Slashdot Mirror


Idle: File-Sharing Is Not a Religion, Says Swedish Government

Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is reporting on an attempt in Sweden to recognize filesharing as a religion. The religion's website calls this 'Kopimism' and says that sharing of knowledge is sacred. Apparently, Swedish authorities were not convinced. A recent report shows that the attempt failed to convince the authorities to recognize Kopimism as a religion."

47 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. there is no way to disprove a person's religion by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is clearly an agenda and bias. everyone should have the right to be insane (er, I mean, have a religion). age of the fantasy should not be relevant at all.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Xacid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well asking for that is a bit of a catch 22. It's kind of like trying to be President of the USA and be an atheist. It's not that it can't happen, it's that the majority of people wont allow it to happen (or at least hasn't). A mental health professional who could make such a claim is likely to not be in the profession much longer.

      However, I did come across a report somewhere a while back that did make such a claim. I wish I could recall the specifics or find a link for you to support that.

      But when you really get down to it - is faith any different than believing in any other supernatural item? An adult who earnestly still believes in Santa is pretty much in the same boat. At least that was my thoughts on the idea of faith after I learned Santa wasn't real. If that could be fabricated on such a large scale - why not anything else?

      Mind you - I'm not saying there is or isn't any higher being or whatnot. But I'm certainly in no position to claim any factual knowledge of the existence or lack thereof of such a being.

    2. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Talking to invisible friends: check.
      Believing in invisible friends: check.
      Believing that wanting something really, really badly is going to make it come true: check.
      Thinking that talking snakes, people that can walk on water, and other manner of physics-defying shit really happens: check.


      Just because you can get a whole lot of people to go along with your batshit insane ideas doesn't mean that they aren't batshit insane. See the Heaven's Gate cult among all the other examples throughout history.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    3. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 2

      Believing that the Earth is round: check.
      Believing that the Sun is the center of the solar system: check.
      Believing that time slows down as speed increases: check.

      Just because a lot of people think your ideas are insane doesn't mean they aren't valid.

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    4. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well asking for that is a bit of a catch 22. It's kind of like trying to be President of the USA and be an atheist. It's not that it can't happen, it's that the majority of people wont allow it to happen (or at least hasn't). A mental health professional who could make such a claim is likely to not be in the profession much longer.

      Right, it's a big conspiracy and only Slashdotters can see the truth, nevermind that most researchers are not religious and have no especial interest in religion.

      But when you really get down to it - is faith any different than believing in any other supernatural item?

      The debate of belief and disbelief in God is a key part of the Western philosophical tradition. Philosophy of religion is a well-established field at the most respected universities and both theists and atheists are maintain inquiry and dialogue. Even if atheist philosophers feel there are weaknesses in certain claims by their theist colleagues, they don't make accusations of mental illness and draw risible comparisons to belief in Santa, and the dialogue goes on.

    5. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 2

      A rational response in a religious debate by an AC - this cannot be the Slashdot I know.

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    6. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those things are, of course, comparable to religion. After all, all of it can be proven and observed and none of them are missing evidence where evidence should be present (definitely not religion)...

    7. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A mockery of real religions by assholes who just want an excuse to steal things.

      If it were a real religion, they'd just want an excuse to kill things instead.

    8. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by icebraining · · Score: 2

      A officially recognized religion has legal rights not available to other religions. It's pure discrimination.

    9. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how can any MAN say what is or is not a religion?

      the very notion is unprovable. it boils down to 'the club is closed. sorry, no newcomers.'

      bullshit. fairy stories are just as fake from 2000 years ago as they are from last year.

      the world would be far better off with no religion at all. however, we have this pox upon us and the least you can do is allow everyone to choose their crazy stories.

      saying yours is sane and that guy's is not *is* what is insane.

      hey, I think the absurd stories of some guy being a son of a god being but actually he's the new god being and the old god being somehow got pushed up/out somewhere - how is THAT not insane thinking? yet, we allow it. fully allow it and even *celebrate* this ignorance.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      religion is a mockery of rational thought.

      if you want to tell me about this jesus character, I'll tell you and equally bizzarre story. are you setting yourself up as JUDGE, here?

      my, my. what WOULD your church elders say?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by iCEBaLM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Real religions" are just as fake as the one proposed by file sharers. That's the point. Why does one group get to have their imaginary friends but another doesn't?

    12. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by digitig · · Score: 2

      That's probably why they chose to remain anonymous. Rational responses on religion can get a person into trouble around here.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    13. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A rational response in a religious debate by an AC - this cannot be the Slashdot I know.

      Hah! But it's only a "rational response" to the degree that trying to avoid answering hard questions is a rational goal -- that is, if you don't have a good answer and are trying to lead the debate off in another direction entirely. To recap, OP asked:

      But when you really get down to it - is faith any different than believing in any other supernatural item?

      and AC replied:

      The debate of belief and disbelief in God is a key part of the Western philosophical tradition.

      This is kind of like answering the question "Did you steal that money?" with "People like having money." It's a dodge, a retreat into generality. I find it hard to believe that AC (or you, or anyone else in the discussion) doesn't have a pretty specific opinion on the answer to OP's question.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    14. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you really, truly, genuinely believe that accepting the theory of relativity is equivalent to believing in the power of prayer, you are simply incapable of understanding or contributing to rational debate on this or any subject.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      But when you really get down to it - is faith any different than believing in any other supernatural item? An adult who earnestly still believes in Santa is pretty much in the same boat.

      "The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive."
      -- Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      A rational response in a religious debate by an AC

      Where?

      It must have been deleted...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Mind you - I'm not saying there is or isn't any higher being or whatnot. But I'm certainly in no position to claim any factual knowledge of the existence or lack thereof of such a being.

      That's a bit of a cop-out. You've already compared gods to Santa, so why would you then go back and try to take an impartial position? Would you, likewise, say that you are in no position to claim any factual knowledge of the existence, or lack thereof, of Santa Claus?

    18. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Every thing you have on your mind is a set of axioms. Next you'll complain that both are written in books.

      No. I have the fortune of having 5 senses. These act as input devices. Knowledge stemming from the input received though those devices is not axiomatic. It is observation-based. Is this gonna be another Kant argument? I don't quite feel like rehashing it again.

      Physics is a set of axioms that work

      Nonsense. Pure nonsense. That's not how scientific method works. Observation->hypothesis->theory->verification->rinse-and-repeat is the scientific process. "Hypothesis" can sometimes match a known axiomatic system. But any number of axiomatic systems are developed long before there is any hypothesis to match them (this is math). When hypothesis does match a known axiomatic system, the implications of the axioms (theorems, etc.) can be used to further advance a theory. If no axiomatic system matches a hypothesis, then a new axiomatic system needs to be constructed. The problem is that all observations are local (in the rigorously-defined mathematical sense of that word). And observations of different localities could lead to irreconcilable theories. None of this is to say that science is akin to religion. I am not against the argument that science is not religion and the two are different mental exercises. I am, however, very much against portraying science as something it isn't. My argument is not with how you describe lack of relationship between science and religion. It is with how you try to establish a false relationship between science and math. Most (overwhelmingly most) axiomatic systems are developed as mental exercises long before they have any kind of use to describe any observed phenomena.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    19. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      Everyone agrees Santa doesn't exist. Some people still believe god exists.

    20. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by wisty · · Score: 2

      Believing that the Earth is round: check.

      Believing that the Sun is the center of the solar system: check.

      Believing that time slows down as speed increases: check.

      Just because a lot of people think your ideas are insane doesn't mean they aren't valid.

      I'll bite.

      I studied physics. Trust me, it's valid. If you don't believe me, you can study it too. There's a fair amount of hard evidence, if you understand what you are doing.

      Now, there's priests (and pastors, etc) who study theology. But they *don't* claim to have any better evidence than you do. It's like Postmodernism - you can study it for decades trying to get to the bottom of it; and end up with no more evidence than a 4th grader has. You will have a lot of circular arguments about why it's right, and how the best way to believe it is to not think too hard about the contradictions.

      Sure, there's anecdotes about people who improve their life through faith, but there's also people who say their lives have been improved by weed or LSD. Only LSD has any real evidence behind it.

    21. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 2

      Even if atheist philosophers feel there are weaknesses in certain claims by their theist colleagues, they don't make accusations of mental illness and draw risible comparisons to belief in Santa, and the dialogue goes on.

      Mr. Richard Dawkins might disagree with you, my friend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfcYRKk0sa8

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    22. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Xaositecte · · Score: 2

      The specific examples he gave aren't missing evidence where evidence should be present?

      Sun at the center of the Solar System, easily verifiable.

      Shape of the earth: Not a perfect sphere, there's been an awful lot of work in this area.

      Time slows down as speed increases: Have you used a GPS system recently?

      There are plenty of subjects in theoretical physics that aren't fully understood at this point, but the theories are being constantly tested, questioned, and revised as new information is gained. It's not really comparable to religion.

    23. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Everyone agrees Santa doesn't exist. Some people still believe god exists.

      What people do or don't agree on is completely irrelevant. If he's going to say that he has no factual knowledge of the existence/non-existence of gods, the only way to remain consistent is to say the same thing about everything for which we have no evidence, including (but not limited to) Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Leprechauns, Unicorns, and the little purple lizard which lives in your ass (hey, just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it's not there).

    24. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Zeek40 · · Score: 2

      Or you could just look at the source code for the GPS module on your cell phone and re-compile, thus verifying that it is, indeed providing you with the correct information using the method described. You really really are ignorant if you think that science has anything to do with faith.

    25. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by sydneyfong · · Score: 2

      You're saying X billion of people and thousands of years of tradition cannot be wrong.

      But of course it can be. History has demonstrated this countless times.

      I don't believe in any God as described in most western religions, and I'm pretty much anti-religion (though not anti-deist). Yet still I can happily debate with people on theology and religion related philosophy, just as an intellectual stimulation, like playing a logic game. I don't accuse people of mental illness because that ruins the game, but it doesn't mean I don't think that way.

      You also wouldn't see famous people's accusations of such widely published because that discredits the religious folks.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    26. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Biases: Atheist, Ex-Christian, 12 years of denominational school, PhD philosopher father, many friends who are psychologists...

      - Santa and Supernatural Jesus are both ridiculous since they make extraordinary claims without any evidence. The claim that I am a wizard would have equally ridiculous basis.
      - Santa and God are not. There is equal empirical evidence that there was a creator of the universe as that there wasn't, which is to say 0 evidence. But in this case we know the universe exists and we know it came into being somehow so dividing it up into either "Random" or "Divinely Crafted" isn't a terribly ridiculous way to divide the two theories.
      - It could, however, be logically and philosophically argued though that if there is a God that created our universe he's been proven to be an asshole and not a loving or caring all powerful entity.
      - Mental Illness though is recognizing as abnormal human thought processes that are outside of normal reason and logic. It's not outside of normal reason and logic to find causation where none exists (Belief in the Supernatural). It's not mental illness to attribute meaning or purpose to actions which have none--in fact, quite the contrary, we're hardwired to find patterns in noise. If you find an abnormal number of patterns in noise to the degree that you ability to find real patterns in data through the noise of false-positives then you have a mental illness. The centuries of philosophical tradition prove that the notion of a divine being is within the normal threshold of an average 'healthy' human mind.

      Now that's not to say that it's rational. You could also use the exact same argument to say that Racism is also not a mental illness (I would agree with that statement) based on the fact that it's a seemingly 'normal' part of the human condition. That's not to say it's a belief system that should be encouraged but it's also not a "disease" since it's within the design-spec of the experience.

      Yes, I believe that supernatural beliefs are the product of irrational thought. But there is plenty of irrational thought in the average, well functioning individual. Similarly while it would be great if we all had 150+ IQs it doesn't lead to follow that everyone with a 100 IQ is mentally ill.

      Also from my experience most Christians think they're using sound logic to found their beliefs. It's like solving a physics question with the wrong equation. You might be great at math, but if you think gravity is -8m/s^2 you're always going to come up with the wrong answer.

      Religion isn't a defect of the mind, it's a defect of education. Proof being that your upbringing is by far the largest predictor of your religiosity. That goes to show it isn't mental illness, it's just bad parenting.

    27. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      I'd take that as a positive thing. Biology is the study of something real. The philosophy of religion is the study of something which, while real itself, is based in pure fantasy.

      The vast majority of philosophers recognize the validity of philosophy of religion. There is no area where human beings should not practice inquiry.

      I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. What rules?

      You don't speak directly to the public about an academic matter unless you can also keep up with the process within the academy as well. If you turn away from the academy as Dawkins as done, then it seems like you are running away from challenges to your work by seeking a mass audience who aren't informed enough to judge the merits of your arguments. Science popularizers like Michio Kaku get lots of flack for making extravagant claims to the public even though they are no longer closely involved in science. Dawkins does the same, with the difference that he was never very involved in philosophy to begin with.

      You have no idea whether that is true. Maybe he re-examines them every day, and finds that they are still as logical as ever?

      Where are Dawkins' publications in peer-reviewed philosophy journals that cite the most recent theist responses to his claims? He simply repeats the same things he's said for decades instead of participating in the dialogue of philosophy. Meanwhile atheist philosophers of religion participate in the give-and-take.

    28. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by grumbel · · Score: 2

      But when you really get down to it - is faith any different than believing in any other supernatural item?

      Faith in a very large part is simply what you have been taught, so it is really no more a mental disorder then speaking Chinese is.

      An adult who earnestly still believes in Santa is pretty much in the same boat.

      The problem with Santa clause is that a lot of claims made about him can easily be falsified. Your average religion can not, it's so vague and metaphorical and open to interpretation that you will have a hard time making any hard claims that you can even test and whenever you actually do test, people just move the goalpost or insert a magical "God did it".

      That's not to say that there is some overlap, when you start hearing Jesus, than you have a large chance of a mental disorder, but the average religious guy doesn't have that.

    29. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Well, the Santa that many people describe probably doesn't exist (due to a lack of evidence where there should be evidence). They may move the goalposts, but the one they previously described most likely does not exist

      There is only One Santa, and Nicholas is His name.

    30. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by Anonymus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've heard people say that back in the Old Testament, God had to be like that to get his point across to people. Then as society changed (or, as He changed society) he could soften up a bit.

    31. Re:there is no way to disprove a person's religion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      There is equal empirical evidence that there was a creator of the universe as that there wasn't,

      There is almost no evidence but we can think it through. A lot of theology seems to be based on ignoring obvious questions about this sort of thing, e.g. if God created the universe and God is eternal (because no-one made him) then why do we need God? Why can't the universe itself be eternal? Maybe this is just the latest iteration.

      I also find that many Christians argue that others have misinterpreted the Bible. The problem I have with that is by interpreting it at all you have to use your own judgement and form your own ideas about morality. Inspired by the Bible yet, but none the less coming from yourself. Why then bother with Christian morality at all when you are clearly capable of deciding it for yourself?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Re:Not to worry by Chaonici · · Score: 2

    As you know very well, copyright law has nothing to do with peoples' personal information.

  3. Doing it wrong by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 2

    They are doing it wrong: you need to lock up the information, so you can get religious status (Scientology).
    I wonder what court ever decided it was OK for LR Hubbard's crap to get religious status?

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
  4. Re:Not helping the cause by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny, that can be said about most religions too. Followers do something stupid (Crusades, terrorism, crazy priests, etc.) and the rest of the world decides that anything connected to them must be stamped out immediately for the greater good.

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  5. It makes sense by Chris+Down · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This religion doesn't rely on needless superstition and blind faith."

    "Doesn't fit the criteria, then."

    1. Re:It makes sense by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, then make a god for your religion. Call him The Pirate. And create your own holy scripture. It might begin like this:

      1 In the beginning, The Pirate created the universe.
      2 But there was no one The Pirate could share that universe with.
      3 Therefore The Pirate said: "Let us create humans, so that the universe is shared." And so he did.
      4 And The Pirate said to the humans: "I've created you to share.
      5 I hereby order you to share all knowledge I give you, as well as all knowledge you get from others, unless that knowledge is of private nature."
      6 And he said: "Multiply, and multiply your knowledge, so you have more knowledge to share.
      7 You shall make images of things in the world and of things in your mind.
      8 And you shall write texts both about reality and about things you imagine.
      9 And you shall create all sorts of art.
      10 And you shall share all this with others.
      11 And you shall not demand any compensation for sharing, just as I don't demand that you pay for sharing the universe."
      12 And the humans complied, and everything was well. This era was known as the paradise.
      13 But the devil didn't like that, and he planted into the humans the sin of greed.
      14 And he planted into their mind the shortsightedness, so they didn't see the advantage they got from everyone sharing.
      15 And thus the humans said: "We have invested much work in our knowledge and in our art. We want to have an advantage.
      16 And we don't want those who didn't invest that much work to not have that advantage."
      17 And thus the humans stopped sharing their works for free, and demanded to be compensated.
      18 And The Pirate got angry at the humans because they violated His orders.
      19 And The Pirate said: "You have sinned. Therefore I will throw you out of the paradise.
      20 And you shall not be left in again until you all return to the spirit of sharing."
      21 And he created illnesses to punish the humans.
      22 And he limited the natural growth of the plants humans could eat, and made many of the plants poisonous.
      23 And he made the problem of surviving hard, so the humans would have an incentive to share their knowledge in order to fight those dangers.
      24 But the devil's influence was strong, and therefore the humans didn't work together to solve their problems.
      25 Instead they fought wars over the limited resources, and killed each other.
      26 And those humans who found ways to increase those resources didn't share their knowledge, but hid it as well as they could, so only they would profit from it.
      27 And they made laws to prevent others from sharing knowledge.
      28 And eventually those who hoarded the knowledge ruled the world.
      29 But the world was in a miserable state.

      You of course need prophets of sharing (you may even borrow some from other religions and reinterpret them; this gives more "legitimacy" to your religion). And you need a cult (which ideally involves people meeting in person; part of that cult is of course the exchange of copies of files, but it may also have other aspects like mutual signing of PGP keys, and very important, preaching the religion of sharing).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. Re:Why should one's religion allow one to break la by sunspot42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know, ask the Catholic Church that question. It's clearly an international child molestation racket which largely functions to protect its leadership from prosecution, yet to date no legal authority has moved to shut it down.

  7. Re:Why should one's religion allow one to break la by CanEHdian · · Score: 2

    This happens all the time laws will have exceptions (like slaugher cannot cause unnecessary suffering, except...) and also other rules. Sometimes a classroom can be half-filled with students with something on their head, but little Johnny is warned to take off his baseball cap. The trick to this is that "freedom of religion" trumps most other laws. Kopimism sounds like very interesting as a religion... once there are enough followers, the government has no choice but to recognize it.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  8. Curious by Sniper98G · · Score: 2

    I am curious as to what their criteria are. If Scientology can be a religion, why cant anything?

  9. They forgot the crucial step by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2
    1. Start a religion
    2. Bribe politicians
    3. Non-Profit!
    --

    Liberty.

  10. Just too early by retroworks · · Score: 2

    Piratism has a decent chance of becoming a religion. It just takes a couple of centuries for a religion to "gel", to be recognized as meeting the key criterion, recognized by the Romans etc.: "It's not going away". In the meantime, they will need to practice what they preach, and take their trials and tribulations.

    --
    Gently reply
  11. Try not sharing for just one week... by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No. Seriously! We ARE knowledge sharing beings to the core; This fundamental capability IS the very essence of human nature. Without our ability to communicate and thus share knowledge, information and culture we would be no different than any other primate -- even LESS than apes. Face it: We are not truly human unless we share knowledge. Vast amounts of our existence IS our external culture that we are not born with and that we only acquire through the sharing of information.

    We owe our very rule of this planet, our place in the food chain, and EVERY social, technological or other advancement of value to humanity's capability to share our thoughts and culture. Now, for the first time in history, in the Information Age, many humans willingly allow large amounts of our RELEVANT culture to be withheld and actually fight to protect the right of the greedy to DESTROY the public domain -- The very thing that makes us human!

    Copyrights are now utterly evil -- They are a plague upon man. These restrictions now last for THREE GENERATIONS: 70 years beyond my life. That's my life, the life of my children (ending 30 years after I die), and the life of my GRANDCHILDREN, 70 years after I die. By the time anyone can LEGALLY duplicate ANY new piece of our culture ( song, books, software, games, photos, paintings ), freely they will be DEAD, and their kids will be DEAD, and their children's children WILL BE DEAD! -- No one who enjoyed the short-lived success of my books and games will even be alive to remember them when they become part of our public domain!

    There was another age where the flow of knowledge met such great barriers -- The Dark Ages.

    This evil legal idea of Copyright is now designed to ROBS US of our public domain, and ensure that the free common knowledge remains IRRELEVANT! The founding father's of the US granted copyrights for the betterment of society as a whole, and thought that the duplication monopoly should last about 12 to 14 years -- This was in a time when copies were expensive and only a select few could make duplications. These words have been duplicated over TWENTY times before you read them due to the routers between us. We all have duplication machines, we do not need to be protected from those that would hold the printing presses in hostage! The duplications are in INFINITE supply! To merely use information now is to duplicate it many times.

    The strict laws designed to keep greedy publishers in line have now been turned against the common man because we all now own information sharing tools capable of creating duplications at essentially zero cost. The copy restrictions harm society as a whole! Down with copyright! Copyright is a law; Jim Crow was a law. Rosa Parks sat at the front of a bus, and none were harmed by her doing so; Ignoring unjust laws is an act of civil protest. I shall share ANY knowledge I desire freely and none shall be harmed by my doing so.

    Additionally: Economics 101 -- Regardless of value or demand, if supply is infinite the price is ZERO. Silicon has great value! Would you like to buy some expensive sand?

    Outlawing the free sharing of culture is to outlaw human nature -- The very definition of creating a police state.

    How dare anyone scoff at the most sane, obvious and basic belief to date: Sharing Knowledge is Sacred.
    To each who has, I charge you to isolate yourself and neither give nor take any information form any others! No books, no Internet, no music, NONE of OUR culture -- just solitude! Do not speak to another living human or hear what they say. Try to function this way for JUST ONE WEEK as less than an ape. Otherwise, you must admit your hypocrisy! I would like you to remove yourself from our free sea of culture permanently, but I am not so harsh or foolish to even request someone do such a thing!

    Sure

  12. They're right, y'know by jc42 · · Score: 2

    If Kopimism's main doctrine is the sharing of knowledge, then it clearly fails the primary characteristic of a religion, which is to share beliefs. In fact, distinguishing knowledge from belief pretty much disqualifies it as a religion. Religions generally deny the value of knowledge, primarily by classifying knowledge as just another set of beliefs that's no better than anyone else's beliefs.

    If you prefer actual knowledge of facts, then you might be a scientist, or a historian, or maybe just an enlightened individual, but you're not religious. Religions don't depend on actual knowledge. You just believe what you're told, because if you don't, then that religion's god(s) will punish you severely (with the help of their followers). This doesn't require any file sharing, since the religious leaders are quite good at supplying you with all the beliefs that you'll ever need.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  13. Jesus did it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jesus copied and shared his loaves and fish.

  14. Copyright is the new religion by cpghost · · Score: 2

    C'mon guys, Sweden adopted Copyright as its new Religion of State. Can't have a totally competing one, right? The King of Sweden is officially "Copyright Defensor" and reports to Biden, the Supreme Pope of Copyright in the US Whitehouse. Sure, like every religion, there are extremists, but the Copyright Taliban haven't killed anybody... yet... right? Right?

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  15. Then let us follow by example by viaye · · Score: 2

    Like cases of law, previous citation and proof can further validate a point:

    - If we could have the Church of Emacs, then why not the religion kopimism?
    - If Perl monks can peacefully continue secret enlightenment, then kopimisim perhaps should be given a chance.

    :D