them swedes. by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them

      Some aren't, but some =/= all. That goes both ways - insisting nobody who downloads movies is poor, and everybody is - both extrema.

      They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If

      Again, some are, some aren't, it isn't all or nothing.

      It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.

      Of course you don't know somebody's intention, or rather, their verbal intention, unless they tell you - guessing sue doesn't get you a correct answer.

      Insightful my ass.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    90. Re:Them swedes. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      now, i can start and make a list of what is fair and what is not declarations, totally ending up with a picture different than what you have had intended.

      so ?

      the problem itself, is the system. it enables and empowers those who seek to shackle even thought, through its ownership mechanic.

    91. Re:Them swedes. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The really, really, really simplified version is that Hollywood sets up a separate corporation for each movie with the intent that this corporation will take on losses. The studio then charges the "film corporation" a huge fee (which creates a large part of the "expense" that leads to the loss).

      Now it seems to me like someone - whoever the fee is paid to - will need to pay tax on this income. There's nothing illegal about any of this. If you run a business I think you're obliged to take advantage of any loopholes you can. And they do.

      If you run a business you're obliged to keep PR in mind all the time including not taking advantage of loopholes if it gives your customers and clients such a bad view of you that they would sooner rip you off then pay for your product because they see you as worse scum then most crooks.
      Also I doubt that the shell company in the Bahamas pays any taxes on that income, why else would they sacrifice their good image other then to pocket more money.

      Serenity sounds like it might be a good movie but I'm not going to pay for it sight unseen and as I've never seen it and don't bother downloading movies...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    92. Re:Them swedes. by Upphew · · Score: 1

      How long I have to wait to see the movie, not ads, not FBI warnings and other unskippable content, playable on my computer and streaming with option to save it locally in case of network problem etc. ?

      Also I'd like to have all the content at available at same place, no shopping around thank you.

      There is even free, though it might be illegal in some places, example available, can't the content distributors copy that?

    93. Re:Them swedes. by Upphew · · Score: 1

      People still want films that haven't been made yet. So, in a world where you can't get people to pay for something after it's been made, pay will occur, mostly, before, rather than after production - which is how it used to be with music and theater.

      Then why o why there are remakes coming from the left and right?

    94. Re:Them swedes. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I glanced back through the thread, and I think the asker of the question is a lying sack of shit. Why? Because he said "I've never seen it answered." Just in this thread, it was answered 100 times. So, he either needs to add in "I ask the question and then never read any responses to my asshattery, and thus have never seen it answered" or "It's never answered to my satisfaction" where his satisfaction is where everyone admits that his unsubstantiated personal opinion is God and we should all worship him.

      Ever since the challenge where he stated no one has ever answered it, it was answered many times. But I think he'll still assert it has never been answered. Which links back to my initial assessment that he's a lying sack of shit.

    95. Re:Them swedes. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Wait, you know of Serenity fans who did NOT buy it?

      I downloaded the torrent, watched it, didn't think much of it and didn't buy it. I can't believe I'm the only one.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    96. Re:Them swedes. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      If you run a business you're obliged to maximize profits for shareholders

      FTFY.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    97. Re:Them swedes. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Even if you are right, in that the only reason anyone makes a movie these days is to make money, it still isn't a good enough reason to continue propping up the industry by sacrificing our natural rights to access our culture.

      Whilst it's possible to make a movie and not be motivated by money that's definitely not true of popular movies. Guess which sort of movie gets pirated? A quick look on Pirate Bay shows you it's the popular ones - i.e expensive popcorn ones with mass market appeal that were made to make money by some huge US corporation .

      People do make movies for reasons other than money, but not the sort of movies that get pirated.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    98. Re:Them swedes. by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Your economic sophistry is irrelevant. Ownership of ideas is sinful. Repent!

    99. Re:Them swedes. by johnjaydk · · Score: 1

      Quoting Bjorn Lomborg automatically disqualifies you. The man is a whore to whoever pays him. He was a climate change denier until he stopped getting payed, then he suddenly changed his mind.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
  3. Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All who follow the mighty Jobs know that the only proper religious symbols are cmd-c, cmd-v

    1. Re:Heretics! by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Funny

      All who follow the mighty Jobs know that the only proper religious symbols are cmd-c, cmd-v

      Why such harsh language? No, they're not heretics. Just a few of our brothers and sisters - OK, a few of our brothers - who've been led astray. We may disagree with them, but we can keep this disagreement civil. Hearken to the words of Mr. T: yea, we do not hate the fool; we pity the fool.

      No, we must reserve our hatred for the vile, damnable, iniquitous cult of the yy and the p.

    2. Re:Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool! It's because you can call them, "command-"ments. Don't you know that all that y-ing will make you go blind?

    3. Re:Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Infidel
      (I'm a Vim user. :) )

    4. Re:Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we must reserve our hatred for the vile, damnable, iniquitous cult of the yy and the p.

      You can have my Vim when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

    5. Re:Heretics! by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All who follow the mighty Jobs know that the only proper religious symbols are cmd-c, cmd-v

      All who are true practitioners remember the arcane incantations ctrl+ins and ctrl+shift+ins...

      Beware younglings, for ctrl+c or cmd+c may invoke the dark ones, who will promptly unleash their wrath and cancel your program depending on the gracious terminal that surrounds and gives meaning to your actions... At all times we must be mindful of the terminal, for it is the source of all, it permeates and binds our actions into reality.

      When in full presence of the holy terminal you must tread lightly and always remember to show your respect by donning the venerable shift key's cloak of distinction when you utter either form of the standard incantations, lest you interrupt the dark one's slumber.

      Only a false prophet claims there is but one true way. Only a fool believes such lies -- There are many paths to a single place depending on your origin.

      Also note that the good enjoy a hearty embrace -- Be wary of those that when greeted with a friendly grasp of hand, later claim you have held them wrongly.

    6. Re:Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blasphemy! We all know that nowadays the only religious symbol is Shift-4 (at least on US-English keyboards).

    7. Re:Heretics! by Psychotria · · Score: 3, Funny

      And I wasted my mod points on crazy comments in the "regret" story. Now I know what regret is.

    8. Re:Heretics! by hfuzzin · · Score: 1

      And i thought i was the only one. Yes, brothers, the keys of the chosen ones will forever be: STRG - INS, SHFT - INS, SHFT - DEL (and while were at it: i will throw in: ASDF vs. WASD for ego-shooters) (preferably typed on a "DasKeyboard Ultimate"-Board)

    9. Re:Heretics! by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      I'm an orthodox Kopimist. I believe Ctrl+Insert and Shift+Insert are the proper path. Some of my friends belong to the reformed church and use the right click menu, but I believe their ignorance of church doctrine is somewhat unsettling.

    10. Re:Heretics! by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      %g//d!!!

    11. Re:Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ctrl-X and Ctrl-C comprise the Ritual of Purification, expelling the vile demon brought forth by the heresiarch RMS.

    12. Re:Heretics! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Beware younglings, for ctrl+c or cmd+c may invoke the dark ones"

      Pfft, "dark ones", that's nothing, wait until you see what kind of monstrosity right click + copy invokes.

    13. Re:Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DUP (Duplicate) key on the IBM Keypunches. Definitely the DUP key.
      Feed in a card, and have a duplicate come out.

      Also liked flipping the toggle switch that enabled printing on the top of the punch cards. Holes in the cards, but the top line that would have printed text reflecting the columns would be blank.

      -- Sam

    14. Re:Heretics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us not forget the reformed practicioners' use of highlight-to-copy.

    15. Re:Heretics! by dko1625 · · Score: 1

      Ah I see the makings for a religious confrontation already ;-)

  4. I thought Sweden was more sensible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    as far as religion went.

    Next we will have paedohiles filing for religious status... Oh, wait

    1. Re:I thought Sweden was more sensible by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      The Greeks and Romans did that one quite some time ago.

    2. Re:I thought Sweden was more sensible by Securityemo · · Score: 2

      Sweden is. As in, you may laugh about it.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
  5. BSOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is BSOD the sign of the devil then?

  6. This has gone too far by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look I get that companies providing content (or more accurately, managing content distribution) are acting like thugs. I even agree that individual copyright violations for personal use aren't that big a deal. But are we going to go so far as to support something this ridiculous? To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all. If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing? Why is the idea of purchasing intellectual property of any sort, from software to movies, "akin to slavery"? Its economic privilege to assume they can just do it "as a hobby" or "contribute to open source". Open source has a place, but so does closed source. Fighting back against individual prosecutions is worthwhile and laudable. Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.

    1. Re:This has gone too far by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't supposed to succeed. It's supposed to make a point that the system as it is is completely and utterly broken, and motivate change.

    2. Re:This has gone too far by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if you think their opinions are ridiculous (and I agree that they go a bit far, but to be honest crazy extremes on our side of the argument help to counter the crazy extremes on the other), it makes an equally good statement on the absurdity of giving religions (which, pretty much by definition, consist of the collective beliefs of a bunch of people) protected status. I'd challenge anyone to come up with a generic legal definition that encompasses major and minor world religions, without showing favouritism, but still excludes these guys.

    3. Re:This has gone too far by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 2

      You're giving the free entertainment crowd a lot more credit than they deserve. Is that the natural Slashdottian tendency to believe Europeans can't be stupid, greedy, venal people?

    4. Re:This has gone too far by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Their intent may or may not have been greed, but the fact remains that their point does raise the questions I suggested, intentionally or otherwise.

    5. Re:This has gone too far by unity100 · · Score: 1, Troll

      compared to those in u.s., europeans indeed come up as the angels the gp portrays.

    6. Re:This has gone too far by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      Just to clarify, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick: I'm of the firm opinion that everyone should be able to say and believe absolutely what the hell they like, and those rights should be protected indiscriminately for all, but the problems start occurring when you offer religious organisations tax breaks, exemptions from laws applied to other organisations, and so forth.

    7. Re:This has gone too far by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is the best way to go about that. I think there are far wittier and more effective means to talk about the absurdity of giving religion protective status. This just doesn't seem like an effective ploy in any light, even if their goals (tackle overzealous prosecution of file sharers or make light of religion) are worthwhile. To protest religion, why not form a new religious group that proposes "Recycling priests who molest": "Why let a holy man go to waste? Waste not, want not my children. Errr, let us rephrase". Or perhaps a religious group that promises sermons "ambiguous enough to enjoy plausible deniability, but angry enough to incite some believers to violence". To attack file sharing, why not pay private investigators to dig up dirt on those advocating for jailing file sharers (like their closets are empty of skeletons, HAH). Or perhaps working with original content producers to come up with language for a license that keeps the proprietary nature of their work, but promises not to sue individual downloaders? Or form a law firm that announces its entire business model will entail threatening people without the fiscal resources to obtain real representation into paying settlements to avoid a legal battle? There are more effective means available.

    8. Re:This has gone too far by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0

      The 'slaver' bit has far more more credibility than claims of copyright infringers being thieves, because copyright actually is a form of restriction. Also, it doesn't say there's anything wrong with buying software or movies, or that producing these inherently makes you a slaver. The 'sin' would be in restricting the flow and usage of published information, either through legal (copyright) or technical (DRM) means.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:This has gone too far by hajus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess that's why comedians don't tell jokes any more.

    10. Re:This has gone too far by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, they don't do a particularly good job of promoting copyright reform or bringing the laws regarding religion into question, but I don't think they're an embarrassment to either cause. I'm happy enough for more voices on the side of the issues that I happen to agree with, whether or not they're doing it in the best possible manner.

    11. Re:This has gone too far by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all.

      So fucking what?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    12. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

    13. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?"

      Honestly...for love of what they do. Most writers never get published. Most bands never achieve fame. So many original ideas for movies go unmade. These same content distributors block a large amount of content from ever getting to us. Even so, people STILL create. They write, they play, they act, they dream. Even when they KNOW for a 100% fact they will never become rich, famous or widely known, they STILL do it. Why? Seems stupid to bang your head against a wall and waste your life chasing dreams, right? Even so. They do it. They would still do it even if everyone stole their music and played it around the world. If everyone stole their story and read it everywhere. If someone else made all their movies and let everyone watch them for free.

      We're human. We eat, screw, and dream. In every sense of the words. Even crazy people sing and dance and write. Even sociopaths. Humans will always produce creative works. The need to profit from them is not the primary motivator for it. It never has been. That is a lie fed to us from the people who always stood to make the most money from creative works. The Patrons of Art. The Content Distributors. Different age, different titles, same values. To get a monetary return for funding anothers creative works.

    14. Re:This has gone too far by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?

      Right, because money is the _only_ incentive for people to create. /sarcasm.

      Why don't you actually talk to people who create in their spare time. The ability of the human soul to express itself is driven by more then purely capitalistic greed. Apparently this paradigm is a foreign concept to you.

      > To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all.

      I'll probably get downmodded for not being civil but, "No Shit, Sherlock."

      1. Imaginary Property Rights are neither property, nor rights. Audio, Video, and/or Textual information can be represented as a number. To say someone somehow "magically" "owns" ones a particular sequence of bits is assine.

      2. "Value" is _relative_ between 2 parties. What price do you do you put on something that benefits _everyone_, such as concepts like the wheel, numbers, math, formulas, the cure for cancer? So why should entertainment be treated differently? Art is for the benefit of everyone. Certain artists would even argue that once you put a price on art, it is not art; it is pseudo-art, because its purpose of bastard existance has been hi-jacked. Putting a price on something demands that the "value" is one-sided. It is perfectly valid to argue that the "value" of ownership is a myth -- the value of a soceity to freely share what it produces is priceless -- which is what the intent is here.

      > Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.

      Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money.

    15. Re:This has gone too far by DurendalMac · · Score: 2

      Money isn't necessarily the motivator, but it IS a motivator for people to INVEST in the production of creative works. Without that investment, what we have is a bunch of entertainment that doesn't get far above Youtube-grade. While I can say that a lot of Hollywood big-budget movies are crap, some have become cultural phenomena. Do you honestly think that millions would have been invested in those movies if the return on it would be virtually nil? Do you think that we'd have full-time authors if they couldn't make a living doing it full-time?

      Sorry, but your argument is the same tired horseshit. Money IS a big motivator in creative works. It's not the only one by far, but it's a major factor. If you want to make creative works as more than just a hobby or side job, how the hell are you supposed to do so if you can't make a living doing it?

    16. Re:This has gone too far by DurendalMac · · Score: 2

      Why don't you actually talk to people who create in their spare time. The ability of the human soul to express itself is driven by more then purely capitalistic greed. Apparently this paradigm is a foreign concept to you.

      So tell me, how many great works are done by people who do these things in their spare time? How many great artists, filmmakers, singers, actors, etc would we even know about if they couldn't make a living doing it full-time? When people can make good money from creative works, then they can focus on those works and continue to make them. Yes, we have some crappy "creative" works out there, but there are also some very good ones from folks who do it not just because they love it, but because it can support them and potentially their families as well.

      Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money.

      Right, because being able to EAT has nothing to do with it. A lot of big media companies are greedy as hell, but using that blanket statement just makes you look like another self-entitled brat who wants everything for free. If an artist works his butt off on a painting and wants to make some money from its reproduction and sale so he can move out of his studio slum, is that "greed"? If someone writes a book and gets a publishing deal to sell it so he can quit his dead-end day job, is that "greed"? If someone writes a song that takes off and they sell it via online markets so they can focus on their music instead of their McJob, is that "greed"? Believe it or not, a lot of people who charge for "IP" do so because it can put food in their mouths. Grow the hell up and stop expecting people to give everything away because you don't want to pay for it.

      Just because a bunch of corporate assholes have screwed IP laws does not mean that IP needs to be abolished. Do you really think that people will invest in filmmaking if they can't get a return on that investment? Get ready to see the quality of entertainment drop through the floor and the amount of it drop as well when people can't make a living doing it.

    17. Re:This has gone too far by Americano · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money.

      What a trite, mealy-mouthed platitude. Will you be the first to swear a vow of poverty and do without money or any other standard of exchange for goods & services? Or will you be one of the autocrats who "volunteers" to administer the system out of the goodness of your heart?

      Why don't you actually talk to people who create in their spare time.

      You think it's that simple, huh? Why don't you also ask those same people if they'd like to pursue their music/photography/painting/sculpting/dance/acting/whatever as a full-time profession, where they could make a living creating things that other people value?

      I bet that just-about-100% of them would say that they'd love to be able to make a living at it.

      If you neuter the ability of anybody to make a living doing creative things, then you will end up with a large amount of really bad youtube videos, some shitty "electronica" remixes, and some shitty fan fiction that was... written in peoples' spare time. I love Firefly as much as the next Slashdotter, but I don't necessarily think a world where Firefly fan fiction is the gold standard is really a great outcome. I think the word would be poorer as a result if we sacrificed things like the Godfather and Casablanca on the altar of preventing people from making a living producing their art.

      Here's the thing: if Britney Spears produces an album, and asks you to pay $15 for a copy, why do you feel entitled to the product of her efforts without giving her something of value in return? Obviously, you have received something of value - the enjoyment of the music you're listening to. If you don't believe it's worth that much money, don't pay it - but what gives you the right to say "Sorry, I don't agree with that price, but I'm going to take a copy for myself anyway?"

    18. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fame, Respect, having the thing that they were trying to make, helping mankind, general curiosity... Do you think that the person who invented the wheel was thinking about how much money they would make on it? There are many incentives that don't have "in god we trust" printed on them

    19. Re:This has gone too far by brit74 · · Score: 1

      > "It isn't supposed to succeed. It's supposed to make a point that the system as it is is completely and utterly broken, and motivate change."

      In what way does it do that? By pointing out the ridiculous exceptions we give to religion? Sorry, but this is more ridiculous than the "church of filet mingon" which was formed by prisoners in an attempt to force prison administrators to provide them with free steak. As for a commentary on Intellectual Property, I fail how it does anything at all.

    20. Re:This has gone too far by brit74 · · Score: 1

      > "Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism."

      First, Ayn Rand supported intellectual property.
      Second, Libertarians believe a lot of crazy things, so I don't think it's much of a criticism to say "libertarianism disagrees with it". Just the other day, I read an article by a libertarian arguing that drunk driving should be legalized. If you think I'm making that up, then here you go: http://mises.org/daily/2343

    21. Re:This has gone too far by brit74 · · Score: 0

      Cool. I look forward to never paying you for what you do. Hey, people should do things they love. I'm doing you the favor by not paying you. Did I mention that money is the root of all evil? I'm saving your soul, too.

    22. Re:This has gone too far by artor3 · · Score: 1

      But it won't make a point. All it will do is reinforce the belief that file-sharers are greedy kids who think they should be above consequences.

      Do you really think that even a single person, upon hearing of "Kopimism" and its holy shortcut keys will think "Gee, they have a point!"?

    23. Re:This has gone too far by JambisJubilee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see any difference between the motivations of one who would join the "Church of Filet Mingon" and any other religion (say, Christianity).

    24. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a fairly closed minded view. Governmentally enforced IP protection is definitely not the only way a society can work, and as well arguably not the best way. Honestly, I would argue the "patent" system our society seems to favor does way WAY more harm than good. Patents are basically government instituted monopolies, and monopolies are horribly inefficient things. Not only that, but they do an equally horrible job of promoting innovation.

      It's rarely in an inventors best interest to continue inventing once they have patented valuable IP. They can make much more money with much less work exploiting that IP, than spending their resources trying to invent something else. --So not only does the patent system not keep inventors inventing, but because of the inefficiency of a monopoly, it reduces the over-all contribution of individual inventions to our society.

      The key to a good system is that the inventor needs to get just enough to overcome his/her opportunity costs without having to jump through hoops to get compensated. The patent system clearly doesn't do that even though most natural economic systems do. Why can't a musician get paid to write a song the same way a barber gets paid to cut a head of hair? The answer, lots of them already do.

      Imagine if barbers patented hair styles: A small hand full of barbers would all get rich and stop working, the rest would either go out of business, or start working for the patent holding barbers, and the price for a hair cut would sky-rocket. Explain the pros. of that scenario...

    25. Re:This has gone too far by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Right, because money is the _only_ incentive for people to create. /sarcasm.

      Why don't you actually talk to people who create in their spare time.

      How many TV series for example do you see that people create in their spare time? Hmm? Or let's say movies?

      Or how about the argument about the QUALITY of stuff done in spare time: I am personally a F/OSS proponent, but even I admit that most F/OSS software is really poor compared to their closed-source competitors, even so much as being completely unusable cr*p. GIMP and Firefox are great, but even there Photoshop trumps GIMP. Every single F/OSS game I've tried is simply downright horrible, with horrible graphics, really buggy gameplay, poor story if there is any story at all, and so on. On the other hand there plenty of downright awesome games that are NOT created in 'spare time.'

      Hell, there would be nothing worth watching or playing if everything was created in 'spare time' by hobbyists.

    26. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how many civil rights(read: rights, not privileges) are being stepped on, to serve the almighty lobbyists, I don't find this ridiculous at all.

    27. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protection rackets for information are morally corrupt and are not in any way constructive to society.

    28. Re:This has gone too far by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You probably already are, I'm writing software for a living...

      So yes, I do feel the pain of copyright infringement. But given the way copyright and IP laws are today, even I, someone benefiting from them, think they go too far.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:This has gone too far by xnpu · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. The ridiculousness didn't start when these people applied for religious status. It started when big corporations decided to financially cripple minors for downloading a handful of songs. We tried fighting the fire with water, now it's time to fight fire with fire.

    30. Re:This has gone too far by xnpu · · Score: 2

      I did.

    31. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Imaginary' property has no intrinsic value beyond the ability to enforce the rights or persuade others of the justness of the rights. You Sir have demonstrated the degree to which you have been affected by one or other of these abilities. Kopimism demonstrates that others wish to undermine enforcement and persuasion to reduce its affect on others. Probably because they feel the current position is both dishonest and counterproductive and that enforcing laws against the will of a people in favour of 'imaginary' property owners at the expense of the people and the cultural commons is tantamount to a form of slavery.

    32. Re:This has gone too far by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      But, you know, there are plenty of ways to make money /without/ the protections of copyright or DRM. Teach people to donate(or pay for) content they like and you'll get money back. Perhaps not as much per customer as now, but you'll make some. Heck, even at a 50% piracy rate, that means that 50% /are/ paying for your works. And you cannot say that all of the people who pirate have the money to /not/ pirate - Near as I can tell, children without money pirate loads of content, but once they have a job and are able to support their favorite creaters they do so!

      And, there's also the argument that if copyright was reduced to 5 years, people would pirate less - The people who could would support, the people who couldn't would either /not/ consume the content or pirate it... but they wouldn't be paying /anyway/.

      Right now, there's plenty of old content that's still copyrighted, keeping it's knowledge away from the world. And most of it isn't even being published anymore, which means the authors - if they are still alive - couldn't make any more money off it /anyway/.

      Seriously. Reduce copyright, provide ways for the less privledged to get access to it(ad supported stuff for instance) and you'll have a much better time arguing that people are getting hurt by piracy.

    33. Re:This has gone too far by xnpu · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no idea what creativity (or art) means. Most artists don't make a dime even with IP law. They still produce though, and many of their works are stunning. Sure, their lifes may not be easy, but who's is these days. It doesn't have to be easy.

      The problem here is not the survival of creativity, which I guarantee you is not at risk. It's your notion that Britney Spears is somehow creative or needs to make anything more than strippers salary.

    34. Re:This has gone too far by Psychotria · · Score: 2

      You're assuming that great creative works (even collaborative ones) require investors. I disagree.

    35. Re:This has gone too far by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      I am a researcher in Maths. I get paid by an university, so ultimately by the state, and I produce content that is free for everybody to download (at least while they are in preprint form --- we have to deal with greedy journals, too). The quality of the content I produce is assessed by independent peer review. I do not see any problem with this system, it could easily be applied to entertainment as well.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    36. Re:This has gone too far by the_womble · · Score: 1

      If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?

      Exactly the same incentives they had before copyright was introduced.

      There is absolutely no evidence that the benefits of the extra incentive provided by copyright outweighs its costs.

      It is also obvious that the reason for copyright is not to provide an incentive. There is a negligible difference in incentive between a thirty year fixed copyright term and life plus seventy - but the latter hugely shrinks the public domain and increases costs to consumers in order to benefit professional descendants like Christopher Tolkein.

    37. Re:This has gone too far by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I would also think, it is taking a tongue in cheek poke at M$ for their marketing exercise in claiming that anyone that used open source software was a open source religious zealot. M$ did it for years in any media they could access, in order to make those people who recommended open source look bad and threaten their careers unless they complied with M$ corporate marketing decisions.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    38. Re:This has gone too far by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      So tell me, how many great works are done by people who do these things in their spare time?

      Let me give three examples that all have changed the world:

      1. The theory of relativity - Einstein
      2. General Public License - Stallman
      3. Linux - Linux Torvalds

      All of them have been very beneficial for the world.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    39. Re:This has gone too far by metacell · · Score: 1

      To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all. If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?

      Pardoxically, it's perfectly possible to earn money by giving things away for free.

      For example, TV and radio stations have been giving away entertainment and news for free for half a century, and earned their revenue from advertising.

      The printed Metro newspaper is given away for free in a number of European cities, and, once again, earn their money from advertising.

      The last decade, a lot of musicians have started giving away their music for free, and instead earn their revenue from concerts and merchandising. The free music acts as advertising.

      Online game publishers have started giving away the game itself for free, and instead earn money from selling virtual items within the game, for example, Everquest 2 Extended and Lord of the Rings Online.

      This guy has some interesting ideas about how filesharing can be a much more cost-effective way to earn money from TV content than sending it over traditional networks. (YouTube).

      Red Hat, Ubuntu, Truecrypt and many other software products are given away for free, and the producers earn their revenue on support and customisation.

      It's not clear that copyright is needed in order for creators and distributors to earn money. It may be needed in some areas, but we have to ask ourselves if it's worth the cost. Every time someone abstains from a digital product because it's illegal to copy it, the utility he/she would have gained from it is lost for society.

      Also, let's not forget that even the Pirate Party does not advocate a complete abolishment of copyright. They only want private, non-commercial use to be free. The creator will still have a monopoly on commercial copying and distribution.

    40. Re:This has gone too far by metacell · · Score: 1

      First, Ayn Rand supported intellectual property.

      Ayn Rand didn't consider herself a libertarian, though. She thought the libertarians had stolen her ideas.

    41. Re:This has gone too far by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Ayn Rand made a mistake because she was only human, despite what some randroids may think.

      Or she may have wanted the royalties

    42. Re:This has gone too far by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Yes. In that way. As a sort-of real world "reductio ad absurdum". If a certain law or rule has absurd unwanted consequence - deliberately making those consequences happen, can be a useful way of demonstrating the stupidity of the law. (and thus perhaps get it changed)

      When priests where freed from having to do (other wise compulsory) military service - some people fought that by launching "religion of me" with themselves as priests.

      When the court said that a belief with only one member is not properly a religion, but instead merely "personal belief", people enlisted a single partner or friend - to make it a religion of two. (which the courts, this far have accepted - it'd be *real* tricky for a court to defend a decision that it's okay to discriminate against a religion merely because it's uncommon)

    43. Re:This has gone too far by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?

      ummm....who cares? why is their desire for incentives so important?

      there are plenty of "content producers" willing to make stuff for free.

    44. Re:This has gone too far by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Money may not be a motivator, but it's an enabler of creative work.
      Simply because it affords the creator time to create.
      If they didn't get money for their creations, they'd have to make money some other way and have less time to create whatever they do.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    45. Re:This has gone too far by frenchbedroom · · Score: 1

      (TL;DR : If you're only thinking about art and creation as a job that needs to be paid, you're not thinking about it deeply enough.)

      Why is it important to you that we have high culture and high art, at all ?

      There are many levels of culture : your personal history ; the stories and the jokes and the little "catchphrases" that you share with your loved one. The stories you share with your family, what you share with your friends, your neighborhood, your region, your country, your continent, the whole world. But why is there more perceived value in culture and art that spreads globally, or is passed down through centuries ?

      Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love listening to music that was written hundreds of years ago, or admiring antique Greek sculptures. But what do I gain from this ? Warm fuzzies, and an appreciation of my place in the history of mankind. But what if we didn't know anything about Bach, what if we had forgotten about Da Vinci, would our culture be poorer ? You cannot feel a loss when you don't even know what you're missing.

      The whole idea of art is absurd. Art is Man rebelling against the absurdity of a life where he has to die, and producing even more absurdity ; arranging shapes, colors or sounds to his will, inventing stories, creating useless things (in the sense that you don't need them to survive) that Nature and Time will eventually destroy, too. Some works will survive their authors, a staggering amount won't. But such is the reward of the artist : finishing a work and saying to himself, I will die but I leave this. The true reward of creation is creation itself. Why should a handful of men and women be chosen and financially supported to make greater art ? Why are their useless things more valuable ? Again, why is it important to have a global culture, or art that lasts for centuries ? Why is creating art a valid career in our societies ?

      I play the guitar. I wrote some songs, and I like to play for my friends or my family. I've played in bands and I've had great jam-sessions with other musicians. But what I like best is to improvise stuff on my own. Just making up some more absurdity, to forget about everything else. I don't care that my random jamming only reaches my ears, at least I'm doing it before I die.

    46. Re:This has gone too far by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 1

      I support it wholeheartedly, I dont want a society where everything I do has to be filtered through a lawyer in case it infringes on something.
      Some people have to change their business model, I support helping them do so but not through laws.

      Today your life can be destroyed because you downloaded some string of bits, are we going to support something this ridiculous?

      Copyright and a free internet are not compatible.

    47. Re:This has gone too far by delinear · · Score: 1

      It gives them a platform to talk about the real issues. In a world where a lot of the media is controlled by those with interests in clamping down on downloaders, it's this kind of quirky tactic that gets the issues in the news. This has been a pretty big hot topic issue, with laws being bought to reinforce the persecutors around the world, yet when was the last time you saw a major channel/station give serious coverage to the download debate (and by serious coverage I mean airing both sides of the argument, not just listing why downloading is bad)? Here in the UK pretty much everything gets a documentary, yet this very important topic about our cultural heritage gets little or no coverage, and when it is mentioned it's always from the standpoint that "this is wrong", when the actions of a large number of people seem to suggest they feel otherwise.

    48. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd challenge anyone to come up with a generic legal definition that encompasses major and minor world religions, without showing favouritism, but still excludes these guys.

      "Things that people honestly and genuinely believe in (as opposed to e.g. claiming they believe in it to make a point)".

      There you go. Granted, it's useless in practice because you can't look into people's heads and find out if they REALLY believe in something or not, but practicality is wholly different issue.

    49. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it not say more on the nature of religion than on the nature of copyright. But I agree, both systems are completely and utterly borken. Both motivate change.

    50. Re:This has gone too far by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick: I'm of the firm opinion that everyone should be able to say and believe absolutely what the hell they like, and those rights should be protected indiscriminately for all, but the problems start occurring when you offer religious organisations tax breaks, exemptions from laws applied to other organisations, and so forth.

      Exactly. I think we should not offer religions tax breaks. And to be fair, we should also not allow them to break laws. For instance it would make perfect sense to slap fines on churches that have no female priests for discriminating based on sex. In practice we may prefer to live and let live and let the matter lie, but it remains disturbing that if enough people believe something to get a religion status it suddenly becomes legal, even if it is clearly both illegal and unethical.

    51. Re:This has gone too far by delinear · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the BBC is practically a model for this. Add in advertising revenue, the fact that many people still buy in a world where downloading is trivially easy, other associated revenue streams (merchandise, screenings for movies and gigs for musicians) and there's really no reason to a) persecute downloaders and, even worse in my book, b) tie legitimate customers in knots with DRM schemes.

    52. Re:This has gone too far by moonbender · · Score: 1

      When enough people believe something, it's status as being considered unethical tends to be rather insecure. They probably don't think it's unethical, for starters.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    53. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art in general, and commercial art in particular, tends to have a much greater use than is immediately apparent. Movies, video games, literature, all create a system through which people can be employed. In the case of video games, programming techniques can be advanced through the practice of creation, the hardware market is given a more immediate cause to advance for, and innovations in technology are often given a decent testing ground on gaming. Take a look now at the 3DS: ultimately not the apex of technological advancement, but the first major commercial step in unaided 3D projection. A rudimentary step, but as more people buy it, the technology gets cheaper to produce and paves the way for superior iterations of that technology which can have as-yet-unseen practical uses for the future. Movies can also foster such innovations through the technology used to create special effects. And all the aforementioned media can foster inspiration and learning in other people, a far less immediately measurable but indescribably beneficial tool. Kids who see the DeLorean in Back to the Future and decide they want to be physicists. People who see an arcane reference in a book and decide they want to read up on it out of interest, expanding their knowledge base. People who play a game that challenges their spacial reasoning and even mathematical skills while offering them entertainment. All things that are difficult to immediately see but carry enormous benefits just by virtue of their existence.

      Art is the purest manifestation of the creative human spirit, and the benchmark for the development of our civilization as a whole. You may write a few songs, but you are by no means Brahms. However, the man who spends his day listening to Brahms to clear his head and give him focus may just have his eureka moment that allows him to discover an important cost-saving measure in mass produced OLED monitors that makes the product more publicly accessible on a greater scale.

      You fail to recognize the necessity of art because you lack the necessary tools or insight to measure every effect its existence has. But that does not make it worthless to the greater whole of society. It just means you lack imagination to comprehend the true impact of it. People who dedicate their lives to producing works capable of holding artistic merit and giving to the masses deserve at least some level of compensation. What level of compensation that is largely subjective, but that is up to the masses, not to you or me. Perhaps not even to the executives of the companies that distribute these works and brutally enforce their need for compensation.

      Whatever art is to you in terms of a social construct, that does not make it so for anyone else. Reading Calvin and Hobbes in my formative years greatly expanded my vocabulary and my capacity for reasoned arguments and observation, more so than any textbook had. Watching vast amounts of Sci-Fi and playing numerous video games did wonders for inspiring my interest in scientific endeavors, as well as often helping me to get a solid grounding for certain concepts that I might not have been aware of at the time. Most of all, though, the appreciation of these things make me happy, as do they for millions of people. If the wonder of creation is all that you need to make you happy, then so be it. Good on you, and you need not contribute to the industries that profit from such things. But for billions of other people, art can give a reason to wake up in the morning, to continue existing, to simply go out and create things that will benefit humanity, or just as well, inspire it.

    54. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty, believe it or not, but people will create in their free time if they couldnt make money from it. That is how it has been done since the beginning of times. You may not have the world wide lady gaga's anymore but I doubt anyone would weep for that.

    55. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There shouldn't be a music or film "industry." Especially in the manner in which they currently operate (not considering infringement lawsuits, but just the way the business operates normally). Both industries seem more bent on telling me what to listen to and watch than contributing to artistic values.

      I mean seriously, how many movies produced in the last 10 years were seriously any good, and were really worth the restrictions in freedoms media corporations want to put on you? And I'm still trying to figure out who actualy listens to what the industry continually purports as "pop music" aside from stupid 12 year olds, and various parent and teacher types trying to reclaim their lost youth.

      Both of those could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't give a damn. Life would go on, life wouldn't get any worse than it is now, and these arrogant music and movie "producers" could finally get off their high horse and get real jobs like the rest of us.

    56. Re:This has gone too far by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Thing is Hollywood has been making more money year on year, not less. If piracy does anything it increases revenue, or at least does not harm it enough to offset the yearly gains the studios make.

      For the sake of argument lets say that piracy does take money away from investment in new movies. Is that a good or a bad thing? Arguably many "stars" are overpaid and expensive movies are little more than CGI-fests, but there are some high budget films that are worth it, Avatar being the obvious choice. Would such films get the investment? It seems likely that they would since they tend to break even just on cinema returns. Don't forget income from product placement and tie-in advertising, merchandise, theme part rides etc.

      So the question then becomes: is it acceptable to legalise piracy for personal use? I'd say yes. Morally these movies take a lot from the public domain (language, settings, events and so on) and there should be a two-way street with copyright. Furthermore they want copyright protection for 90+ years, which of course includes the likeness of the characters and other images which boils down to an exclusive license to produce merchandise, so in exchange for that free personal copying seems like a fair deal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    57. Re:This has gone too far by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Got no hard and fast numbers, but the number of people that actually live of their creative work at present is fewer then news media may make it seem.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    58. Re:This has gone too far by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think we are at a crossroads in the cultural history of the world. In the next 20-30 years the concept of property and copyright will have to change dramatically because they both rely on something which is fast being eroded: scarcity.

      The internet has taken away scarcity of IP because now almost any kind of media can be downloaded at near zero cost. 3D printers are already at the stage where they can manufacture fairly complex mechanical machines and eventually will reduce the cost of many physical objects to near zero. I expect it will take much longer to get to the Startrek replicator level of being able to summon up arbitrary objects from a vast database, but I also have no doubt that it will eventually happen.

      So, we need to decide how we are going to deal with this. Traditionally as manufacturing became too low cost to sustain workers in western countries we changed over to providing services, but it seems reasonable to assume that many of those jobs will eventually be replaced by technology too. Maybe once we get there we can all give up our jobs and just do things for our own amusement but in the transitional period only people with exceptional skills will be able to monetise them effectively.

      I honestly don't know how to deal with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    59. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      compared to those in u.s., europeans indeed come up as the angels the gp portrays.

      Before I visited the US, I would have said the above is generalised nonsense.

      When I visited the US, it started at the airport: the immigration officer asked me why I visited the US. I answered I was taking a course on databases at the HQ of the company I worked for. He started talking to me about Java. I told him I was not very interested in Java (which is just a personal preference: I just don't like C syntax and I prefer functional/declarative programming over OO). This immediately made me very suspect: the money is in Java after all.

      A couple of hours later, I arrived at the hotel. Before I could enter, a lady started to talk to me: first she told me she was a normal person (she was shocked when I said that I had never met a normal person before) and next she asked for money.

      I took the occasion of being in the US to visit American friends who used to live in Europe. They and their friends were talking about ways to make money all the time, and they were very upset when I kindly asked after a couple of hours to change the subject away from the whole making money thing.

      The database course I took was OK in the afternoons, when we were doing technical stuff with non-American instructors. It was a pity however that we had to listen every morning to some suits who were talking about $$$$.

    60. Re:This has gone too far by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      I did.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    61. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because being able to EAT has nothing to do with it. .

      Indeed. Unless you mean eat off a silver platter in your 8th car after snorting a line off a hookers ass, then yeah that might have something to do with it.

      Get ready to see the quality of entertainment drop through the floor...

      What you're referring to is production value, not entertainment quality.

    62. Re:This has gone too far by Legal.Troll · · Score: 0

      1. Source for Einstein coming up with general relativity "in his spare time"? Everything I've read says he was a university teacher at that time. Such academics publish papers as part of their professional obligations, and not in their "spare time". Indeed, according to Wiki he obtained a special contract clause in 1914 that allowed him to spend most of his time researching and writing rather than teaching. 2. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS THAT YOU WOULD COMPARE GPL/LINUX TO THE ABOVE, EITHER IN TERMS OF THE INTELLECT REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IT, OR THE BENEFICIAL IMPACT ON THE WORLD

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
    63. Re:This has gone too far by unity100 · · Score: 1

      yes. and that self-centered self-interestedness is harming them all.

    64. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion: An organized system of belief in something without an attempt to prove it.

      As opposed to philosophy, which is concerned with proof.

      Kopimism is more a philosophy than a religion. If you ask a Christian why they believe God exists, the closest you'll get to them trying to prove it is either an appeal to the Bible (which you'll also have to accept on faith, not proof) or "Pray and find out for yourself." If you ask a Kopimist why they believe file sharing is good, they'll probably give you a lecture on the benefits of sharing and the evils of copyright - not evil in the religious sense but in the practical sense. They'll claim it's bad for society and give you a dozen reasons why.

      Note that this is the first time I've ever heard of Kopimism, so my opinion is admittedly ill-informed.

    65. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you don't have IP worth selling doesn't mean someone else doesn't.

      "the value of a soceity to freely share what it produces is priceless"

      And the value that you provide for free is...?

    66. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did (copy another post).

    67. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all.

      That can depend on the theory of value that you accept. I do not accept your implication that value is created through artificial scarcity. Value is also not created (intrinsically) through labor. You have claim on the information in your mind. I have claim on the information in my mind. The coincidence of similarity between pieces of information is irrelevant.
       
      Property and its rights come from homesteading the commons. "Intellectual Property" in this sense is a nonsensical statement because collective knowledge only exists conceptually and not in reality. I will admit that there is a lot of industry built around the lawyer constructed Imaginary Property and trying to imagine a functioning world without the thought police may be difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

    68. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between a "tax break" and not needing to file because the corporation is structured in such a way that it will never generate profit and thus never need to pay taxes. Any person (legal or natural, at least in the United States) that generates "profit" (which has its own legal definition that may be more narrow than many people realize) must pay taxes on that portion of money. If ALL money goes towards wages (any fixed pay not dependent on income or other performance type rating, even millions of dollars per year), capital investment, or other expenditures; there is legally no income to tax. "Tax Exemption" is only an exemption from filing on the assumption that if you do not file it means that you generated no profit. It is more complicated than that, but the point is that "Tax Exemption Status" in no way reduces your tax liability. I would even say that in terms of labor it often creates greater tax liability because, as I have heard, you need to keep perfect records because in many respects just having tax exemption status is a red flag for the IRS and you are much more likely to be audited often defeating the purpose. The real benefit of being a registered 501(c)3 is that donations are tax deductible for the donor, and you can hold (again, legally defined) "charity events".
       
      IMO, it is worth understanding. As with many things, just because the government gives something a name doesn't mean it means what you think that word means, "charity" notwithstanding.

    69. Re:This has gone too far by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      everyone should be able to say and believe absolutely what the hell they like, and those rights should be protected indiscriminately

      And as beliefs go I know ASCAP would completely disagree with you. ;)

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    70. Re:This has gone too far by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      While I am not sure how it works exactly in Europe, "Tax Exempt" in the United States is only an exemption from filing because you are stating up front that you do not intended to produce "profit". There is lots of other paperwork you need to do instead. The only "tax break" is for those making donations to legally recognized "charities".

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    71. Re:This has gone too far by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      Simpler than that, Intellectual Property is incompatible (and an erosion of) with a capital theory of property rights. Can't visit youtube right now, but the first result if you search for "Stephan Kinsella" gives a great lecture on this subject.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    72. Re:This has gone too far by Americano · · Score: 1

      Sure, their lifes may not be easy, but who's is these days. It doesn't have to be easy.

      Ah yes, it's the lot of the artist to suffer and sacrifice so that he may enlighten and uplift his fellow humans, is that the platitude we're on to next?

      All men are not born equally creative. If you truly valued art and creativity, you would not pay lip service to it in one breath, and in the next breath suggest that it should be nothing more than a hobby for people to pursue in their spare time outside their "real job". If you want people to create lots of things for you to enjoy, it is in your own best interests to support the creative endeavors of the people whose art you value. That means, allowing them to make a living at it, not standing over them with a whip demanding that they produce something new and interesting to alleviate your boredom.

      If you want to argue that the distribution model for creative work is increasingly digital, and thus the middlemen in the MPAA and RIAA and record labels are increasingly irrelevant and doomed, I'm right there with you. I think we're going to see a lot more work produced independently by the artists themselves, and distributed digitally, which will be a boon to artists.

      But, if you want to argue that you have some intrinsic "right" to the product of someone else's creative time & efforts without offering them anything in consideration in return, then I will call you a hypocrite and a leech.

    73. Re:This has gone too far by gknoy · · Score: 1

      GPL and Linux (and Apache) have impacted (indirectly) a great many people - more than some many albums, movies, or books have. I think it's quite apropos to list them with others who created or invented "in their spare time", out of a love of creation rather than money.

    74. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every source I have tells me that Albert Einstein was working as a clerk in the Suiss Patent Office in Berne in 1905, when he published his four articles earning him fame:


      • Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichts betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt (Mar 18 1905)

      • Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen (April 30 1905)

      • Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen (Mai 11 1904)

      • Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (June 30 1905)
    75. Re:This has gone too far by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      Lew Rockwell has a think for flare, I am glad to see this article got some attention even if misunderstood. There is no way you can make an argument against the criminalization of potential crime without addressing the issue of drunk driving. His argument is that while we should be diligent in the persecution of trespassers that persecution of potential trespassers is going too far. In business management there is an idea that you should not focus on punishing people for what they were doing while they should have been doing something else, focus on what they were NOT doing. People should be busted for not driving safely, but are we using the best metric?

      It is more of a legal argument than a moral one. If a person is driving dangerously should they not be cited if it is determined that they are not legally intoxicated? Why not instead bust people for driving dangerously and only allow for intoxication to be an enhancement. The law is HIGHLY technical, and Rockwell likes to often attack it in highly technical and extreme ways. His articles tend to be worth controversial discussion and not group think.

      Ayn Rand is not the beginning or end of libertarian thought. She was a contributor. She also supported the idea of using war to promote US interests, possible the most anti-libertarian position anyone could take. Just because something has a founding in Libertarian principles does not mean that the conclusions that individual comes to is representative of all Libertarians.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    76. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would also think, it is taking a tongue in cheek poke at M$ for their marketing exercise in claiming that anyone that used open source software was a open source religious zealot. M$ did it for years in any media they could access, in order to make those people who recommended open source look bad and threaten their careers unless they complied with M$ corporate marketing decisions.

      understandable from someone using evangelists. Unfortunately, ms is a religion that's yet to produce a saint.

    77. Re:This has gone too far by Omestes · · Score: 1

      think; Pigasus, or the various anti-vegetable-slander laws that were passed to show how flawed the process was (not to be confused with the modern ones that prop up agribusiness' profits).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    78. Re:This has gone too far by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unfortunately, ms is a religion that's yet to produce a saint.

      Dave Cutler?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    79. Re:This has gone too far by Americium · · Score: 1

      "You religious 'rights' cannot include stealing my products and distributing them to whoever you see fit. "
      Done.

      They have the right to produce their own music or art and distribute it freely, nobody is infringing on their rights. But absurdly, they think they have the right to steal anything anyone else creates.

      Their lack of ability to create art or other useful software that isn't open source doesn't give you a free pass to steal.

      You aren't being forced to use software that costs money, you aren't even forced to use a computer, just look at the Amish.

    80. Re:This has gone too far by praxis · · Score: 1

      Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money.

      What a trite, mealy-mouthed platitude. Will you be the first to swear a vow of poverty and do without money or any other standard of exchange for goods & services? Or will you be one of the autocrats who "volunteers" to administer the system out of the goodness of your heart?

      I'm not sure where you get the idea that UnknownSoldier meant for money or other standard of exchange to go away. He said that we should realize that "there is more to life then (sic) money." Your retort is that UnknownSoldier wouldn't give up money?! I don't follow.

      There is a balanced path were we use money as a system of exchange but still find outlets for creativity that are not motivated by money. You appear to be advocating (by ignoring the middle) that money is the only motivator for humans. You seem to think UnknownSoldier is advocating absolution of money (the other extreme). What he actually did say was that money is not everything. There are other motivations.

      It's about time humanity grew up and sought a more balanced path: money has it's uses in making society run, especially when we have specialization, but if we let it become our only motivator we're missing out on many of humanities other dreams and motivations to do interesting things.

    81. Re:This has gone too far by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      there isn't any value to intellectual property at all.

      well, almost. with a near infinite supply of any item, the value has to approach near zero at some point. i'm not sure when, but i'd say more than a year but way, way, way less than 90 years post death. funny, how certain people want to compare copyright infringement with physical theft, but when you use physical terms regarding supply and demand, it's suddenly different.

      If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?

      What if they realize that the value their content WAS worth is no longer anywhere near the same value? If it pays more than McDonald's , their incentive is "It's not McDonald's" If producing content is no longer profitable, what can you do? Maybe the system can die and be reborn. It'd probably be better in the long run.

      Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.

      So is preventing stuff created in my lifetime to never become public domain in my lifetime. I do agree there should be limited copyright, but what we have now is grossly obscene. 10-20 years max plus a few stipulations: 1. must be made available: in the digital world, nothing should go out of print, ever. it's bad enough with the current bullshit false scarcity, but to double it up? gimme a break. 2. mandatory backup program: if you can use drm to stop copying and violate fair use rights, man up and provide a backup program. i mail you a broken disc, you mail me a new one. capiche? 3. no more retarded regioning: the internet is a global network and should be treated as such. if you can't compete on that level, maybe gtfo?

      --
      ...
    82. Re:This has gone too far by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > How many TV series for example do you see that people create in their spare time? Hmm? Or let's say movies?

      Oh right, I forgot the the majority of TV series and Hollywood movies are such an paragon of QUALITY that amatuers can't produce anything of similiar or better quality. /sarcasm

      Now I agree that 99% of people would rather consume then create. Of the few that do, the scope is usually too large for enough people to consider doing it for free, but if money really was the only issue that people cared about though then we wouldn't have free movies at all. (See next paragraph.)

      > Hell, there would be nothing worth watching or playing if everything was created in 'spare time' by hobbyists.

      These artists would probably beg to differ...

      - Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning
      - Art of the Saber
      - Big Buck Bunny
      - Bounty Trail
      - Broken Allegiance
      - The Dark Redemption
      - Duality
      - Elephants Dream
      - Fanimatrix
      - The Formula
      - Machinima, such as Red vs Blue
      - The Phantom Edit
      - Pink Five
      - Reciprocity
      See: http://soosck.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/20-open-source-movies-edit-redistribute-free/

      Why is xkcd freely available?

      > I am personally a F/OSS proponent, but even I admit that most F/OSS software is really poor compared to their closed-source competitors, even so much as being completely unusable cr*p

      Yeah, I work on OSS myself and totally agee with this. At least 95% of OSS _is_ crap. 10 clones that each implement a difference 60% of what you need. The OOTB (out-of-the-box experience) is rubbish because most geeks don't understand User Expereience let alone good User Interface design. ( i.e. Cygwin / Bash wouldn't suck so bad if the man pages actually included fucking _examples_ like the BSD crowd does.)

      > GIMP and Firefox are great, but even there Photoshop trumps GIMP.

      Agreed GIMP is crap. In a few more years it will be "OK" though when they finally add 16-bit support, Layer Groups, 100% Photoshop Layer Blending and Effects, and a Photoshop hotkeys profiles out-of-the-box. I'm not holding my breath though.

      There are some good OSS apps though:

      - Audacity
      - Blender
      - Firefox (before it jumped the shark)
      - flac
      - lame
      - LAMP (Linux, Appache, MySql, PHP/Perl)
      - OpenBSD
      - OpenOffice
      - Pov-Ray
      - TrueCrypt
      - VirtualBox

      Are they perfect? No, but they are "good enough" considering where we were 10 years ago.

      > Every single F/OSS game I've tried is simply downright horrible, with horrible graphics, really buggy gameplay, poor story if there is any story at all

      Agreed. While most programmers will work for free, most artists don't and won't. OSS game devs haven't hit critical mass yet.

      20 years it was crazy to think there would be a OSS *nix clone. We'll have some good OSS apps in another 20.

    83. Re:This has gone too far by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      These artists would probably beg to differ...

      - Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning
      - Art of the Saber
      - Big Buck Bunny
      - Bounty Trail
      - Broken Allegiance
      - The Dark Redemption
      - Duality
      - Elephants Dream
      - Fanimatrix
      - The Formula
      - Machinima, such as Red vs Blue
      - The Phantom Edit
      - Pink Five
      - Reciprocity

      Of those ones I've seen on that list none were really memorable in any way or even good enough that I'd recommend them to any of my friends or family. Some, like for example Big Buck Bunny, are very pretty but.. that simply ain't enough, you know. It's more like a tech demo and/or an ad for Blender. I still stand by my opinion that these free movies cannot and will not stand up to scrutiny when compared against the better Hollywood movies.

    84. Re:This has gone too far by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      You are right. There is no such thing like absolute ethical good or absolute ethical evil. In some cultures cannibalism was ethical and normal. In others paedophilia was accepted as normal behaviour. Ethics is closely connected with society.

      I have a dream about society where copying information would be ethical. And I still think that removing copyright will not remove incentive for content producers. It will just change the way they earn money.

    85. Re:This has gone too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that hasn't been completely assimilated knows in their gut that intellectual property is fundamentally bullshit. Just because we rely heavily on monopolized industries and exploitable governments shouldn't affect the fact that this is a human rights issue.

      Its not stealing.

      "Intellectual Property" does not have the properties of being property.

      Just because they're filing for religious status may seem a bit silly, it doesn't mean it isn't serious. It's not like they believe that there is a giant jazz drive in the sky. Anyone wise enough to sit down and think about it rationally would see this as it is. It is a sign that the concept of intellectual property is becoming disillusioned in the eye of the world, and they are using the time-told sanctuary of freedom of religion as their platform.

    86. Re:This has gone too far by moppop · · Score: 1

      Where's your creative work to give to us?

    87. Re:This has gone too far by sjames · · Score: 1

      Giving religions protected status is, in part, a matter of practicality. Governments of all sorts are able to suppress all manner of things against the will of the people, but once religion unifies the people, the tables turn. Kings and Emperors throughout history have had to at least pay lip service to religion to remain in power.

  7. sold on ctrl alt as religious symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is their signs artwork done in ascii as well?ctrl alt as religious symbols ok I am sold on their religion They may end up with alot of followers that way !

  8. Religious shortcuts by hinesbrad · · Score: 1

    What about (window)+R and CTRL+ALT+DEL? Does this religion promote killing (of apps)?

    1. Re:Religious shortcuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Windows(tm/R/C)apps. DIE DIE DIE!

  9. Why be such morons? by Antidamage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

    1. Re:Why be such morons? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I mentioned in a post above, if you think their opinions on sharing are ridiculous, then it makes an excellent statement on the problems with allowing religion to be a protected class. Religion is something that a group of people happen to believe - you can't give special treatment to certain types of belief without discriminating against those who do not subscribe to those particular types.

    2. Re:Why be such morons? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 0

      I agree, mod parent up.

    3. Re:Why be such morons? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just to clarify, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick: I'm of the firm opinion that everyone should be able to say and believe absolutely what the hell they like, and those rights should be protected indiscriminately for all, but the problems start occurring when you offer religious organisations tax breaks, exemptions from laws applied to other organisations, and so forth.

    4. Re:Why be such morons? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

      It is, however, if they're successful, a way to enjoy the same legal protections granted to a number of other ethoses (ethoi?) which are demonstrably more counter-productive and childish than any amount of file-sharing could ever be. Which I kind of suspect is the point. "We don't care if you agree with us, just stop persecuting us" is a demand which has proven quite effective, in the civilized world, for all sorts of beliefs which previously been considered bizarre at best and criminal at worst.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Why be such morons? by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree with your comment, the delivery is a bit flame-baitish (is that a word?).

      Most of the western world is pushing the democracy wagon at the moment. It might not be a very good form of government, but its the best we've got right now.

      Now, here's the rub. 90% of the world subscribes to some kind of religion. And a majority of those believe that their religion is entitled to governmental benefits of some kind or another.

      Scientific or not, democracy demands that religion is recognised and favoured.

      Combine that with a capitalist economic system that encourages exploitation and boundary-pushing, and we have ... Scientology. Or Kopimism. Or Jedi-ism. Or whatever-ism.

      You're right that it does not curry favour for the file-sharing concept. However, it does curry favour for the concept of abolishing religion-welfare. And that is something I can support.

    6. Re:Why be such morons? by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      it works fairly well for Pastafarianism. Why not here?

    7. Re:Why be such morons? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why be such morons? Why be counter-productive and childish? How is that different from all other religions?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Why be such morons? by Raineer · · Score: 0

      This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

      As are most religions. I love the way they are going about it. Says more about organized religion and the way governments tolerate it than anything about file sharing.

    9. Re:Why be such morons? by owlnation · · Score: 2

      This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

      No. It's funny. Which means people like it. The power of comedy can be enormous. Ask Jon Stewart. It's a perfectly valid way of raising awareness, and using that awareness to create change.

    10. Re:Why be such morons? by Toze · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a Master's theology student and active church member, I agree. I'm increasingly uncomfortable with church tax breaks. Sure, it's nice, and maybe if there's rules for secular non-profits I wouldn't mind incorporating in that sense, but for governments to specifically say "you're a religious organization, you get tax breaks" is to say as well that "you're _not_ a religious organization, you get no tax breaks." You can't read a lot of religious history without getting nervous about governments deciding what is and isn't a religion.

      As an unrelated aside, the same kind of argument is why I dislike legal protection of "traditional" marriage.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    11. Re:Why be such morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you to judge someone else's religion? You don't think that the other major religions were made up as well to benefit
      someone?
      Here is my religion: God is real, religions exploit spirituality. All of them.

    12. Re:Why be such morons? by MikShapi · · Score: 0

      >> It's counter-productive and childish.
      Clearly, you are not American.

      --
      -
    13. Re:Why be such morons? by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you're a believer. Honestly, I hate deistic religions. But your views on the subject just earned you some respect points in my book.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    14. Re:Why be such morons? by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why do you think Scientology was created? It was to provide tax-exempt status to a legalized pyramid scheme. The closer you get to reaching Clear, the more about this scheme is revealed to you. Of course, not until after you dump tons of money into it. So by the time you've reached Clear, you've now accepted that Scientology is complete and total bullshit yet but must keep your underlings in the dark just long enough to cash-out.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:Why be such morons? by richpoore · · Score: 1

      I'm an active church member and about to get my Bachelor's in Religion and I agree, the government shouldn't be giving tax breaks because a group is religious but I don't mind if they do it based on charitable status or just non-profit status. My problem is when organizations state, and judges sometimes agree, that something related to religion can't be done because it's religious. (Nativity scenes or crosses for memorials for example)

    16. Re:Why be such morons? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except they're not laughing with you, they're laughing AT you.

      Just like most people snicker and roll their eyes when Jon Stewart (or a similar show) does a "feature" on the Jedi "religion". It's not because they think it's such clever societal commentary, it's because they think these people are loons who are completely disconnected from the real world.

    17. Re:Why be such morons? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      The problem is, as our US Supreme Court identified, "the power to tax is the power to destroy" and you get on very shaky ground very quickly.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    18. Re:Why be such morons? by williamhb · · Score: 1

      As I mentioned in a post above, if you think their opinions on sharing are ridiculous, then it makes an excellent statement on the problems with allowing religion to be a protected class. Religion is something that a group of people happen to believe - you can't give special treatment to certain types of belief without discriminating against those who do not subscribe to those particular types.

      You've predicated this on some false assumptions. First, a lot of jurisdictions do not give the extent of "special treatment to religion" you'd like to claim -- tax breaks in most places I've lived are usually under the charities laws as community and non-profit organisations (in other words, it'd be tax-exempt whether it was a prayer circle or a knitting circle), and if anything many churches are given special penalties in that regular donations (as opposed to one-off donations) are often not tax deductible as they are treated as membership fees by the tax office even if they are not.

      In terms of being a "protected class" you need to realise what this means: you are given legal protection to disagree with what people in power tell you you should believe, and to express your belief whether or not they like it. Freedom of religion is identical to freedom of speech -- it is the freedom to say things in public that someone with enough power might want to prevent you from saying. And generally there's not a right to freedom from speech ("Silence that man from stating views I don't like! Cart him off to the political prison for violating my freedom from speech!", or on a smaller scale, "I'm a your boss and I'm a Republican; if you vote democrat then you're fired"). There are some protections that have to be there to prevent abuse -- such as that Republican boss not being allowed to fire his Democrat employees. And there have to be some exemptions just to make things work, but again they are not unique to religion. Churches are indeed allowed to religiously discriminate when employing their priests and say "no, really we do want a Christian priest to lead this Christian congregation, not just a generic religious leader of any religion." But then I'm pretty sure Obama wasn't required by law to interview die hard Republicans to be his policy advisers either.

      Calls for "freedom from religion", and there have been plenty on Slashdot, are effectively identical to calls for a command society with institutionalised atheism and punishment for anyone who expresses a view opposed to that of those in power -- effectively, the worst parts of communism without any of that airy fairy looking after the poor. Because without enforcement, punishment, and the loss of liberty, "freedom from religion" couldn't be enforced. The temptation to try and enforce a command society can happen at a community level. Perhaps a good thought experiment on Slashdot would be to ask this: "You see your son's science teacher coming out of a Mosque having just prayed... do you want to have this man removed from his job because he dared disagree with your own religious/irreligious beliefs?" I suspect quite a few on Slashdot would struggle to answer "no".

    19. Re:Why be such morons? by Toze · · Score: 1

      Thanks, man.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    20. Re:Why be such morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Freedom from religion" has nothing to do with private individuals believing or not believing in a religion, it has to do with government sponsorship of religion. Go ahead and claim this doesn't happen, or that it has to happen.

    21. Re:Why be such morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > these people are loons who are completely disconnected from the real world.

      Which religion is not completely disconnected from the real world? They only differ in numbers. If the Jedists were a billion people instead of a few thousand, sooner or later youd have presidents inaugurated with "might the force be with me" instead of "so help me god".

    22. Re:Why be such morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All NPOs get tax cuts, why not religious organizations?

    23. Re:Why be such morons? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      It is equally unfair when you get situations (as in Britain) where the rules for religious non-profits to get tax breaks are tougher than for non-religious ones (but educational ones get the toughest because the "benefit the rich").

    24. Re:Why be such morons? by the_womble · · Score: 2

      Where do secular non-profits not get tax breaks? IN every country I know of, there is some kind of registered charity system that gives all kinds of organisations with tax breaks.

    25. Re:Why be such morons? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      What exemptions?

      Are the same tax breaks not available to secular charities?

      As far as tax breaks go, the basic principle should be that if it is an organisation that is supported by donations rather than commercial activity, or to which you can reasonably expect people to make donations, and it is structured to put all its profits/excess money into furthering its aims rather than making a profit for someone, then it should get tax breaks.

    26. Re:Why be such morons? by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1

      This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

      Because meekly sitting there and begging the State to give clemency and change it's mind has been *really* successful so far, hasn't it?

      Weird expressions of dissent are all we have left. Nothing else works.

    27. Re:Why be such morons? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      Most people take organized religions more seriously than the claim that filesharing is essential to culture. How is that counter productive ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    28. Re:Why be such morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, we already had George "You don't know the power of the dark side" Bush.

    29. Re:Why be such morons? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Ethe or ethea, apparently.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    30. Re:Why be such morons? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      The precise nature of the legal protections for religion varies, of course, so anything either of us says on that front is going to be local. In the UK, a country far more secular than the US, religions have special status within the education system compared to other non-profit community organisations, and some church leaders receive a measure of automatic political power. That goes far, far beyond freedom of speech and belief, and well into government sponsorship of religion, in my opinion.

      You're absolutely correct about people being able to say and believe what they like, and that we have no right to 'freedom from speech'; I actually made a clarification to my original post to that effect.

      I strongly disagree with your last paragraph, though. All I ask is that religions be held to precisely the same standard as any other community organisation, no more, no less. People's right to religious belief should be protected as much as their right to political belief; again no more, no less. As for removing a person from his job just because of his religion, I'd be absolutely furious if that happened - just because I strongly disagree with someone's belief, doesn't mean I'm so short sighted as to ignore the importance of protecting freedom for everybody. If his religion happened to be interfering with his ability to teach science effectively then that's a quite different matter, and again I'd apply the simple test of "would it be acceptable for non-religious reasons?"; if he's telling people that God holds molecules together with tiny strands of angel hair, or if he's telling them that the four humours explain all of medical science, he should be fired for incompetence. That's not a matter of belief, though, that's a matter of letting one's belief interfere with the satisfactory performance of one's job.

    31. Re:Why be such morons? by Americano · · Score: 1

      That may be true. If that's the case, shouldn't this "religion" be subjected to the same derision and scorn you're offering the rest?

      Which is... exactly the point I made.

    32. Re:Why be such morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      say what you will about the tenets of Kopimism dude at least it's an ethos

    33. Re:Why be such morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Master's theology student and active church member, I agree. I'm increasingly uncomfortable with church tax breaks. Sure, it's nice, and maybe if there's rules for secular non-profits I wouldn't mind incorporating in that sense, but for governments to specifically say "you're a religious organization, you get tax breaks" is to say as well that "you're _not_ a religious organization, you get no tax breaks." You can't read a lot of religious history without getting nervous about governments deciding what is and isn't a religion.

      As an unrelated aside, the same kind of argument is why I dislike legal protection of "traditional" marriage.

      In Sweden religious organisations don't get tax breaks -- they get state grants, on the premise that they are important for public health and an important part of the Swedish society, i.e. an important part of many peoples life. There are a lot of other kinds of organisations that recieve state grants on similar premises, like youth organisations, sport organisations, health movements, environmental movements, political movements, et.c. So it is not just religious organisations that have this kind of benefits The Swedish laws and regulations are carefully worded so that religious organisations that have the right to receive state grants, get no other stately recognition then being an important part of life to some people, i.e. there are no official "right or wrong" when it comes to religion or other beliefs in Sweden. Please note that most organisations promoting atheism (Förbundet Humanisterna being the largest) or religious scepticism ,also receive state grants on similar grounds, although those grants are regulated by other government bodies and regulations.

      SST - Nämnden för statligt stöd till trossamfund is the "myndighet" (sorry, no exact corresponding term exist in English, there are similar English terms (like government body/public body), but if you use those you get a lot of Anglo-Saxon prejudice included) that grants religious organisations this support. It is regulated in the Act on Religious Communities [the English translation is, of course, not in every aspect identical to the actual Swedish law (in Swedish), it is just a rude approximation that can be expressed in English].

    34. Re:Why be such morons? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Much of the ridiculousness comes because there are many people in the past who have used religion as a way to avoid taxes or other laws. Everyone knows they're lying. So taking the same approach removes credibility.

      And it misses the point too. Religion is not a "protected class". There are many instances of religious actions that are not allowed by law in most countries. One can't just form a religion to be granted a free-pass to do anything one likes.

    35. Re:Why be such morons? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It depends on locale and governments too. Many places treat religions and charitable institutions in much the same way, both having to apply for tax exempt status, etc.

    36. Re:Why be such morons? by Americium · · Score: 1

      So you picked a fringe 'religion' to complain about that almost nobody follows and that the law was never designed for. That tax breaks are meant for the major religions that spend billions upon billions in charity, and in so far as you are an actual religion, I don't see it as some huge problem.

      It boggles my mind how Scientology has been able to play with these loop-holes for so long, but I see it as no different to other large corporations exploiting the tax code to their benefit.

      Still, there is no RIGHT to share other people's creations. I have no inherent 'right' to steal what you write or create and start distributing it freely.

      Christian religions donate food to charity, and believe in the Bible which says it's ok to steal food if you are hungry; yet the churches aren't stealing all the food from our farmers and shipping it to poor nations. They aren't robbing banks to give the money to charity.

      This whole notion of stealing as a right is not held by other religions as has never been as issue. These people are the problem and need to be told that, unequivocally. Nobody is telling them not to create their own movies and share them, they are just saying don't steal mine. This whole fiasco is not going to do anything to help with the issue.

    37. Re:Why be such morons? by Americium · · Score: 1
      There have been so many posts with this rhetoric.

      a way to enjoy the same legal protections granted to a number of other ethoses (ethoi?) which are demonstrably more counter-productive and childish than any amount of file-sharing could ever be.

      Yet never an example.

    38. Re:Why be such morons? by Upphew · · Score: 1

      How charismatic preacher and singer differ if the singer passes the hat at the shows, just like the preacher at his ceremonies?

    39. Re:Why be such morons? by williamhb · · Score: 1

      The precise nature of the legal protections for religion varies, of course, so anything either of us says on that front is going to be local. In the UK, a country far more secular than the US, religions have special status within the education system compared to other non-profit community organisations, and some church leaders receive a measure of automatic political power. That goes far, far beyond freedom of speech and belief, and well into government sponsorship of religion, in my opinion.

      You're absolutely correct about people being able to say and believe what they like, and that we have no right to 'freedom from speech'; I actually made a clarification to my original post to that effect.

      I strongly disagree with your last paragraph, though. All I ask is that religions be held to precisely the same standard as any other community organisation, no more, no less. People's right to religious belief should be protected as much as their right to political belief; again no more, no less. As for removing a person from his job just because of his religion, I'd be absolutely furious if that happened - just because I strongly disagree with someone's belief, doesn't mean I'm so short sighted as to ignore the importance of protecting freedom for everybody. If his religion happened to be interfering with his ability to teach science effectively then that's a quite different matter, and again I'd apply the simple test of "would it be acceptable for non-religious reasons?"; if he's telling people that God holds molecules together with tiny strands of angel hair, or if he's telling them that the four humours explain all of medical science, he should be fired for incompetence. That's not a matter of belief, though, that's a matter of letting one's belief interfere with the satisfactory performance of one's job.

      Wrong in 3 ways:

      1. The UK is not "more secular than the US". Secular does not mean "count the atheists and agnostics". (It especially doesn't mean "...and count anyone who hasn't been to church a while as an atheist regardless of whether they say they are Christian on a census form, because we know better than they do what their beliefs are" -- which is the tactic usually used to proclaim how secular the UK is.) Secular society does not depend on how many people believe or do not believe. Secular matters are the contrast from Regular matters -- "regular" matters are subject to ecclesiastical law, whereas "secular" matters are not. Brushing your teeth is "secular"; it is not "atheist". It isn't anything to do with whether or not anybody believes in God. So the US, where there is constitutional separation between church and state, is every bit as secular as the UK regardless of how many believers or non-believers there are in either country. Recently there has been a brazen attempt to co-opt the word "secular" for rhetorical reasons: to pretend that the phrase "secular society" means that the country belongs to atheists not to the religious -- after all, everyone supports "secular society" (strictly meaning the government is not subject to church law) so if we can co-opt the word "secular" to be a synonym for "atheist" then people will think they've already signed up to support "atheist society", right?

      2. Your complaint about faith schools suggests you couldn't answer "no" to resisting sacking that Muslim teacher. You'd like to shut the whole school! As you should well know if you're from the UK you can set up a non-religious independent school and receive state funding for it -- such as the "city academies" the last government brought in, but independent government-funded secular schools have been around for a very long time. I went to one when I was a chil

    40. Re:Why be such morons? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Looks like I may have misused the word 'secular', and for that I apologise - I'd evidently been misled by common usage.

      I find it rather unfair that you seem to have disregarded my final paragraph, though. Do you really not see the difference between a teacher with a belief, and a teacher teaching a belief, or of a school set up by a group of people with a particular belief compared to a school set up to teach the principles of that belief (to the necessary exclusion of other beliefs)? I wouldn't want an 'atheist faith school' set up any more than I want to see any other, I want schools to give as even and neutral an education as possible, rather than be set up to push any agenda, even one I agree with. Most of the time, belief shouldn't come up at all; when it does, each belief system, and none, should get equal weight, that's all I ask. Of course I don't want to prevent religious groups from setting up schools, and I don't want to shut down the ones that exist, I just want them to operate under exactly the same rules regarding curriculum, pupil intake, and so forth as any other community group - I'm asking for simple equality here, not the pro-atheist campaign you seem to have pinned on me. The concept of faith schools, and, more specifically, of "a Christian school" or "a Muslim school" is very different to "a school run by Muslims" or "a school run by Christians" - we obviously differ widely in our opinions, but do you not see how the former gives the faith groups special status compared to non-faith groups, when all I ask is that they be placed under a single 'community group' heading?

      Hereditary peers are a bad idea in my opinion, so are spiritual ones. The existence of one doesn't negate the problem of the other. And, for the fourth time, I don't want to explicitly exclude religious groups. I want to include them on the same footing as non-religious community groups. That's all. If they want to automatically appoint people from as a representative sample of the community then that's fine by me (at least in this context), and I wouldn't much care what religion they happened to be, because of course religious people are part of our community. I really don't see how you got from my statement of "All I ask is that religions be held to precisely the same standard as any other community organisation, no more, no less." to your suggestion that "...ensuring parts of the community have a voice seems far more important than what you'd like to do: ensure parts of the community do not have a voice.". Incidentally, I'm all for your idea of populating the Lords by random appointment - sounds like a bloody good plan to me!

    41. Re:Why be such morons? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Apologies for the double reply, but a more succinct way of stating my case has come to mind; I think you might even agree with me! Just go through the laws, find any explicit mention of "religious groups", and replace with something like "non-profit community groups". Everyone's protected equally, faith and non-faith alike.

    42. Re:Why be such morons? by williamhb · · Score: 1

      Do you really not see the difference between a teacher with a belief, and a teacher teaching a belief, or of a school set up by a group of people with a particular belief compared to a school set up to teach the principles of that belief (to the necessary exclusion of other beliefs)? I wouldn't want an 'atheist faith school' set up any more than I want to see any other, I want schools to give as even and neutral an education as possible, rather than be set up to push any agenda, even one I agree with. Most of the time, belief shouldn't come up at all; when it does, each belief system, and none, should get equal weight, that's all I ask. Of course I don't want to prevent religious groups from setting up schools, and I don't want to shut down the ones that exist, I just want them to operate under exactly the same rules regarding curriculum, pupil intake, and so forth as any other community group - I'm asking for simple equality here, not the pro-atheist campaign you seem to have pinned on me. The concept of faith schools, and, more specifically, of "a Christian school" or "a Muslim school" is very different to "a school run by Muslims" or "a school run by Christians" - we obviously differ widely in our opinions, but do you not see how the former gives the faith groups special status compared to non-faith groups, when all I ask is that they be placed under a single 'community group' heading?

      But can you not see that your proposal does explicitly discriminate against religious groups? It's a special law against religion. A teacher can believe and teach anything non-religious -- that Hegelian philosophy is the best thing since sliced bread, or that utilitarianism is the way you should be making every moral decision. But if they have a religious belief, you'll allow them to be present so long as they do not teach it. (And effectively, see next para, that means do not admit to having a religious belief.) Even in your proposal, religion would be the one kind of belief that dare not speak its name. And under your proposal even if the teachers, parents, and students all belong have the same religious belief their school must still be banned from telling students about it (teaching it).

      Also, there is no difference between a teacher with a belief and a teacher teaching that belief. Let's look at some real situations. In places where there is a ban on teaching religion, teachers have been sacked for even answering the question "do you believe in God". After all, a teacher expressing a belief in God is teaching religion. So those teachers either had to deny or hide their faith (which is against their faith) or face discrimination and dismissal. In Australia, this sometimes has ridiculous consequences -- the government found that having access to chaplains in schools significantly improves student behaviour and attainment, so they put a program to get more chaplains (of all faiths) into state schools -- but because there's a ban on religious teaching those religious chaplains they just sent in were still banned from talking about or answering questions about their religion! The chaplains have a seriously hard time working around the legislation just to do the job they were employed to do.

      You claim that religious teaching is "to the necessary exclusion of other beliefs" (which isn't true -- faith schools do allow teachers and students of other faiths, and do teach other belief systems in RE classes on the curriculum), but it is your proposal that would seek to legislate to exclude particular beliefs (religious ones) from being taught. "Helegian philosophy? Go for it. Christianity? We'll legislate against it." Faith schools don't exist because there is special legislation to say they must exist; they exist because the legislation does not prevent them from existing. So your change is necessarily a special law to ban religious schools -- a special ban on religion that is not there for irreligion, disbelief, or any other matter.

    43. Re:Why be such morons? by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1

      Couldn't have said it better than Zencyde. Respect.

    44. Re:Why be such morons? by Toze · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
  10. MOD PARENT UP by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    And me without mod points, too.

  11. Re:Isn't open source a religion aready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    didn't click it, but the magic 8-ball says goatse.

  12. Re:Isn't open source a religion aready? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1
    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  13. Control Not Command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's good to see Microsoft is getting it's own cult.

    1. Re:Control Not Command by euphemistic · · Score: 1

      Ctrl C and V (also X and Z and I think P) predate Microsoft by quite some time.

    2. Re:Control Not Command by M8e · · Score: 1

      What the fuck? There's still apple stuff with keyboards and real buttons?

  14. I wouldn't click that by trebach · · Score: 1

    It's goatse again.

  15. Story of Beginning in this religion by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't miss out on Member of European Parliament Christian Engström's suggestion for a religious version of the Beginning for this religion.

    Short version:

    1. There was chaos and soup.
    2. Somebody in the soup learned to copy. Thus was Life.
    3. Having learned to copy, they built magnificent things.
    4. We honor the beginning by copying and building magnificent things.

    Not bad, I think.

    1. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by omglolbah · · Score: 3, Funny

      Makes more sense than scientology ;)

    2. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4. We honor the beginning by copying and building magnificent things.

      Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

    3. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not saying much. Pastafarianism, the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, makes more sense than Scientology.

    4. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Toze · · Score: 1

      Michelangelo copied Ghiberti's "Gates of Paradise" for the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. If 90% are useless, 10% are necessary.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    5. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An earlier attempt by Tim Leary got further than these Swedes are going to get -- see his original "Start Your Own Religion" or later expanded versions published under different titles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary

    6. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a 50% copy of each of your parents. There would be no new art if people didn't start by copying or imitating what they've seen before, what exists. The problem is that copyright laws are artificial limitations, and they serve a dubious overall purpose in society according to research. And a most certainly detrimental one in their current incarnations in both duration and breadth of coverage.

    7. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. We honor the beginning by copying and building magnificent things.

      Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

      I built a very nice and useful home media center.

    8. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're a 50% copy of each of your parents.
      Equivocation.

    9. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

      Creators of art would like to believe that they should be loved and worshiped for their creative talent. Sometimes, in fact, they are. But that doesn't mean they are entitled to it.

      If you are an artist and you don't like how artists are treated, then stop being an artist. If enough people do this, and demand for new art remains high, there will be a natural economic shift. If that shift doesn't happen, then all arguments about needing an incentive to create have just been rendered moot.

    10. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by mijelh · · Score: 1

      Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything

      But then we have to wonder how many people who doesn't copy stuff build something.

    11. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      100% of people who build things, copy things.

    12. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by metacell · · Score: 1

      Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

      True, but many of the people who are most active in the filesharing community build things, like...

      * Translating comics for free (scanlation)
      * Translating video for free (fansubbing)
      * Building web sites
      * Writing filesharing software
      * Defining useful technology standards

    13. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me one magnificent thing that was built recently which doesn't rely on copying previous work.

    14. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PARASITES!!

    15. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because copying a brick, never made a building. Copying a railroad tie never built a railway, copying the wheel never created an army of chariots....

      We are alive because of copies that were slightly modified and evolved.

      You are likely able to transmit your information because a router was created that make copied the ideas defined in a series of RFCs, giving them a practical application. You were able to communicate using a symbolic platform defined several millennia ago. The language you're typing it in was copied from a civilisation that copied it from another thousands of years ago and was modified over generations. The keyboard you typed it on was likely copied from the original Qwerty keyboard designed over a hundred years ago.

      The sounds you make are imitations of those you heard as a child. We are living breathing replicating machines (forgive the pun) and restricting that freedom is, at the very least, an attempt to put power in someone's hands. It's fine if you are ok giving someone a dial to control the evolution of technology. I suppose if your goal is to prolong the Singularity as long as possible, then this would be an effective way (IP laws in general make it difficult to use the collective technologies of the human race without paying out the wazu.)

    16. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And has any christian done anything even remotely as magnificent as creating the world. Or anything that qualifies...in 6 days? Doesn't stop them from following Christianity does it?

    17. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by kwikrick · · Score: 1

      99.9% of all life amounted to nothing; it just reproduced or died. But a very small portion evolved into some new life form. Same thing with information: most of the media spew out trash, to be consumed en masse and disappear from our memories mere seconds after. But sometimes a real jewel surfaces from this chaos of information; we must cherish it and keep it alive, so that it may give rise to something new. There is only one way: by copying and building further on it.

      How would you feel if you needed a license to reproduce?

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
    18. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% of the people haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

    19. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hence should we stiffle the 10% that actually produce somthing?

    20. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by xenobyte · · Score: 2

      Actually, less than 0.01% of any building or construction is wholly original. Most have zero original content. The rest just COPIES what others have done before, from components to styles, methods and design. Bricks are nothing but copies of 'the master brick' invented by someone a long time ago. Walls are built of bricks using methods and designs copied from those invented by others a long time ago. Same with roofs, windows, doors and so on. EVERYTHING is done as copies (partial or in full) of things done before.

      Lego's express this most clearly. Each brick is a precise copy of a master brick, and while they can be combined into very unique and clever designs, nothing would exist without the bricks - which are copies.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    21. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time someone you knew died on a cross?

    22. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by rafpayen · · Score: 1

      Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

      That sounds a little disrespectful for them. You probably wanted to say that they didn't build anything with the material that they copied. considering that it would be illegal, it's hard to blame them.

    23. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really makes more sense then most religions. I mean burning bushes, zombies and winged people in the sky..

    24. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lego's express this most clearly.

      Look, even if Lego wasn't a mass noun - which it is - the plural would be either Legos or Legoes.

      10 days without Lego for this violation.

    25. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "There was chaos and soup".....soup with noodles?
      Ramen to that: Any religious group with a dogmatic aversion to psychiatry deserves a wide berth for that reason alone.
      On the other hand, pastafarianism starts at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid and moves upwards by degrees.
      The flying pink unicorn, on the other hand, is a bit too ethereal for me.. the existence of said unicorn says nothing about the effects of quantum theory on it's basic dogma, and i can see a schism forming in this group at some future point on this time line.
      And also, don't forget the cult of "The Great Green Arkleseizure" .... not to be sneezed at.
      Also, the existence of Jedi as a religious movement ( am choosing words carefully as i know where i am ) should suggest a parallel star trek movement... however, i have not come across any... are they underground, like the secret "dune" cults?
       

    26. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      My magnificent porn collection disagrees with you.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    27. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

      Creative while copying!

    28. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by bidule · · Score: 1

      bricks -> alphabet
      walls -> words

      If it wasn't for Reverend Dodgson and other innovators, literature would be nothing but copying words and letters.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    29. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes more sense than catholisism.

    30. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by aekafan · · Score: 1

      As Mike Rowe said said at his speech to TED, imitation is just as important as innovation. Everything mankind has ever done has been built on the work of what came before. Mass production is just mass copying.

    31. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer soup to pasta :)

    32. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Americium · · Score: 1

      I agree, you are free to evolve at the pace of the natural environment. Perhaps in another billion years you will grow a wheel or a spade on your arm.

    33. Re:Story of Beginning in this religion by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

      [citation needed]

      1. Unless they tell you, or show you, how do you know?

      2. After you saw it, who are you to judge its magnificence or lack therefore outside of a personal opinion, as in a factual context?

      3. Pretty much all work is built upon the words and works of others anyways.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  16. RMS is the goatse guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! that's a good one.

  17. Well this could work.. by Erie+Ed · · Score: 1

    I mean if Scientology can get accepted and treated like a legit religion (not that any of them are legit) then these guys could pull it off.

    1. Re:Well this could work.. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 0

      So true. Mormonism was made up by Joseph Smith and was the equivalent of Scientology in its day. Look at it now. About as respectable as any religion I guess. And now we actually have some people trying to turn the Jedi myth into a religion. It's somewhat interesting watching the birth of a new religion. Or perhaps alarming is the word I'm looking for.

      I just wish people could accept the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The world would be such a better place.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:Well this could work.. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      This is flamebait?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    3. Re:Well this could work.. by sunzoomspark · · Score: 1

      If they combine this with rastafarianism, I'm in.

  18. Hilarious: Reminds me of something a guy I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did once. He was trying to start his own "ministry" and called it (get this):

    "The Church of God's own GOOD GREEN LEAVES"... lol, talk about obvious!

    (I.E.-> He tried it, so he could smoke pot and get away with it or so he thought, because of religious beliefs etc./et al... )

    Now, personally? I don't know if that's even POSSIBLE (let alone legal), but, I took him with a "grain of salt" as usual on his "hare-brained ideas".

    Mainly because he TRULY reminds me of "Ricky" from "The Trailer Park Boys" (good guy though, still a pal of mine, but he does "have his moments" & that? That's one of the 'classics' imo @ least), & IF you've EVER seen that show? You KNOW what I mean.

    APK

    P.S.=> Yes, he got "rejected" on trying to apply for it... I just laughed my a$$ off when he told me about it - I was like "J, that's another CLASSIC outta you, for sure!'... apk

    1. Re:Hilarious: Reminds me of something a guy I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah, "a guy you know".

      Looking at what you write, you had your own share of pot. And plenty of it.

  19. How long to catholic copying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before the Catholic church starts to mimic this movement to get more adepts???? They have been loosing people for years now and are becoming every time more desperate for young approval.

  20. my religion protects me as well by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    it supports selling heroin to teenage runaways (this is how the god judge\). robbing convenience stores(money is the root of all evil, it must be liberated from non-believers). etc.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:my religion protects me as well by l-g-o- · · Score: 1

      Satanism is a religion. What's your point?

    2. Re:my religion protects me as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you see now, why for an atheist the concept of religious belief is so ludicrous?

    3. Re:my religion protects me as well by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      true freedom is being able to hold irrational beliefs and your neighbors being unable to do anything about it. Xenu bless America!

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  21. Computer religion from Sweden? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    If anything, the hex key should be the symbol of their religion.

    Also, their bible should come in a kit that you must assemble yourself to prove you are worthy.

    1. Re:Computer religion from Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The text of the beginning will be shredded. In order to prove they are worthy the believers should build both the hardware and software to assemble the pieces into the one true COPY.

    2. Re:Computer religion from Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the symbol should be a St John's Arms sign, surely . . .

  22. Maybe they should get it... by Trip6 · · Score: 2

    They seem as whacked out as any of the religious freaks out there...

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:Maybe they should get it... by satinyou · · Score: 1

      They are using this as a means to an end and putting forward their view point rather than beleiving a man who was his own father died so that he could forgive himself and the people who just killed him. I would say that is much more rational.

  23. Hypocrites by tsa · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. I also suspect that members of this sect will cry foul when for instance some of their GPL'd code is found to be plagierized and used in another program.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their GPL code is plagiarized and put into proprietary software, they can cry foul that the proprietary result is "comparable to slavery".

      The GPL isn't about stopping people from reusing covered code. The purpose of the GPL is to promote sharing of code, and to make it more difficult to make proprietary software. If RMS had his way, proprietary software would probably be outlawed.

    2. Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell angry BSDphile here.

    3. Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you try to make profit off it without crediting and following the license conditions

    4. Re:Hypocrites by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I also suspect that members of this sect will cry foul when for instance some of their GPL'd code is found to be plagierized and used in another program.

      Step 1. Create Strawman
      Step 2. Attack Strawman
      Step 3. Get moderated +4 Interesting
      Step 4. Declare victory

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you wholeheartedly. I also suspect that members of this sect will cry foul when for instance some of their GPL'd code is found to be plagierized and used in another program.

      Wait -- you're calling a group hypocrites for something they haven't done, but you think they might do?
      I've learned to try to avoid people who go around calling others hypocrites.

    6. Re:Hypocrites by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Step 1. Claim false "strawman" argument.
      Step 2. Attack based on nonexistant "strawman".

      GPL relies on copyright laws.
      If you abolish copyright laws, you abolish GPL.
      The copying of GPL code is no different from the copying of any other data such as music or movies.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:Hypocrites by delinear · · Score: 1

      But the GPL is a response to overly restrictive copyright. Most people behind the GPL wouldn't care if it was abolished as a result of abolishing copyright laws, because that's the only reason it was created in the first place - it was the OS community saying "if you want to apply these restrictive laws then you have to apply them equally and this is our shield so that you can't claim copyright over our work while preventing us claiming it over yours". That's like saying if all guns on the planet just disappeared this instant, along with the ability to make more, the people who have to wear bullet proof vests to work would complain that their vests were now redundant, when actually they'd rather be free of the vests they just needed the protection.

    8. Re:Hypocrites by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      GPL is an exception to generic Open Source licenses in that GPL places far greater restrictions on what users can do with the code.
      In the case of GPL it roughly says the code must remain open source. In contrast, most Open Source licenses allow code to be used in closed source products.
      In order to assert these restrictions, GPL (as do all licenses) relies on copyright laws.
      If copyright were to be abolished, all licenses (both closed and open source) would be abolished too. For most Open Source licenses this would pose only minor problems, for the GPL the effects are far more significant since GPL tries to accomplish different goals. Suddenly every company would be able to take GPL code and make it closed source.
      Note that closed source isn't actually a license, it is in fact simply a matter of not distributing source code but only the binary, as such it depends on copyright laws far less. Without copyright laws, the binaries would be freely copyable, but the code would still be closed simply because it isn't distributed.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:Hypocrites by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      ANd without copyright laws the need for the GPL is reduced, if not eliminated altogether.

    10. Re:Hypocrites by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      GPL ensures that a company cannot take the code, modify it, sell the modifications but keep the changed code closed.
      Without copyright, GPL cannot enforce this.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  24. C-c C-v? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So viewing LaTeX output in Emacs is sacred? Maybe they should just join the Church of Emacs. I think it is a bit more established. It even has it's own patron saint...

  25. picking on U.S. compared to Sweden.. really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "they are at it again. defending the principles of modern society against private greed. because, most others that purported to do like the
    US failed"

    It's true that Sweden has followed the U.S's lead and improved upon our ideas. Look at their eugenics program. The US tried it but had to stop looong ago. Sweden was about the last country to officially end it. Force sterilize undesirable people to make a better society. It totally works !! The Nazi's followed the US ideas pretty well too. When did the US ever defend society against greed? WE are based on capitalism being a good thing. It's what made us the industrial powerhouse the of the world (until China took over) Greed is just a desire to have more. There is nothing wrong with it. People are not equal and some deserve to be better off because they are better, smarter, faster, whatever.

  26. two side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything has a good side and bad side
    sub_id=224&sub_name=MLB+Cap">MLB Cap,San Francisco Cap [anyincn.com]

  27. Re:buy by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

    you don't get pagerank from slashdot, dickhole

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  28. Re:buy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Boy are you in the wrong place.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  29. A question for your question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is personal greed worse than corporate greed? Or rather, is the greed of a single person overshadowed by the greed of many people working together? At what point should people fight back with more than their dollars when other fight so hard to control every avenue those dollars can be spent in?

    These companies that control media, of all kinds, are resisting change with such fervor that the people are fighting back every way they can. Indie avenues on the web for self publishing of all kinds is chipping away at them. New methods for distribution are chipping away at them. And piracy is chipping away at them.

    History has proven that the people of any country or race or religion will only take a beating for so long before fighting back. America was founded by two classes: People seeking freedom from religious persecution, and Merchants who wanted to keep more of their hard earned money, expand their businesses and seek new ways to sell and distribute.

    I know two wrongs don't make a right is often parroted to us as children but the reality is that yes, another wrong is often needed to redress a severe imbalance between two classes. War is wrong....unless its against an evil empire. Hate is wrong....unless it is hatred of what society as a whole considers evil. We all agree the media companies are in the wrong. They continually try to get copyright extended, they abuse the actual creators, they abuse actual copyright law.

    They tread on us...

    Its time they learned these snakes bite. There is your answer. Yes, it IS a personal form of greed. One that when compounded person upon person adds up to a people that are tired of being forced to accept terms dictated by what are essentially a bunch of greedy, lying, thieves. They call consumers thieves, well it takes one to know one, and they are some of the best thieves around. They don;t break the law, they change the law to suit their whims and desires until everyone is forced to pay.

    To pay for an album.
    To pay for playing that album in their car.
    To pay for playing that album on their computer.
    To pay for playing that album on a personal music device.
    To pay for allowing others to hear that album when they are enjoying it.
    To pay for every and ay copy and 'performance' imaginable.

    That is what THEY want. What they desire to be reality. They scream and cry it is for the musicians. For the actors. For the authors. And yet they regularly pay out less then 30% of what they take in to those same people. They keep rolling their copyrights to extend them indefinitely. Forever. Long after the lives of the artists have ended. Eventually there will be no Public Domain. not because they got it made illegal, but because nothing modern and relevant will enter it anymore. Ever. So yes, personal greed it is indeed. Personal greed for the ability to actually enjoy entertainment rather than buy it and wonder when I will become a criminal just for enjoying it.

  30. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL

  31. File-Sharers File For Religious Status by radioid · · Score: 1

    file-sharers gonna file (-share)

  32. Re:buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh... ok, I go now.

  33. Church Logo by recoisiche · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does the "K" in their logo look just a little bit like a hand holding up the middle finger?

  34. There is no such thing as Copy RIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ecclesiastes 1: 9 What has been will be again,
            what has been done will be done again;
          there is nothing new under the sun.

    Can anyone show me without a shadow of the doubt a case of true creativity, such as we consider most things to be in our copyright/trademark law.
    Im willing to bet that no matter who or what you come up with i can prove that what anyone has ever acheived has not been of their own exclusive doing, but instead conceived on the backs of those who came before them. The concept of copyright is flawed. One cannot own ideas. Just as much as the earth does'nt really belong to any of us. Me and my Wife produced a child. 100% from the ground up. Do i own the child? Is it my property? Do i have the right to charge if someone sees my child without paying licensing fees?

  35. Not "winning". by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are free to believe in copying and preach about it all you want, but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.

    A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals. Thank god (or gov to be more accurate) it has never given them the right to do it.

    1. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Thank you government for not giving people rights to do things the above user doesn't agree with ( in the form of radical beliefs he knows no one here will agree with ). Wait, since when do governments GIVE rights?

    2. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.

      Isn't cannibalism deemed illegal? Yet Christians publicly practice cannibalism on a weekly basis, consuming the flesh and blood -- magically transformed from crackers and wine -- of their invisible friend.

      And don't get me started on the kiddie-fiddling that they've long engaged in with virtually no repercussions.

    3. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or giving alcohol to minors...

      Oh wait, I guess if you believe in transubstantiation it's not wine, but blood, so that's ok.

      Carry on.

    4. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, as a religious cult, you get lenient treatment when you start carving away at your baby: Circumsicion would never be allowed unless there was a religious precedent. As a religious cult, you can change the laws: Here in Sweden, Jehovas Witnesses were automatically excempt from the otherwise mandatory military service, there are ethnical and sexual orientation discrimination running rampant in these cults unhindered, and ofcourse there's the Tax Code that, in many countries, treat religious cults differently from sane organizations.

      That being said, the Swedish Copy-Cult is naturally a pathetic stunt, perhaps good for a few chuckles.

    5. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals, and with the right money to the right people that will go into law again faster than you know if the economic return are sufficient to fund the gravy train.

    6. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you base the laws on if not moral of the society? And society does not see copying as something that deserves cuffs and jails.

    7. Re:Not "winning". by js_sebastian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are free to believe in copying and preach about it all you want, but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.

      A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals. Thank god (or gov to be more accurate) it has never given them the right to do it.

      Then why can churches discriminate in ways that would get any other business or organization in huge trouble? Let's see, how many female priests does your church have? Have they fired priests for coming out as homosexuals? Think that is legal?

    8. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet the government has given parents the right to mutilate their newborn child by cutting of the foreskin, correct me if I'm wrong, in the name of religion.

      I'd rather see the government making it legal for me to copy a song I like than for my parents to put a knife to my penis all in the name of practicing religion.

    9. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I prefer technical solutions to legal ones.

    10. Re:Not "winning". by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is that the law is written to specifically exclude churches from the anti-discrimination laws.

      Does that pretty much settle it for you? It's not illegal for churches to discriminate in ways that would get other organizations in trouble because, well, because it's not illegal for churches to do that.

    11. Re:Not "winning". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.

      Never mind that file-sharing doesn't lead to arrest and jail. ~_~

    12. Re:Not "winning". by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Well, there are a few laws that certain religions are excluded from following. Native American peyote use is one example, and Rastafarian pot use to a limited extent in the US and legal in other countries like Italy. Both exclusions were likely granted because they Judge considered the crime victimless.

      This copying right would make an interesting court challenge if the defendants could prove that their actions were victimless (maybe saying that they have no intention of ever buying something, therefore, no possible sale was lost) and part of worship.

  36. Re:Isn't open source a religion aready? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1
  37. What goes around, comes around by Zuriel · · Score: 1

    Normally I'd curse at a bunch of idiots abusing the law for their own personal gain... But since it's opposing the RIAA, this is more like fighting fire with fire.

  38. You can't stop the signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't stop the signal, NZ

  39. Religion is not a 'get out of jail free' card by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something being part of your religion does not necessarily make it not illegal. In the USA, the standard used would be the Lemon test. If file sharing was criminal-illegal (rather than civil law illegal) and the 'church' challenged this on first amendment grounds, the state would need to show:
    1 the law had a secular legislative purpose
    2 the law's primary effect is not to advance or inhibit religion
    3 the must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion
    An anti file sharing law would have no trouble passing these tests.

    Of course, this is all in Sweden, so different laws/precedent will apply.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Religion is not a 'get out of jail free' card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: When you do something wrong under criminal law, it's a crime. When you do something wrong under civil law, it's a tort.

    2. Re:Religion is not a 'get out of jail free' card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada religious freedom easily stomps over rules, and can often overrule laws.
      We even have a non-court system (Human rights tribunals) that promote Human rights (including religious freedom) without any regard for justice or fairness.

      So yes, religion can be a get out of jail free card.

  40. wrong key bindings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Aside from deeming CTRL+C CTRL+V as sacred symbols

    That should be CMD+C CMD+V in some applications, and ALT-W CTRL-Y in the good ones.

    1. Re:wrong key bindings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALT-W CTRL-Y in the good ones.

      Seriously? Different modifiers for related actions is considered good?

  41. Let's all pray by ACE209 · · Score: 1

    Let's all pray to Aremes, the god of open source, that this movement finally gets the recognition it deserves.

    --
    "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
  42. A "kami" to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are actually serious about this, they could claim to worship "Omoikane" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omoikane_%28Shinto%29).
    Omoikane is a god of wisdom and intelligence and will be perfect match for sharing information.

  43. Religious tax by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

    The Swedish government collects taxes and then gives them to various religious. If I recall correctly you can opt out, but the government then just keeps the money anyway. So creating a religion which supports your views may not be such a crazy thing after all. If it lampoons the established religions which at the end of the day are no more sensible so much the better.

    1. Re:Religious tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Swedish government collects taxes and then gives them to various religious. If I recall correctly you can opt out, but the government then just keeps the money anyway. So creating a religion which supports your views may not be such a crazy thing after all. If it lampoons the established religions which at the end of the day are no more sensible so much the better.

      You are not recalling correctly. Swedish citizens automatically become members of the Swedish Church at birth. As a member of that church, one pays a specific tax that goes directly to the Swedish church, not any other religious foundation. It is perfectly possible to opt out of being a member of the Swedish Church and then one does not pay any such tax anymore.

    2. Re:Religious tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you are a member you can get some things for "free". Like using their churches and other buildings for weddings, baptisions, funerals etc. You don't need to pay the priest either.

      So it might be a good deal even if you are not religious but still want to get married in a real church.

    3. Re:Religious tax by lingon · · Score: 2

      The Swedish government collects taxes and then gives them to various religious. If I recall correctly you can opt out, but the government then just keeps the money anyway. So creating a religion which supports your views may not be such a crazy thing after all. If it lampoons the established religions which at the end of the day are no more sensible so much the better.

      You are not recalling correctly. Swedish citizens automatically become members of the Swedish Church at birth. As a member of that church, one pays a specific tax that goes directly to the Swedish church, not any other religious foundation. It is perfectly possible to opt out of being a member of the Swedish Church and then one does not pay any such tax anymore.

      Well, to be honest, neither are you =) Since the separation of the Swedish church and the Swedish state in 2000, children do not automatically become members of the Swedish church (unless both parents are members or something like that, IIRC).

      What GP could have gotten mixed up is the compulsory leftover of the old church tax even if you opt out: the funeral fee or begravningsavgiften, which is about 0.07%. That tax pays for your funeral and makes sure there is somewhere to put your grave when your time comes (without any christian bling-bling if you are not a church member, of course).

      .

    4. Re:Religious tax by lingon · · Score: 1

      But if you are a member you can get some things for "free". Like using their churches and other buildings for weddings, baptisions, funerals etc. You don't need to pay the priest either.

      So it might be a good deal even if you are not religious but still want to get married in a real church.

      Well, if both parents aren't members of the church (and, by extension, probably do not self-identify as christians), why would they want their children baptised and their wedding performed by a priest in a church with God as a witness? I don't get that. If one parent subscribes to the Lord Jesus Christ, the church will provide those service free for the whole family.

    5. Re:Religious tax by DrKnark · · Score: 1

      You always get church funerals, whether you're a member or not. I don't know about baptisms, but for weddings you are right that you need to be a member.

  44. Re:Greedy imperilaist Sweeds by trebach · · Score: 0

    They terk ur electrerns!

  45. I know the "reverend". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know the "reverend". He's a magnificent troll.

    However, draft 0.1 of their creation story makes more sense to me than any "real" religion.

    Google Translate'd from here, and somewhat corrected:

    In the beginning the earth was a foul soup of ammonia, methane, and nasty toxic chemicals. The atmosphere crackled with lightning, filled with pure energy. Something wanted to be born.

    In some way, for reasons not yet investigated, ribosomes appeared. They could copy. This was the beginning of life. Therefore, we consider copying the first manifestation of the divine soul.

    När ribosomerna fanns, och kunde kopiera dels sig själva, dels de proteiner som behövs för att bygga en cell, då ledde det till att det faktiskt uppstod celler. Once the ribosomes existed, and could copy both themselves and the proteins needed to build a cell, there were cells. Exactly why proteins chose to voluntarily organize themselves into something more complicated is not really investigated, so we'll get back to that later in this creation story, but we'll ignore it for now.

    The important thing is that there were now cells. Cells have two characteristics. First, they replicate themselves, just as ribosomes before them. Secondly, they want to work with others to build things that are more magnificent than any of the individual components.

    From these two characteristics came the living world we see around us. The zebra and the parsley, the forest and the fishing bustle, all living things ever filmed by the BBC.

    Us Kopimists therefore see copying as the first of the Basic Principles of Creation.

    The will to work together to build something magnificent is seen as the Second of the Basic Principles.

    From this basis, we want to learn to understand the divine soul and the world we live in. And we want to do it in cooperation with others.

    Amen.

    1. Re:I know the "reverend". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears my link markup is rusty, haven't commented on slashdot for a while.

      Here's the source: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/kopimismen-ar-ingen-skamtreligion/

  46. LMAO - actually, no (sorry to disappoint) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't smoke that crap or anything else. Weed is too frowned upon and holds folks out of jobs for many reasons (makes them lazy and stupid for one thing & I don't care what anyone says, I have seen "weed stupid" folks in my time and it's because they smoke it too much, like daily... it affects them badly imo @ least. Plus, drug tests are out there now like mad & employers use them like mad, & not just on initial interviews).

    Also - please note: I did note the 1st letter of my pal's name too ("J"), but I'd never put the whole thing out (out of respect).

    APK

    P.S.=> In tough times, I cannot see how anyone would be willing to jeopardize job possibilities just to smoke weed actually. It'd be illogical, but people do it. Just not this person, & for the reasons noted above... apk

  47. Religion is invariable opposed to theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion teaches "You shall not steal!" Movie and music file sharers are like the Judas Ischariotes, who did not just betray Jesus for 30 silver coins, but also stole from the common purse, which the apostles maintained. Dante placed Judas in the deepest sack of the Hell and he is being chewed by the fallen archangel (Satan) himself.

    1. Re:Religion is invariable opposed to theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion teaches "You shall not steal!"

      Only some religions do, and some religions teach that it is justified to steal from some, but not others. But the (single) religion that you seem to think of also teaches moderation and denounces greed.

      Movie and music file sharers are like the Judas Ischariotes, who did not just betray Jesus for 30 silver coins, but also stole from the common purse, which the apostles maintained.

      How? I'd say that movie and file sharers are like the church itself, who recorded His teachings and made them available to the masses.

      Dante placed Judas in the deepest sack of the Hell and he is being chewed by the fallen archangel (Satan) himself.

      Interesting. How do you think we know of Dante? Maybe because some good people copied and spread his work?

    2. Re:Religion is invariable opposed to theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stealing involves the physical removal of property - this is more akin to profiting from the hard work of others. No religion would argue against that, it's their primary revenue stream.

  48. Ever heard of DNA? by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

    4. We honor the beginning by copying and building magnificent things.

    Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.

    100% of people who build things are built on copies. Ever heard of DNA? That's what the grandparent poster was referring to.

  49. Sharing is what made us human by erroneus · · Score: 2

    Yesterday, I downloaded and watched a national geographic show on "ape genius." It was primarily focused on the chimpanzee but also made comparative mention of the bonobo and human toddlers and a few other apes as well.

    What it was showing was that there are many, many things that the apes have in common with humans but then asked the question (the real topic of the video) "what is the thing that let us explode intellectually while the other apes did not?" They can learn and do all sorts of things so why not?

    Turns out, they lack an instinct for teaching and learning. We have that, and they do not. And teaching and learning is all about sharing -- information sharing. Without it, we would be at the same level as the other apes.

    So what are the copyright people doing? Putting a price and making it a crime to exercise our very instincts -- instincts which pre-date modern humanity.

  50. Are they willing to share their personal info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this religion also advocate that personal information should be free? Does it have the same fanaticism about sacred right of corporate officials (who are also people) to freely copy and share your name, address, income, interests and other info and compile files about you (if they share them with everybody)?

    If you demand the right to copy their data (movies, music, games, ...), shouldn't you also be willing to let them have the right to copy your data?

  51. Ooh, symbolism. by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

    Aside from deeming CTRL+C CTRL+V as sacred symbols

    ...this will only lead into a bloody feud with the Church of Emacs and their Esc-w and Control-y. ...I mean, M-w and C-y. Don't look at me funnily, brethren! A honest mistake! Just trying to educate the public unwash'd who know not the Naming of the Keys!

  52. To kids of all ages: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get out of your mom basement and start doing something productive to the society. Get a job, start paying for food, start paying for what you use, start paying bills and start paying for software.

    I am a working software developer, and if you think stealing my work is your religion I'll show you my "belief": its called "run faster than my shotgun". Then we can have a full blown new religious crusade.

  53. Our Missionaries will convert them! by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    There are numerous Missions, e.g. the Holy Mission of DoubleCommand, the Logitech Mission of Kopi Keyboards etc hard at work to convert the heathens!

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  54. Maybe they met a guy in a park by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Maybe they met a guy in a park who showed them some golden pills with some strange scripts on them. They scribbled down what they could remember as the golden pills would be taken away from them by the dude. The scripts may have been written in reformed Pearl, and later followers and coders have not been able to relate it to any known version of the standard Pearl script, or any other script language ever since. Not even Simon Singh or his friends would be able to decipher what they had written. Later on they may have followers in the millions, and have a legal status. The dude ruled them all!

  55. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So copying data is like human sacrifice, slavery, under-aged marriage and executions of homosexuals?

    No, the idea that ideas can be owned is a belief in itself. It is a dangerous idea that leads to organized people taking over the marketplace and establishing cartels. In many countries these cartels have the authority to collect money from people copying their own and free data.

  56. And thus ComStar was born by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it turns out I didn't misspend my youth reading Battletech. Take that english lit!

  57. What if by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    God was one of us? Just a seeder on the bus. Burning CDs in a rush. Combing his hair with a plastic brush...

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  58. I met god one day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was once downloading porn from ThePirateBay when god showed me couple of pdf-files there. Names of the said files were written in golden color in my monitor and angels were singing in my speakers(I was told that one of them was called Britney). I stopped my empty sins, downloaded those golden files and behold!... There was ten commandments from our only god! Unfortunately I had not installed pdf-reader to my computer and I had to go to the shower. It was very good shower and I forgot whole incident and lost all files when my hard disk crashed. Moral of the story is that stop jerking when god talks to you.

  59. There are very few new ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are very few new ideas:

    Ecclesiastes 1:9
    "There is nothing new under the sun"

  60. Kopimism or Kleptoism? by brit74 · · Score: 1

    > "A group of file-sharers in Sweden have requested that their religion, Kopimism, be officially recognized in Sweden."
    I think they misspelled kleptoism.

  61. The Onion: by Legal.Troll · · Score: 0

    "Yes, copyright laws can be complicated. It's often hard to tell if you are uploading something you created yourself or something someone else created." http://www.theonion.com/articles/youtube-educates-offenders-about-copyright,20075/

    --
    "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
  62. Re:buy by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

    One could write a dissertation on the many ways, both the obvious and nuanced, this post doesn't work on this site.

    --
    Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  63. Meta-w ctrl-y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The path to eternity is filled with meta-w ctrl-y. Ctrl-v will only lead you down, down, down...

  64. A more seriouls ethical development could be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather see a more serious attempt done by some hackers of sociology, philosophy, theology, ethics, etc. As interwoven as world society is now, in any area that you bring up some principles, it ends up having effects all over. And we are sorely lacking principles in every field.

  65. At last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Believe!

  66. How to Create Your Own Religion In Ten Easy Steps by virtcert · · Score: 1

    As the world's leading authority on creating religions (seriously, I'm #1 on Google), I humbly offer my free guide:

              How to Create Your Own Religion In Ten Easy Steps

    This handy guide will help you properly structure your religion and help you gain legitimacy by copying what others have done.

    By making it look like similar in structure to other more popular religions, you will simultaneously have demonstrated your core principle of copying stuff while making the concepts seem more familiar (and therefore more acceptable) to the reviewing board.

    Cheers and Good Luck!

    All Hail The Great Lord Lardicus!

  67. Splitters! by StreetSurfer · · Score: 1

    They fail to recognize and accept the mighty and most popular God of the Undo: CTRL+Z ! Heck, we've all _prayed_ to CTRL+Z at least once in our lives I'm sure...