Filesharing Now an Official Religion In Sweden

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Filesharing Now an Official Religion In Sweden

Posted by timothy on Wednesday January 4, 2012 @06:43AM from the but-do-they-have-snacks-and-coffee? dept.

bs0d3 writes "Kopimism is now an official religion in Sweden. Kopimi beliefs originated with the Swedish group called Piratbyran who believed that everything should be shared freely online without restrictions from copyright. Leader Isak Gerson, has recently had some disagreements with the Swedish Pirate Party where many people disagree with all religions." Here's the official website for the "Missionary Church of Kopimism."

358 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Is the clipboard by TheTruthIs · 2012-01-04 06:45 · Score: 5, Funny

their holy scripture?
1. Re:Is the clipboard by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-04 06:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I would rather bet on the Creative Commons license. ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:Is the clipboard by Joikas · 2012-01-04 06:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Creative Commons license, and GPL for that matter, are pro-copyright by their very definition. Only public domain is anti-copyright.
3. Re:Is the clipboard by Pharmboy · 2012-01-04 06:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Depends, if they were Evangelical Kopimists, then the GNU/GPL is the only TRUE gospel. Not only do you accept It into your life, but you must spread the word in all your earthly works.
  The ones that follow the Creative Commons are like the people who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. They aren't real believers, they are "just in case it is true, at least I will get into heaven" believers.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
4. Re:Is the clipboard by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-04 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, that is the holy sharing grail.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
5. Re:Is the clipboard by Pharmboy · 2012-01-04 07:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  PD isn't exactly anti-copyright. Technically, you can take a Public Domain work, change it (even a little, add a space), and copyright it yourself. It is more of a "copyright irrelevant" non-license. You don't have to worry or think about copyright at all, if you choose. Literally, you, me, and everyone here can all claim copyright on virtually the same Public Domain work, legally.
  Of course, if you copyright it, you can't take away anyone's right to copy or use the Public Domain version all they want.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
6. Re:Is the clipboard by Joikas · 2012-01-04 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, if they were Evangelical Kopimists, then they would violate GPL just like every other copyright license.
7. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Creative Commons license, and GPL for that matter, are pro-copyright by their very definition. Only public domain is anti-copyright.
  Didn't RMS say something like: If there were no copyright, the GPL wouldn't be needed.
  My take on GPL is that it uses/subverts a bad tool for something good (keping free stuff free), while its creator would rather see no copyright at all (everything always free). Hardly pro-copyright...
8. Re:Is the clipboard by Narishma · 2012-01-04 07:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  As long as Clippy isn't their prophet we are safe.
  
  --
  Mada mada dane.
9. Re:Is the clipboard by colinrichardday · 2012-01-04 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's already a Church of GNU Emacs. One of its tenets is that if you take the Church too seriously, seek professional help.
10. Re:Is the clipboard by Luckyo · 2012-01-04 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  Except that you copyright the work using something other then public domain for it when you perform the operation you're mentioning. Which makes your entire argument against PD completely irrelevant, as by same definition I could argue that very act of thinking of an idea is pro-copyright, because I could eventually copyright the contents of the idea. The merit of that argument is identical to yours.
11. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  PD isn't exactly anti-copyright. Technically, you can take a Public Domain work, change it (even a little, add a space), and copyright it yourself.
  No, you can't. If you take a public domain work and change it only a little bit, you've created a derivative work of the public domain work, and the expired copyright that once applied to the public domain work now applies to your new derivative work. And by the way, if all you did was add a space, it wouldn't even be considered a derivative work, it would still be the same work. In order for a new copyright to attach, your changes would have to be significant enough to be considered "transformative" which is, unfortunately, somewhat subjective.
  
  Literally, you, me, and everyone here can all claim copyright on virtually the same Public Domain work, legally.
  Well, yes, you, me and the whole world can claim copyright on the exact same public domain work. That is what public domain means, everyone has the right to copy it, hence, the copyright. What you, me and the world can't do is claim exclusive copyright. Once the original copyright has run up, no one can claim that.
12. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. The primary goal of the GPL was to create a copyleft bubble in which everybody could take, copy, use and share everything and in which copyright would de facto not exist.
13. Re:Is the clipboard by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-04 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  Ok, but in a non-copyright world I would have absolutely 0 obligation to share changes for source, or publish source for anything I make. I think the goals of anti-copyright and Free software are at opposition here - one says "copy freely, do what you please", the other says "copy freely, you must let others copy too!", which is a restriction that could have no weight or bearing in a no copyright world.
14. Re:Is the clipboard by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why didn't all religions have that?
  
  --
  What?
15. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard that Emacs has a great psychologist hotline embedded within it.
16. Re:Is the clipboard by noobermin · 2012-01-04 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  That sounds more like 4chan.
17. Re:Is the clipboard by forkfail · 2012-01-04 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  If so, Blackboard.... ermm... Clipboard Monitor Vimes would have to be their antichrist...
  
  --
  Check your premises.
18. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  They sure depend on copyright, but copyleft licenses should probably be seen as workarounds for existing copyright law.
  Ultimately pro-copyright I guess, but not really with regards to current copyright law.
19. Re:Is the clipboard by znrt · 2012-01-04 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  you must let others copy too!", which is a restriction that could have no weight or bearing in a no copyright world.
  that is precisely what brings the no-copyright bubble into existence. why would you want exclusive copyright in a no copyright world, anyway?
  be bubble, my friend!
20. Re:Is the clipboard by chilvence · 2012-01-04 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think it is more annoying that you would only share out of a feeling of obligation, and not because it has legitimate benefits on its own. For example, if everyone has free access to program X, then there is no need for programmers to waste duplicate effort and they can create cool new program Y instead. Everybody wins.
  But whatever, no one can make you feel the vibe.
21. Re:Is the clipboard by Megahard · 2012-01-04 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  And there's a book about corrupt software publishers - "The Girl with the Penguin Tattoo"
  
  --
  I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
22. Re:Is the clipboard by vux984 · 2012-01-04 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  the other says "copy freely, you must let others copy too!", which is a restriction that could have no weight or bearing in a no copyright world.
  So where is the opposition? The restriction is only there to offset the restrictions enabled by copyright. Without copyrights restrictions, this counter is moot.
  Its like a "restriction" that you must not kill a puppy, in a world with no puppies.
23. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Creative Commons license, and GPL for that matter, are pro-copyright by their very definition. Only public domain is anti-copyright.
  The problem with a blanket statement like that is, what do you mean by copyright? Do you mean 18th century copyright that was designed to encourage knowledge and science? Then Creative Commons, GPL and public domain are ALL pro-copyright, because they're all working for the same goal.
  But if you mean modern day copyright laws that have thrown out the original point of copyright and are now designed to lock up knowledge and science in order to promote the profits of a few entrenched monopolies at the expense of everyone else, then that is exactly what the Creative Commons and GPL were designed to bypass. Both use copyright to promote the original ideals of copyright in a world where those ideals have been trampled on and ground into the dirt. And it's probably more accurate to say that modern copyright laws are anti-public domain than that public domain is anti-copyright.
24. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  A derivative work is copyright by multiple authors: the authors of the original work and the authors of the derivative work. In case the original work is in the public domain, the original authors hold no copyright, but there is no exception that would prevent the authors of the derivative work holding copyright - and the latter are effectively the only copyright holders.
25. Re:Is the clipboard by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2012-01-04 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Even the mere mention of the name of "The Great Paper Fastening One" is considered sacrilege.
  
  Prepare to have a "bob" issued against you... Heathen!!
  
  (for the purposes of drama you can imagine me standing in robes in front of an altar with longish white hair and long beard billowing in the wind, staff held aloft in my left hand, a long boney finger pointing at you from my right hand, and thunder and lighting raging in the background. Obv. I'm not... I'm just slumped in front of my computer in an ill-fitting t-shirt and jeans, but I read somewhere that image is everything. Or something.)
26. Re:Is the clipboard by bws111 · 2012-01-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  In what way are 'copyleft' (what a stupid term) workarounds for copyright law? All copyright law does is say that the owner of a work gets to decide how, when, and who may distribute it. GPL is doing exactly that. Since nobody except the copyright holder can release something under the GPL, it is no more of a 'workaround' than any other copyright license. Exactly which portions of 'current copyright law' are copyleft licenses magically skirting?
27. Re:Is the clipboard by Pharmboy · 2012-01-04 09:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, you can't.
  Yes you can. Public domain means you give up all rights: period. This means anyone can copyright a modified version of your work, or technically, an unmodified version as well. They can't take away your giving it into the Public Domain, but once you put it in the Public Domain you have ZERO RIGHTS to enforce it, because it is no longer licensed by you. Only those "harmed" could ever sue for their right to use Public Domain. Do your homework AC. Public Domain means it is owned by EVERYONE, and EVERYONE can do ANYTHING they want with it. Including copyrighting their own version of it.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
28. Re:Is the clipboard by plover · 2012-01-04 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Depends, if they were Evangelical Kopimists, then the GNU/GPL is the only TRUE gospel. Not only do you accept It into your life, but you must spread the word in all your earthly works.
  The ones that follow the Creative Commons are like the people who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. They aren't real believers, they are "just in case it is true, at least I will get into heaven" believers.
  You missed the Schism of 2007, when the heretical Branch Zero Kopimists formed their New Testament, V3. Of course they darn near burned down their compound while arguing about how to light the lamps, but hey, they're learning.
  
  --
  John
29. Re:Is the clipboard by istartedi · 2012-01-04 10:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, you can't. If you take a public domain work and change it only a little bit, you've created a derivative work of the public domain work, and the expired copyright that once applied to the public domain work now applies to your new derivative work
  Public Domain isn't like GPL. There's no "copyleft" or "contamination". The original text of the Consitution for example is Public Domain. You can't copyright it. OTOH, if you have James Earl Jones read it you can copyright the recording under the fullest extent of copyright law. You could even print it in a fancy font and copyright that. The closest thing to "adding a space" would be to take a photograph of it and copyright it. You can do that. The only difference between your copy and anybody elses would be subtle variations of color in the noise bits of the image. They're all yours, the original document and its text is all ours.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
30. Re:Is the clipboard by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  And you'd have no restrictions on people distributing the executables, or trying to reverse them. Copyright is currently used to prevent not just copying, but activities that *might* lead to copying or even exposure to the actual copyrighted material.
  
  Personally I think that copyright (which exists solely to increase knowledge) is unconstitutional if it protects executables which never reveal the source. The source should be registered with the Library of Congress for any derivative executable to receive any protections. So the current system is worse on all fronts than the worst case you are presenting for no-copyright.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
31. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  CC and GPL are no more pro-copyright than laws about murder are pro-murder. What copyright can take away, CC/GPL practically forbidds.
32. Re:Is the clipboard by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-04 10:55 · Score: 2
  
  I fail to see what impact restricting binary distribution has on source distribution. You can be "open source" (lower case o) and still have a restricted binary clause. (See MS "Shared Source" licenses).
  Basically, my point is that not having copyright is the exact same as putting code in the public domain, which we already have today. If there's no problem with that, why have the GPL at all? People could share freely, and not share at the same time to their own benefit/detriment. The GPL exists as an enforcement to encourage Free software, not as an answer to copyright.
33. Re:Is the clipboard by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-04 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not debating the benefits of Free software, I understand those well enough, believe me. I'm saying that copyright helps Free software, and the lack of copyright would not aid it in any manner, as there would be no enforcement that software stays Free in the manner of the GPL. How much that matters of course is debatable.
34. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Smiling Clippy: "It looks like you're making an illegal copy of a recent blue ray release. Would you like me to email a notification of your actions to the nearest MAFIAA office or immigration and customs enforcement officials for that quick charge, apprehension and confiscation of personal belongings?"
35. Re:Is the clipboard by Pentium100 · 2012-01-04 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, but in a non-copyright world I would have absolutely 0 obligation to share changes for source, or publish source for anything I make.
  But someone could take your binary, compare it to the original and come up with the changes that you made. Also, someone could just modify your binary using a hex editor.
  This is interesting though - if I modify some GPL software by disassembling it and then using a hex editor to change a few bytes, would I have to translate it back to the source of the software, or could my "source" be the list of bytes I modified in the binary in addition to the original source?
36. Re:Is the clipboard by wedge3d · 2012-01-04 13:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Every byte is sacred.
  Every byte is great.
  If a byte is wasted,
  God gets quite irate.
37. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Seems to me you're misunderstanding the AC you replied to. He's saying that if you modify a PD work and copyright it, you're copyrighting the derivative, not the original PD work (which remains in the PD and thus uncopyrightable). I suspect that's what you meant in the first place, but the way you worded it can leave the impression that you thought one could claim copyright of the original in this way.
38. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  Creative Commons license, and GPL for that matter, are pro-copyright by their very definition.
  No, they're not. They use copyright, but they don't have to. For example, if you passed a law saying "If you give someone some software, you must also give them the source code.", and abolished copyright, that would be completely consistent with the philosophy behind the GPL.
39. Re:Is the clipboard by AvitarX · 2012-01-04 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't the law requiring I buy scan dongles for ipro, and if the software were gpl, there would be a version that didn't require them.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
40. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  No, you can't.
  Yes you can. Public domain means you give up all rights: period. This means anyone can copyright a modified version of your work, or technically, an unmodified version as well.
  No.
  Something in public domain is "owned" by the population as a whole. You are not allowed to take this, claim as you own and try to assert copyright on it.
  This does not prevent some people from trying but they have no legal (or moral) right to do so.
  Stop being silly.
41. Re:Is the clipboard by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Basically, my point is that not having copyright is the exact same as putting code in the public domain, which we already have today.
  We have that today? So if you reverse-engineered Windows and distributed source code, Microsoft would have no recourse, as all the code is public domain? I don't believe you. GPL is a reaction to copyright to encourage sharing and force it upon those who benefit from it. If everything was already public domain, there's no reason for the GPL. But if you are saying that someone *could* public domain their stuff, and instead they choose GPL, the reason is that a derivative work of GPL is copyrightable. That means if I write something and share it, someone that claims a change can then claim 100% copyright ownership of it, even excluding me from using my own code. GPL exists because copyright is oppressive and is a direct answer to copyright.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
42. Re:Is the clipboard by stms · 2012-01-04 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Creative Commons/GPL may be pro-copyright but they're also pro-copy and that's what's important.
43. Re:Is the clipboard by mjwx · 2012-01-04 19:36 · Score: 2
  
  their holy scripture?
  No, But when you die, your soul goes to Pirate Bay.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
44. Re:Is the clipboard by tbird81 · 2012-01-04 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  'copyleft' (what a stupid term)
  It was better than 'copywrong'.
45. Re:Is the clipboard by drsmithy · 2012-01-04 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't RMS say something like: If there were no copyright, the GPL wouldn't be needed.
  I doubt it, since he would have spent a few seconds thinking about it and realised that without Copyright, the GPL (and what it does) wouldn't be _possible_.
46. Re:Is the clipboard by drsmithy · 2012-01-04 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  For example, if everyone has free access to program X, then there is no need for programmers to waste duplicate effort and they can create cool new program Y instead.
  
  The vast, vast amount of duplicated functionality and wheel reinvention in the OSS world suggests this idea is bunk.
47. Re:Is the clipboard by drsmithy · 2012-01-04 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  So where is the opposition? The restriction is only there to offset the restrictions enabled by copyright. Without copyrights restrictions, this counter is moot.
  No, the restriction is there to ensure access to *source code*.
48. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Ctrl+C and Ctrl-V
49. Re:Is the clipboard by Rich0 · 2012-01-05 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  (for the purposes of drama you can imagine me standing in robes in front of an altar with longish white hair and long beard billowing in the wind, staff held aloft in my left hand, a long boney finger pointing at you from my right hand, and thunder and lighting raging in the background. Obv. I'm not... I'm just slumped in front of my computer in an ill-fitting t-shirt and jeans, but I read somewhere that image is everything. Or something.)
  Like this?
50. Re:Is the clipboard by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-05 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't RMS say something like: If there were no copyright, the GPL wouldn't be needed.
  He didn't. What he said was that he would only agree to fully abolish copyright if the law is also changed to make copyleft mandatory; otherwise, he wants to keep copyright so that GPL has teeth.
  Remember, RMS doesn't just want software to be distributed at zero cost. He also wants software to be distributed with source code. Abolishing copyright does not achieve that, since authors could still only give binaries to the users.
51. Re:Is the clipboard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  In a copyright world, you would have absolutely 0 obligation to share changes for source, or publish source for anything I make.
  What's the difference?
It could be worse by obarthelemy · 2012-01-04 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

They could preach slavery, rape, murder, hating on gays/women/divorcees.
Oh wait, that would probably let them justify having a state on top of a religion ^^

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
1. Re:It could be worse by Joikas · 2012-01-04 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Only so in the western world. Buddhist countries, especially Theravada ones, lack that. That's why they're much more saner religions than western ones.
2. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Christians already got their first.
3. Re:It could be worse by JimCanuck · 2012-01-04 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes because slavery and lack of rights didn't exist under the "peaceful" way of life when the Dalai Lama was in charged of Tibet./sarcasm
4. Re:It could be worse by gstoddart · 2012-01-04 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Only so in the western world. Buddhist countries, especially Theravada ones, lack that. That's why they're much more saner religions than western ones.
  And yet, it's illegal to even criticize the Monarchy in Thailand, Myanmar is a military dictatorship, and Cambodia had some of the worst atrocities this century.
  No religion (or country, or ethnic group) is above all of this crap ... granted, Buddhism doesn't have as much of a bent towards such things, but that doesn't mean that cultural attitudes don't get wrapped up in such thing.
  But, really, I've read stories about monks in Thailand (not to single them out) being involved in all sorts of things. I've even read stories of two sects openly fighting for control of temples because money was at stake.
  I wouldn't be so quick to believe that Buddhism (even Theravada) makes one immune to this kind of thing. Human nature means it is always there.
  It's easy enough to call yourself a practitioner of any religion and then proceed to all sorts of bad things in that name of that religion.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:It could be worse by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like China?
  And isnt Theravada Buddhism big in Cambodia, or perhaps I should say Democratic Kampuchea?
  As always, attempts to link this religion or that to "people being bad" fail hard. People will murder, rape, pillage, etc other people as long as humans remain human.
6. Re:It could be worse by Talderas · 2012-01-04 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  The Shinto religion was the vessel through which militarism and nationalism of Japan prior to WW2 was carried.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
7. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't realise Christianity had its own state??? The bible, the word of God - that can not be ambiguous as it was created by a perfect being has those elements (rape, murder, etc). I'm still waiting for my mom, a devout Christian, to explain why God asked a man to have sex with his brother's wife, while the brother was still alive :)
8. Re:It could be worse by icebraining · 2012-01-04 08:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I didn't realise Christianity had its own state???
  It does, it's called State of the City of the Vatican (Stato della CittÃ del Vaticano). The Pope exercises principal legislative, executive, and judicial power over it.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
9. Re:It could be worse by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-04 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Vatican City.
10. Re:It could be worse by steelfood · 2012-01-04 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  The failure of Buddhists to follow their religious beliefs is not the failure of the religion or the beliefs. This is the same with Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, and even Jedi.
  Of course, failure is not necssarily a negative thing. Failure to launch nuclear weapons during the cold war is probably a positive thing. So I leave the judgment of whether the failings of the religious is a good or bad thing to the reader.
  Personally, I think humans will act on human nature, irrespective of their religious beliefs of what their religion has codified. If that means killing, torturing, oppressing, then that is what it is. If that means helping, creating, and empowering, then that is also what it is. Religion, if anything, either provides justification for these acts or does not. But even if religion does not provide justification, it cannot actually prevent humans from acting on human nature.
  As Christians would like to put it, people have Free Will.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
11. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  I think making a religion out of an economic issue is silly. But then again, people are silly, so maybe it will do some good.
  The fact, however, is that rapid changes in the technological landscape will (and should) force corresponding changes to common values.
  For example, it is commonly believed that people have a right to oxygen, and that charging them for it would be unwarranted. This is because (and only because) oxygen is abundant. The fact that you would die without it does not come in to play; one would die without food but we still punish people for stealing it (also, we let people freeze to death if they go too long without paying their electric bill). If we lived on a different planet where oxygen had to be produced through the expenditure of labor, we would feel it proper that providers should charge for it and that those who refuse to pay should be cut off.
  When works of art were rare and required great effort to produce, copyright law made perfect sense. Art has now become an abundant good, complete with an abundance of would-be producers, and as such it makes sense that free distribution should be a given. It is *still* possible to monetize production, of course. While it is true that a producer will not be able to extract maximum theoretical value from the production if it is freely distributed, there is no absolute principle of human values that dictate that he should (no more than a producer of oxygen tanks should complain about the fact that people can breathe without them).
  Politics always lags a few decades behind technological improvements, as a necessary consequence of how humans self-organize. So the friction that we are experiencing now in the value conflict between the new wave (and a few unusually enlightened members of the old guard) and the old guard (and a few impressionable members of the new wave) is inevitable, completely predictable, and will happen in every economic domain that is touched by technological advances (which is to say, all of them, eventually).
12. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  ...The bible, the word of God - that can not be ambiguous as it was created by a perfect being...
  I know, I know, replying to ignorant troll.
  Your mom should tell you that it's this kind of mis-information that helps to spread the hate. The Bible (Old Testament, especially) isn't the word of God. The Ten Commandments? Those are God's words. The rest of the OT is a combination of allegory/history/prophecy, etc.
  If you accept the Divinity of Jesus, then much of the New Testament becomes a recounting of God's words, so perhaps the Word of God. Can you find any hate in Jesus' words?
13. Re:It could be worse by dmbasso · 2012-01-04 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  As Christians would like to put it, people have Free Will that must be restricted, otherwise they'd do things Christians don't like them to do.
  There, FTFY.
  Substitute Christians for Muslins, Hindus, etc., and it still works.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
14. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Only so in the western world. Buddhist countries, especially Theravada ones, lack that. That's why they're much more saner religions than western ones.
  (Emphasis mine)
  Am I the only one who had to laugh about that?
15. Re:It could be worse by GreyWolf3000 · 2012-01-04 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  This is really naive statement. And not because your implied criticisms of Western religions are untrue.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
16. Re:It could be worse by LordLucless · 2012-01-04 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Also, Britain.
  The British monarch is also the titular head of the Anglican Church.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
17. Re:It could be worse by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-04 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Dalai Lama has some pretty choice words about homosexuality, and strong opinions on sex in general.
  And Buddhism isn't the only religion in the east.
18. Re:It could be worse by Dutchmaan · 2012-01-04 10:44 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder how long it will be before Jedi's roots are forgotten and people have debates and whether or not Yoda existed at all.
  (that was *mostly* tongue in cheek)
19. Re:It could be worse by mirix · 2012-01-04 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was looking at some (circa 1900) land grants here the other day. I always get a kick out of the title-in-full they have.
  $REGENT, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, etc.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
20. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  Well, to be more accurate Catholicism has its own state. While being the oldest of Christian religions, they are almost their own entity entirely.
21. Re:It could be worse by Alimony+Pakhdan · 2012-01-04 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Art has now become an abundant good
  Perhaps you meant crap is abundant. If so I'd remind you that crap has always been abundant.
22. Re:It could be worse by icebraining · 2012-01-04 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  That may be more precise, but my post was completely accurate: Catholics are Christians, and they have a state.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
23. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, NOBODY figured out that OP was talking about Islam / Palestine?
24. Re:It could be worse by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-05 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean, "debates"? Of course Yoda existed; the ghost of Obi-Wan told me so in a personal revelation!
  What, you didn't have one? Well, sucks to be you, I guess your midi-chlorian concentration is too low, so you'll never see the light.
25. Re:It could be worse by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-05 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Defender of the Faith is still part of the title today, so you shouldn't need to dig out 100 year old documents to find it in some official paper.
26. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  I thought your parent is referring to Jews and Isreal. I don't understand why you (and all your children) thought of Christianity.
27. Re:It could be worse by celtic_hackr · 2012-01-05 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  But, No one really expects The Spanish Inquisition, now do they?
28. Re:It could be worse by mirix · 2012-01-05 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  I know it's still the title, I just haven't seen it spelt out as such, on anything around here at least.
  Even things like passports have it trimmed down to just 'her majesty' and such... i can't think of anything modern i've seen that had the title in full on it.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
The result will be deadly by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-01-04 06:48 · Score: 5, Funny

sectarian violence between Kopimists and the ABBAnites over lost royalty tithe income.
1. Re:The result will be deadly by mrclisdue · 2012-01-04 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  thanx for the lol
so. by jellomizer · 2012-01-04 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

So he who toil and grule for months on end to make good to benefit many... Shalt not receive reward or compensation, for they create media and that shall be bread enough alone.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright isn't about people being paid for their creations. It's about forcing people to pay to be able to use/enjoy/whatever one's creation. That's a subtle but important difference.
  Without copyright, creators of content would still be paid - they were for centuries. They'll simply have less control over what they "should" be paid, putting estimation of value in the hands of the consumer instead of the producer. Scary.
2. Re:so. by Joikas · 2012-01-04 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright has nothing to do with payment or lack of it. Copyright just gives creator the right to control his work.
3. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  around where i live they throw out more bread than they sell.
4. Re:so. by VortexCortex · 2012-01-04 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Let me put it to you this way. I'm a freelance programmer. I only get paid when I work. Most of the time I'm not working in any framework, it's all my code that I have "copyright" over that I'm being paid to adapt for others. Once I sell and/or install the system for the company or individual, they do not pay me royalty for each and every copy. It's like I'm an employee in just about every other field. Lawyers don't get paid when they're not working, neither do mechanics...
  Now, I write very modular code, so I COULD try to sell the copies of the programs and enforce artificial scarcity via DRM; However, only my effort of creation is scarce -- copies are in infinite supply. Eco101:
  If (supply == infinity) then price = 0; // regardless of cost to create.
  As you can see, to charge per copy is folly.
  When I worked as a salaried employee I got paid to work, and saw no residual benefit from my efforts. To get bonuses I had to work hard, to get raises I had to be a reliable worker (and good brown noser). However, the programs I worked on made the company hundreds of millions of dollars, and they charged per seat. The company's artificial inflation was a burden to the world economy -- After the first profitable year selling the program they were making money disproportionate to the amount of work involved in installing or digitally distributing the software.
  Since the programming job was "done" many coders on the project were laid off, and we really couldn't keep up with the level of support our demand generated. Perhaps that company would have stayed afloat if their initial prices were lower (subsidizing the creation of more code / more work), while having a more expensive support license. You see, they screwed themselves because once the customers had paid for the copy, they were no longer paying for the work of support!
  When I struck out on my own I initially tried, foolishly, to duplicate the flawed model of artificial scarcity. I nearly wound up with a foreclosure before I realized that the pirate mentality is the correct mentality. Now people don't pay me for my programs, they pay for me to work on my programs or to create new programs. Bootstrapping myself into the "pirate" business model was a bit painful, but is very possible. I don't overcharge for distributions of bits and I live more comfortably and securely now than I ever have in my life.
  I'm not really sure how Musicians, Artists & Actors, etc can implement a similar system, but I don't doubt they can.
  Furthermore, I did not invent the computer, or (most of) the programming languages I use. I did not invent the concepts I use, my works only have meaning and value because they are a part of this rich culture. Honestly, I HAVE created literary works in wholly "alien" languages, and even number and time systems that I created, as an experiment to test this theory. Guess what? NO ONE VALUES THEM. They were not enough a part of the common culture to have worth. To build creations having worth you must borrow HEAVILY from the culture around you.
  Being granted a +150 year monopoly (three generations of humans) for my tiny proportion of contribution to the massive amount of common culture in my work is Ridiculous! My grandkids will be DEAD by the time they can legally use any of the copyrighted work I contributed to the culture while a salaried employee. The founding fathers were correct: The copyright / patent terms should be 10 to 14 years. We've granted monopolies over bits of our culture far beyond the reasonable length of time. Piracy is merely a social pressure that's attempting to right this wrong in the only way they can: By ignoring unjust laws that are destroying our public domain. It's an act of civil disobedience. We granted the copyrights, we can take them all away if they are abused.
  Copyright is a law, Jim Crow was a law. Rosa Parks was arrested for ignorin
5. Re:so. by prakslash · 2012-01-04 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Huh? Your analogies are all screwed up. You provide a "service" as a freelance programmer to do custom jobs. The software copies that your previous company sold were standardized "products". Your previous company didn't screw itself because it was "creating artificial scarcity". It screwed itself because it got greedy and charged more than its competition selling a similar product.
  
  According to your model, if a customer needs a good text editor, they should hire a programmer to write a new one or to create one from existing code? Or, should they just obtain an existing one made by a company that already makes good text editors? May be you will say, they should obtain the existing one but they shouldn't have to pay for it? Well, how does the text editor company ensure that it recovers its costs without someone else buying the first copy for $39.95 and freely distributing to everyone else? That is why copyright laws have a place even for digital media.
  
  As for being successful in the business, the market already works: you make something and you sell it to cover your costs and make a profit. To survive, you do it better than your competition. It doesn't mean you have to adopt a "pirate model".
6. Re:so. by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-01-04 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it puts the creation of content into the hands of those that can afford to pay for creating it (i.e. the elite). Consumers don't usually pay for stuff sight unseen or if they do they usually don't pay for much or work by unknown (independent) artists or craftsmen.
  
  And just to throw it out there, before copyright a very select few creators of content were paid. Not nearly the variety we have today.
7. Re:so. by Telvin_3d · 2012-01-04 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure comparing a single-client business and the production of mass media is a very useful analogy.
  The very idea of mass media is that a large production cost is recouped by many small sales. Who would you suggest is the single client that could replace all those individual sales? And a client that then needs additional sub-sales to recoup their cost doesn't count.
  Without a secure framework that allows for a producer to recoup the cost of work in many small installments, large scale mass media goes away. Period.
  That doesn't mean that current copyright is particulary sane or useful. But it does mean that its total removal would also end the viability of much of our current media.
8. Re:so. by Hatta · 2012-01-04 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't mean that current copyright is particulary sane or useful. But it does mean that its total removal would also end the viability of much of our current media.
  I don't think anyone disputes that. We just value a reasonable system of justice over entertainment.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
9. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's hard to tell from your rant, but your business model appears to either be 'find a sucker to pay a ton for something everyone else gets for free' or 'write inferior software so people have to pay me to support it'. Neither one of those is in any way a sustainable model (although, like many scams, they may work out in the short run).
10. Re:so. by Kjella · 2012-01-04 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Now, I write very modular code, so I COULD try to sell the copies of the programs and enforce artificial scarcity via DRM; However, only my effort of creation is scarce -- copies are in infinite supply. Eco101:
  If (supply == infinity) then price = 0; // regardless of cost to create.
  As you can see, to charge per copy is folly.
  The problem is that the custom development model doesn't work for mass produced software. If it costs you $100 to implement and 1000 people would get $1 value from it, then obviously benefit > cost and it should happen. Does it? No, because individually it's $100 cost and $1 benefit. The point isn't "charging for copy-paste", it's "distributing the cost of my effort over all those who benefit from it". The more people you have to get coordinated, the harder it gets and the more it turns into a waiting game of trying not to be the one paying so you get the improvements for free (unless they're held in a private fork, which is usually not the case).
  A copy of MS Office costs about 2 days worth of minimum wage pay $119 / ($7.25/hr), how much custom development for OpenOffice do I get for that? Very, very little. The effort isn't any less, it's just that all the cost is pushed to the edges where new development occurs. No industry works like that, it's not like Ford puts all the R&D cost of a new car on the first one off the assembly line. That cost is distributed over all the cars of that model. Paying per copy distributes the cost across all users of your software. Fair? Perhaps not ideally so, but having one pay and everyone else benefit isn't either. Yes in fairy tale land they'd all chip in to a big bounty and a neutral arbitrator would determine if the bounty has been fulfilled and it'd all be flowers and sunshine. In reality, not so much.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The software copies that your previous company sold were standardized "products".
  Digital copies are not equivalent to real world products. You're being rather obtuse in claiming otherwise.
  Companies should recover costs by charging for services rather than the code itself. Your conclusion is invalid since it fails to consider that possibility, and additionally fails to consider (a) support costs frequently cost more in the long run than purchase costs anyway, and (b) the principles of economics and scarcity which indicate that the price of a good will approach the marginal cost of producing that good, which in this case is zero.
  These are logical failings of your brain. Re-evaluate your preconceptions and try to understand the world you live in. I admit there are many others with this particular fallacy, and mass hallucination is indistinguishable from reality, but that only works so far and then the laws of physics come and bite you in the ass. You have a lot of leeway to criticize economics but this particular principle is pretty well-founded. Sorry. Welcome to reality.
  Offtopic: The market doesn't work. Everyone is sucking off a banker's teat. Why chase profit when you can just get a loan or bailout? Money is created by banks by means of credit extensions; we've trapped ourselves in a system where debt always increases and sooner or later the banks will own everything. At this rate, they're pretty close to doing it. But go ahead and chase scraps from their table and tell yourself you're somehow beating the system, or the guy next door.
12. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Argument from lack of imagination. Charging per copy is the only way to make money off of software development == faulty premise. Try again.
13. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  If I pay for a text editor, I'll pay what $2? And that's really to pay for the distribution / hosting / making the app available costs. I could always go and get a GNU one for free (someone would still have to donate the hosting/bandwidth to make it free, but the bits themselves don't cost anything because they're already written).
  If I want to take that text editor and get a feature added I put the job up on elance and pay for someone's time.
  He's right that his old employer had the wrong model. They were asking people to pay too much for the distribution of the bits, when really they should have been charging for the support. That's red hat's model, which meshes more with today's reality of cheap/effortless distribution, versus Microsoft's old mentality that demand onerous (SOPA) laws that are broken on a massive scale and 150 year copyrights.
  The only place where the old model still applies is web apps because you never have to distribute the bits, instead you're using them internally as a tool to provide a service. But even then the customer is paying for the service, the idea of getting someone to pay for code or anything else copyrighted just makes less and less sense in today's reality
14. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, you are very correct. Why is he modded up? Slashtards...
15. Re:so. by fatwilbur · 2012-01-04 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not really sure how Musicians, Artists & Actors, etc can implement a similar system
  Easy. Musicians only get paid when they are working (performing), not for recordings of them working.
  
  Now, the line gets a little fuzzier when dealing with commercial purposes, which is what copyright was designed for and absolutely where it should be applied. For example, if using a musician's works to draw people to your business/event, they should absolutely be compensated for it. It's also much easier to enforce (since commercial endeavours need to be in the public eye to attract customers) than private copying.
  
  For non-commercial purposes though, private copying (i.e. enjoying art) should be encouraged. I also think this is the one spot torrent sites should be asked to pay for (as much as I love 'em). They deserve income for the value they provide in aggregating results and searching, but really are making money (advertising) off other people's works, which is a commercial endeavour. The people downloading however are doing nothing wrong.
16. Re:so. by kiwimate · 2012-01-04 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not really sure how Musicians, Artists & Actors, etc can implement a similar system, but I don't doubt they can.
  
  We did, several hundred years ago. It was called patronage. Do you really want us to regress to that way of doing things?
  (Apparently, with the lack of respect shown to our work, the answer is yes. Which, ironically, would result in a significant decrease in the amount of art disseminated amongst the public.)
17. Re:so. by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Every creator we've heard of was paid, from Aeschylus to Michaelangelo to Beethoven to Shakespeare. What we don't hear about are the Uwe Bolls of their generation. Copyright and tax incentives has given us the mediocre that would have been, at best, an apprentice of someone notable. But Steven Spielberg and George Lucas would have pursued their craft regardless of copyright (and Robert Rodriguez, whose first film was self funded, but who is less notable).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
18. Re:so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  Well, how does the text editor company ensure that it recovers its costs without someone else buying the first copy for $39.95 and freely distributing to everyone else?
  The same way most open-source firms work: give product for free, charge for support.
19. Re:so. by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-01-05 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Some people like being able to pick the Uwe Bolls though. And honestly I would never be able to publish anything personally. Since I wasn't born into a rich family and the odds of me being able to pimp an idea to get enough funding to actually produce it are incredibly small. Alot of the artists we know didn't make a dime and lived in poverty and were appreciated only years after their deaths. I think a system where people can be paid for the output of their work instead of raising funding before hand based solely on ideas and promises is a much more liberating world where risks are even possible to be taken.
  
  In a world without copyright. I cannot take the risk to start my own game company. There is no potential for gains unless I get someone to buy into me first. I need to be a marketer first and a producer second and a developer somewhere down the line. I can't let my product speak for me because I won't be paid for my product.
20. Re:so. by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-01-05 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  And one more note... that person or persons who do give me money to make the game or whatever... they actually will have A LOT more input into what I create than I do because I won't have the option of saying no if I want to have any profit off of it.
21. Re:so. by jellomizer · 2012-01-05 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  They also didn't have digital distribution methods. Where after he mostly finishes one work of art it is then copied and duplicated all around the world and finished by others, leaving him selling art that is cost of the materials and labor vs paying for the creativity and artistry needed to come with the idea.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
22. Re:so. by AK+Marc · 2012-01-05 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Since I wasn't born into a rich family and the odds of me being able to pimp an idea to get enough funding to actually produce it are incredibly small.
  So you don't want to create, you just want to get paid for work. Find a place that pays you a salary and create on the weekends if you are still interested.
  
  I cannot take the risk to start my own game company.
  Then don't. You are arguing that if copyright was abolished tomorrow, that you wouldn't be able to make money selling games you made. I don't disagree, but it's irrelevant. You assert that you are creating now, but if there was no copyright, you would never have created anything. That's an easy rhetorical stance, as it's impossible to prove wrong.
  
  If there were no copyright, then I'd have been able to learn from and improve the body of knowledge out there, so I'd have owned my own game company, if only there were no copyright...
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
23. Re:so. by AK+Marc · 2012-01-05 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  They also didn't have digital distribution methods.
  If they did, what difference would it have made? Shakespeare would never have written Romeo and Juliet if Taming of the Shrew were delivered over the Internet to the New World? I honestly don't understand how your argument is relevant. He still would have been commissioned to create David, even if there were an infinite number of Pietas replicated across the world.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
24. Re:so. by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-01-06 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm asserting I cannot create the things that I really want to make unless I can count on an income. The things I create aren't one off little pieces of crap. They aren't weekend hobby projects. It is where I pour my feeling and thought. I have quite a bit of talent and knowledge in this area. I want to create. It is the reason I love this profession. It is the feeling of creation I get. But at the same time. I like to eat and be able to feel like I get value for my work.
  
  And bullshit. Before copyright knowledge wasn't shared it was held closely by the church or private companies. You'd be able to benefit from the stuff that is there now. But less would be created going forward because the opportunity to do ANYTHING that is creative in those areas can ONLY be weekend work after you're burned out from your 50 - 60 hour hourly wage position that you can't speak up against because there's a lot more competition.
  
  Arguing that I don't want to be creative or that my work is so simple it can be done just 20 hours a week (assuming 10 hours each weekend day) is insulting. You have a very simple world view if you think true creative work can be accomplished by just working on weekends.
25. Re:so. by AK+Marc · 2012-01-06 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  And you aren't listening to what I say, but how you think what I say would be implemented by you. You are unimportant. The total sum of knowledge is. You don't want to discuss the issue, but tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are wrong. Unfortunately, reality doesn't agree with you, and you'll never learn why, as your mind is closed (if it ever existed in the first place).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Joke by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does anyone really take things like this seriously? This and the "Pirate Party" only hurt copyright reform movements. Not to mention that if "everything should be shared freely online without copyright", the GPL wouldn't be able to protect code anymore.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
1. Re:Joke by Aladrin · 2012-01-04 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  The Pirate Party doesn't care about the GPL. What made you think they do?
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
2. Re:Joke by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't say they did. The point is that getting rid of copyright means removing all power the GPL has, because it is a copyright license that protects code. People around here do care about the GPL. No idea why my OP would be modded down as "Troll" when I'm making a valid point. These pirate parties and religions are just things the rest of the world points and laughs at. It does no good for serious, legitimate copyright reform movements.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
3. Re:Joke by McGuirk · 2012-01-04 07:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Getting rid of copyright would mean that the GPL wouldn't need to exist anymore.
4. Re:Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  "These socialists are just things the rest of the world points and laughs at. It does not good for serious, hard working laborers" .
  I'm pretty sure that's how socialism was treated at the time.
5. Re:Joke by MoonBuggy · 2012-01-04 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone really take things like this seriously? This and the "Pirate Party" only hurt copyright reform movements.
  This? I doubt it, although it's always satisfying (if potentially counterproductive) to see people stretching the definition of 'religion' in order to exploit its preferential treatment.
  As for the Pirate Party, I'm genuinely glad they exist. On balance I'd probably choose zero copyright over the mess we have now, although it's a close run thing, but realistically I think 15-20 year terms and an end to the legal abuse of copyright for censorship purposes are all we actually need to fix the system. In either case, the Pirate Party's voice at one extreme should help to balance the mainstream politicians' voices at the other end of the spectrum, hopefully dragging the actual outcome towards the sane equilibrium that lies somewhere between "no copyright" and "infinite copyright", the latter of which being the de facto effect of the legislation chosen by every other political party.
6. Re:Joke by Tubal-Cain · 2012-01-04 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Without copyright law, there'd be nothing preventing us from decompiling everything. Yeah the source would be nice, but in the end it isn't necessary.
7. Re:Joke by muuh-gnu · 2012-01-04 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > only hurt copyright reform movements.
  How exactly? Your alleged "serious" copyright reform movements never achieved anything of significance. The Pirate Party has achieved siginificant visibility in Europe. They have seats in the European Parliament, in the Berlin parliament and will probably get seats in the German federal parliament next year. They have already forced major parties to seriously rethink their internet policies or risk losing the whole sub-30 generation.
8. Re:Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Well, thinking about this shallowly, if copyright suddenly vanished, then the GPL would have no more power. However, neither would proprietary licenses. So while the requirement to release code with binaries would be removed, any instance of code existing already would then become public domain, as though it were effectively GPL'd.
  The good thing is that all existing proprietary-licensed things become public and freedom-respecting.
  The bad thing is that the requirements to produce source code with binaries, etc. vanish as well.
  This reminds me of some table-top games I've been playing. "Activate scroll of anti-copyright: Effect: A significant one-time removal of all existing copyrights on all works on the table and in the deck. The effects of all cards within the deck and hand are also removed."
  An interesting concept. It might not be bad initially. We may start to see more companies keeping their source code 'secret' though. Still, the shining ray of hope is that a huge amount of good will be done.
9. Re:Joke by Hatta · 2012-01-04 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  In either case, the Pirate Party's voice at one extreme should help to balance the mainstream politicians' voices at the other end of the spectrum, hopefully dragging the actual outcome towards the sane equilibrium that lies somewhere between "no copyright" and "infinite copyright", the latter of which being the de facto effect of the legislation chosen by every other political party.
  There is no sane middle. There are only half measures that are even worse than picking one and sticking with it.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
10. Re:Joke by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not true - you can keep source code hidden if there was no copyright.
  
  --
  What?
11. Re:Joke by MoonBuggy · 2012-01-04 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't consider 20 year copyrights to be sane? I accept you might disagree, and have your reasons for backing one or other, but saying that all or nothing are the only sane options seems odd.
12. Re:Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  You can keep source code hidden with copyright too.
13. Re:Joke by Hatta · 2012-01-04 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Basic laws of economics tell us that when supply is infinite, marginal price is zero. Technology has made supplies of copies infinite, any system that relies on non-zero prices for copies is unrealistic.
  The only way to change that fact, is to undo what the progress of technology has done. That is a HUGE undertaking, which would require the prohibition of general purpose computers worldwide. Proposing any sort of copyright, without also taking the necessary measures to enforce that copyright will simply breed widespread disrespect for the law.
  So if you're willing to take that step and actually enforce copyright, you have to understand the costs we pay as a society in order to do so (e.g. no more general purpose computing, free speech, privacy). In order for that cost-benefit analysis to pay off, you're going to have to restrict supply for a lot longer than 20 years.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
14. Re:Joke by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-04 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  You can always keep your code hidden, GPL or not, so that's not a valid rebuttal. The only difference is whether it's legal to do so. Even today, the vast majority of software does not come with source, even though that source is protected by copyright.
15. Re:Joke by StripedCow · 2012-01-04 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Most music does not come with its source either. And by source, you can think of music scores, the many different soundtracks that resulted, after mixing, in the final product, lyrics, etc. Similar arguments hold for movies and books. It may be better to tackle the problem in a more generic way, instead of focusing on software only.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
16. Re:Joke by MoonBuggy · 2012-01-04 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  If you want perfect adherence to the law, then yes, but with that attitude you may as well mandate GPS trackers and speed limiters on cars to combat speeding while you're at it. The world works in shades of grey, and laws don't need to be obeyed perfectly to have a purpose; I think speed limits are actually a decent example - again, I don't think they're perfectly implemented, and they're certainly regularly breached, but they provide some kind of framework and fines that give moderate disincentive to doing anything too far in excess of the law. Copyright could be the same: not a free-for-all, nor the dystopian government monopoly on information that you suggest, but a legal nudge to remind people that paying for the benefits of others' creativity will help to prevent 'tragedy of the commons' situations in which everyone takes a work but nobody bothers to pitch in towards it - the overexploited resource there isn't the creative work itself, since as you said its supply is infinite, but the creator's time is not, and that's what risks depletion (in my opinion) without some gentle legal guidance in the right direction. A law that serves first to remind people of what the right thing is to do ('right' defined here as giving the greatest current and future benefit to all involved), and disincentivises the opposite behaviour with, say, a moderate fine (and I'm thinking of speeding ticket levels of fine here, not "moderate" as the **AA would define it), seems reasonable to me.
17. Re:Joke by grumbel · 2012-01-04 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  Getting rid of copyright would mean that the GPL wouldn't need to exist anymore.
  The GPL is about giving you the rights, the tools and the code needed to modify the programs you have. Without copyright you don't get any of that, you only get the right to copy. Modifications, while also allowed, would often be to impractical to actual do.
  A further problem with absolutely no copyright could be that things simply shift to contracts and water-markings. Copyright might allow you to copy every movie you watched, but if you signed into a contract that revokes that right, you are back to square one. DRM might also make it impossible to run modified code on the devices you own. Of course, many of those measures are already in place anyway, but lack of copyright could encourage distributors to focus even more on them.
18. Re:Joke by mrchaotica · 2012-01-04 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Without copyright, there's no reason to keep the source hidden (except for things that aren't distributed anyway, making the issue irrelevant).
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
19. Re:Joke by mrchaotica · 2012-01-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  An interesting concept. It might not be bad initially. We may start to see more companies keeping their source code 'secret' though. Still, the shining ray of hope is that a huge amount of good will be done.
  What companies? The ones who make software to sell commercially would be put out of business; the ones who make software for in-house use keep their code secret already.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
20. Re:Joke by Hatta · 2012-01-04 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  A law that serves first to remind people of what the right thing is to do ('right' defined here as giving the greatest current and future benefit to all involved), and disincentivises the opposite behaviour with, say, a moderate fine (and I'm thinking of speeding ticket levels of fine here, not "moderate" as the **AA would define it), seems reasonable to me.
  You have to take the risk-benefit equation into account here. If the expected loss (risk of getting caught * penalty) is less than the expected gain (chance of success * value of item), then there is no disincentive at all. If you want to create a disincentive, you have to make either the risk of getting caught high, or the penalty high. The only way to make the risk of getting caught high is to monitor all of our computing activity, abandoning concepts like probable cause. The only way to make the penalties high is to abandon concepts like proportional justice.
  BTW, Speed limits are a great example of how the government uses safety as an excuse to increase its own power, raise money, and harass people with brown skin, long hair, etc.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
21. Re:Joke by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Did you read the post I was replying to?
  
  --
  What?
22. Re:Joke by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  The only difference is whether it's legal to do so.
  That's a pretty big difference where I come from.
  Consider the following scenario:
  Person A writes some code and publishes source under GPL.
  B makes changes and publishes only compiled program.
  A wants to further enhance the program.
  Under current copyright law + GPL he can sue. Without copyright law, A has reimplement the changes or get on his knees for B.
  
  --
  What?
23. Re:Joke by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  But without GPL there is also no reason to publish source. You'd have to rely on the hosting capabilities and good heart of whoever is using your code.
  
  --
  What?
24. Re:Joke by ACS+Solver · 2012-01-04 10:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Having recently started living in Sweden, I familiarized myself with the Pirate Party a bit more closely. The claim that they want to abolish copyright is simply false - they are proposing a reform, although admittedly one that curbs copyright very significantly. They do want to get rid of patents entirely, believing they hinder innovation. What they want to do with copyrights is to reduce them to 5 years, after which works get released into the public domain. 5 years is a short period, but it differs very significantly from the idea of abolishing copyright.
25. Re:Joke by mrchaotica · 2012-01-04 11:01 · Score: 1
  Consider the possible categories of software writers, and the consequences of abolishing copyright on them:
  
  Commercial software companies: bankrupt because their business model is no longer viable, they have no code to release the source for in the first place.
  Companies in other industries with in-house software (or providers of software-as-a-service): no change, since they don't release even their binaries publicly anyway.
  FOSS organizations: no change, since they're committed to releasing source already.
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
26. Re:Joke by MoonBuggy · 2012-01-04 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  If humans were perfectly logical automatons, I'd agree with you, but that's just not how people work. In the real world, though, the impact of a law is far more complex than that - it's a psychological trigger, a reminder of how one is supposed to be behaving, not just a rule to be analysed.
27. Re:Joke by Pentium100 · 2012-01-04 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, without copyright law he could reverse engineer the changes and reimplement them. Maybe it would even be possible to splice parts of the published binary to his code.
  Also, without copyright, he could modify any program that he wanted, instead of just the ones where the license explicitly allows modifications.
28. Re:Joke by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  No. What's the year at which half the money is made on a copyrighted object? Under 1 year for movies? 2-3 years for books and videogames? 20 years is insanely long when 90% of the money to be made is made in the first year.
  
  The other issue is that, as we've seen, even if you made the perfect balance, there'd be constant and large pressure to change. So perfect will be unperfect at some point, and non-copyright is better than a tenuous balance that will be destroyed permanently at the first opportunity.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
29. Re:Joke by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  The other problem is that when you teach people that the law is "optional" then there's a general contempt for the law that causes other issues.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
30. Re:Joke by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Reverse engineering code is not really a good solution. The "source" you get lacks comments, variable names and semantics. It takes a whole new skillset to understand such code.
  For the record, I am arguing against the notion that removing copyright law will have no negative effects on GPL-style licensing.
  
  --
  What?
31. Re:Joke by Pentium100 · 2012-01-04 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you can strip comments and meaningful variable names from the source you publish too (or if I modified some open source program and published it, I wouldn't need to do any additional work in making the source harder to understand).
  Anyway, yes, removing copyright would make all restrictions impossible, including GPL, all code would effectively be BSD (or similar) licensed, assuming the "moral rights" part of copyright was kept (right to attribution).
  On the other hand, it would also remove DRM, anti reverse-engineering licenses etc, which, in my opinion, would result in more good than working GPL is now (how do you find out that $evil_corp used your code if they only ship the binary anyway?).
  In any case, GPL is kind of weird in my opinion and promotes not sharing (if I don't share my modified software I don't need to share the code; if I decide to not include your (unmodified)software in my "useful stuff" CD, I don't need to worry about having the source in case someone asks for it; I can use and modify the software all I want as long as I don't share it).
32. Re:Joke by Hatta · 2012-01-05 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  In the real world, people irrationality leads to them being more reckless than an idealized agent. If they are already disobeying copyright law, what makes you think they'd obey a shorter termed copyright law? Especially when most pirated material is less than 20 years old?
  Also, the law doesn't always act as a reminder of how one is "supposed" to behave. For most of us it is just a reminder of how the rich and powerful think we should behave. Not for our own benefit, but for theirs. This is especially evident when the law is in such conflict when the natural order of things. Passing such unenforceable laws damages respect for the law among the people and leads to a less civil society.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:56 · Score: 2

Ohh come on. It is mocking religion AND stupid policy. Lighten up. It is hilarious. Is is definitely tech so definitely appropriate for Slashdot.
Religious Freedom by ZerXes · 2012-01-04 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative

This might be interesting, due to some Swedish laws on religious freedom the Swedish police might have problems trying to seize the servers and computers of this followers as they are only practising their religion.
1. Re:Religious Freedom by Joikas · 2012-01-04 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  No, they can seize all they want. Religions don't exempt you from laws.
2. Re:Religious Freedom by next_ghost · 2012-01-04 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Except in some status of USA.
3. Re:Religious Freedom by next_ghost · 2012-01-04 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Damn... some states of USA.
4. Re:Religious Freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Irrelevant. This is about Sweden.
5. Re:Religious Freedom by Shemmie · 2012-01-04 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know about Sweden, but I do know in the UK some religions exempt you from the law.
  
  There are two main areas where the Sikhs come into potential conflict with the law of the land; The first is the wearing of a turban, whilst riding a motor cycle. Under the Motor Cycles (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1980 there is a specific exemption for Sikhs wearing turbans, Secondly, is the Kirpan (Dagger). Some police officers may believe Sikhs carry the dagger as an offensive weapon. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which deals with carrying articles with points or blades, there is an exemption, if the person is carrying the item for religious reasons. There is however, no specific exemption under the Prevention of Crimes Act 1953. The person carrying the offensive weapon would have to show that they had a reasonable excuse. The inference being that the carrying of the Kirpan for religious reasons would fall into this category.
  http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Kirpan#Legal_Cases
  
  I have no issue whatsoever with Sikh's being allowed to carry the Kirpan, but I am curious as to how a religion can get a legal loophole.
6. Re:Religious Freedom by init100 · 2012-01-04 15:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, they do. In Sweden, hate speech is illegal except if you do it because of your religion. A few years ago, a pentecostal pastor said that gays were "a cancer in society". He was charged with hate speech and convicted, but the conviction was overturned because freedom of religion trumps other laws (including laws against hate speech) in the EU.
  There have been other instances. Last year, a muslim man was applying for a job at a company. At the interview, he refused to take the hand of the female boss while shaking the hands of other men. When the Swedish Public Employment Service because of this incident concluded that this man didn't make a reasonable effort to get a job, they retracted his social security payments. He complained to the public anti-discrimination board and they filed suit against the employment service, charging that he had been discriminated against because of his religion, a court case which they won. That he himself had discriminated against the female boss because of her sex was obviously considered irrelevant, as religion and multiculturalism apparently trumps equality between the sexes in Sweden.
7. Re:Religious Freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  I have no issue whatsoever with Sikh's being allowed to carry the Kirpan, but I am curious as to how a religion can get a legal loophole.
  Under the same law, national dress also gets an exception. If you have a kilt, you can carry a Sgian Dhu.
8. Re:Religious Freedom by migla · 2012-01-05 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  That he himself had discriminated against the female boss because of her sex was obviously considered irrelevant, as religion and multiculturalism apparently trumps equality between the sexes in Sweden.
  I acknowledge that freedoms clash in this case and others.
  I'd just like to point out that in this case, while he was oppressing the woman, she was a "boss" as you put it, higher up in that hierarchy.
  My guess is he was a loon (possibly just by culture, probably by brain configuration/chemistry, I don't know) and he was on social security.
  While I do think the oppression of women is the most widespread oppression across the board on the planet, I think that in this case the muslim social security loon was the underdog and should be forgiven or pitied. The female boss did probably not get too distressed.
  I wouldn't want to hire this loon either, but I just felt like commenting on that your post did come off as a bit ... sverigedemokratish.
  Maybe you did not intend that, because I agree that for the rights of different groups can clash in difficult ways.
  I just wanted to point out that one should blame power and forgive the underdog. If the underdog gets to be top dog in any context, then it's open season as far as I'm concerned.
  
  --
  Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Christianity and broadcast rights by Openstandards.net · 2012-01-04 06:57 · Score: 3

I was just saying the other day that the Bible could of been harder to create if someone claimed broadcast rights when Jesus spoke to crowds, not to mention copyright restrictions with no one able to locate the authors or figure out who inherited their rights when they died. So, perhaps this is in line with Christianity.

--

Open Standards Portal
1. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-04 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  US copyright law sets the term of an individually authored work as life plus a fixed term. If the bible is indeed true, then the copyright to those speeches is still held by Jesus - he never died. Wouldn't matter much though, as the instruction to spread the word could easily be seen as permission to copy.
2. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by Richard_at_work · 2012-01-04 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Jesus did die, he rose from the grave by conquering death - according to the Bible, it's one of the key tenants of Christianity. Now, how would copyright law handle that?
3. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  tenants of Christianity
  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenet#English
  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenant#Noun
4. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by six025 · 2012-01-04 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus did die, he rose from the grave by conquering death - according to the Bible, it's one of the key tenants of Christianity. Now, how would copyright law handle that?
  Not sure, but Hollywood tells the story of a time travelling Jesus who arrives in 2013 to enter law school. His intention after graduation is to travel back to the year 0+3 days and sue the freakin' ass off this "copy cat" Jesus for rising from the grave and claiming to be Him. However, during the freshman year he meets a young but very pretty drug dealer named Mary Jane for whom he feels a strangely compelling sense of attachment, and so evolves a story of heart warming love.
  And that, my friends, is how Jesus came to be the dope smoking, tree hugging hippy we know and love today.
  Peace,
  Andy.
5. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by Richard_at_work · 2012-01-04 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Twas an uncaught iPad autocorrection :(
6. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  I was just saying the other day that the Bible could of been harder to create...
  sigh..."would have been"
7. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by omnichad · 2012-01-04 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well obviously his death and resurrection were to ensure the bible's public domain status.
8. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus did die, he rose from the grave by conquering death - according to the Bible, it's one of the key tenants of Christianity.
  You men tenet, right?
  It has not always been a tenet shared by all Christians. But those Christian fractions who thought otherwise have mostly been wiped out.
9. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by Qzukk · 2012-01-04 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  So, perhaps this is in line with Christianity.
  "You wouldn't copy a loaf of bread between thousands of people would you?"
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
10. Re:Christianity and broadcast rights by n6kuy · 2012-01-04 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! That's the ticket...
  
  --
  If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by prakslash · 2012-01-04 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Although they are only preaching "harmless" digital copying, followers of a religion can still be prosecuted for their actual practice if it is deemed criminal under the prevailing laws.

"Freedom of Religion" rights enshrined in the constitutions of most countries rarely provide for exceptions to go against the prevailing laws. So, this new religion won't change anything. A better path is being followed by the Pirate Party who actually seeks to change the prevailing laws around information copying.
1. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-04 07:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That depends upon how good the religion's lobbyists and lawyers are. The US has a few cases of that sort of thing - surprisingly, not all Christian. A native american tribe managed to successfully challenge the Migratory Bird Act so they could sacrifice federally-protected golden eagles as part of their rituals, and won. The Amish are very well known for it, because their lifestyle has a great many minor conflicts - things like requiring all buildings be produced entirely within the community, which means they can't use fireproofing treatments for wood required by state law. It really comes down, as so much does, to a combination of legal skill, funding and the luck of finding a sympathetic court.
2. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by wolfie123 · 2012-01-04 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Fun fact: In Finland, the only person you should confess a murder to is a priest. Even the court can't force a priest to break the secrecy.
  
  --
  I am convinced that I can always be convinced otherwise.
3. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Blue+Stone · 2012-01-04 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I dunno. Seems to me that religious institutions get plenty of opt-outs form the law when it comes to discrimination against gays.
  The rule seeming to be that if you codify your prejudice, it's OK.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
4. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Gunnut1124 · 2012-01-04 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if it will protect them if they attempt to publish/promote HOW to share files...
  
  --
  America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
5. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by gstoddart · 2012-01-04 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Fun fact: In Finland, the only person you should confess a murder to is a priest. Even the court can't force a priest to break the secrecy.
  Isn't this true in most of North America and Europe? I don't believe this is unique to Finland.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
6. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 07:34 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Seems to me that religious institutions get plenty of opt-outs form the law when it comes to discrimination against gays.
  Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights.
  This is the same as that whole "can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion, even if he thinks it is murder" thing, and its really scary that some people think the answer is yes, and fail to see how thats a fundamental violation of the doctor's rights.
7. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2012-01-04 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Fun fact: In Finland, the only person you should confess a murder to is a priest. Even the court can't force a priest to break the secrecy."
  Better fact: The best kept secret is the one that no one else knows about.
  
  --
  There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
8. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights."
  Forcing the government to deny equal rights and protections based on the religious preferences of the majority is.
9. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by AliasMarlowe · 2012-01-04 07:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "Fun fact: In Finland, the only person you should confess a murder to is a priest. Even the court can't force a priest to break the secrecy."
  Better fact: The best kept secret is the one that no one else knows about.
  So then you kill the priest immediately after confession. Which gives you another murder to confess, presumably to another priest. The Catholics have over 400000 of them, so you won't run out for some time.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
10. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Blue+Stone · 2012-01-04 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights.
  Not having to = allowed to discriminate against. Have I got that right? Thought so.
  Tell you what, I'll be prepared to have a serious discussion with you when you're prepared to defend the 'right' of others to discriminate against you in the same way as you wish to discriminate against others. That sounds fair, doesn't it? Quid pro quo and all that.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
11. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:59 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The US has a few cases of that sort of thing - surprisingly, not all Christian.
  
  You know, if you'd stop your hating on Christians and take a true secular look on America you'd come to realize that America really isn't all that Christian to begin with. I know, I know, Christianity is the root of all evil and every time a law is passed that might hint at the slightest bit of morality it's a brainwashed Christian who did it... Yeah, whatever.
  
  the fact of the matter is that if the US was as Christian as you haters make it out to be stuff like abortion wouldn't have been legal for nearly 40 years now. According to you haters we were still having tent revivals and witch burnings back in those days.
  
  If anything is out of contact with reality it's you guys.
12. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-04 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, if the mother asks for it, and the doctor is the only one available to perform the procedure, then he should be forced to, or forced to retire. The doc signed up to be the caretaker of health for the community, and must perform his duties, or step down. You seem to think the doctor's rights as the health professional of a community supersede the rights of a woman towards her body. The doc can't push his ethics on others, he has no right to force a woman to keep her baby. He can do his job, or he can do what everyone else does, and quit. Simply saying "no" is not an option, and sets a dangerous precedent. What happens when the doc declines to give gays treatment for STDs? Or any other of the myriad of times when an MD is forced to treat someone whos religious views clash with their own?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
13. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  if the US was as Christian as you haters make it out to be stuff like abortion wouldn't have been legal for nearly 40 years now.
  Whatever. They've been trying to undo it for all of those years.
  It's not like abortion was legalized by popular vote.
14. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by MimeticLie · 2012-01-04 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  You're presuming that all Christians feel the same way you do about social issues. You're also presuming that anyone who mentions that the United States is a predominately Christian nation must (a) not be a Christian (b) think all Christians are stuck in the 16th century. The post you replied to does not give evidence for either of those points.
15. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Amtrak · 2012-01-04 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  And if all the doctors quit, where will the other mothers get there post natal care? Forcing someone to do something that they personally feel violates their own morality is no better than the discrimination that the Gay/Lesbian community strives to over come. And on top of that where do we stop the forcing. If a man finds it immoral to kill a man but is pressed into military service because of a draft do we make him take a gun and kill, because if he quits he is a deserter and will be hung, or do we let him be a consciences objector. Your argument is sophomoric at best. Flame bait at worst.
16. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-04 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Only an idiot thinks it should be illegal for private individuals to discriminate.
  (Yes, I know there are laws prohibiting certain forms of discrimination under certain circumstances. That's not the same as a blanket ban.)
17. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-04 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Unless under specific contract (with say, a hospital) to provide service, you are 100% wrong. A private practitioner may refuse anyone service, for any reason they desire (except for a few exceptions that do not include the medical condition of a prospective patient).
18. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by ExecutorElassus · 2012-01-04 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  mind citing the golden eagle case? All my searching has turned up nothing, except that the feathers are collected, and some parts are used in ceremonies, BUT, that there is a "National Eagle Repository" (near Denver) that collects eagle carcasses of naturally-expired birds specifically so that tribes can use them in their ceremonies without harming them.
  
  Sorry for being OT. I'm a bleeding-heart tree-hugger :(
19. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by wolfie123 · 2012-01-04 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  You might be right, I have no idea what other countries do to not separate religion from the state.
  
  --
  I am convinced that I can always be convinced otherwise.
20. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Americano · 2012-01-04 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  This is the beauty of a free market, and free will. The doctor can't force the mother to keep her baby, and the mother can't force the doctor to perform medically unnecessary procedures that he has a moral objection to. The doctor is free to decline to provide the procedure, and the mother is free to go find another doctor who will perform the procedure.
  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a doctor practicing today who would refuse to perform an abortion if the pregnancy posed a legitimate danger to the health of the mother - that whole "do no harm" thing. Of course, you'd also be hard-pressed to justify a *majority* of abortions performed today as "medically necessary to prevent a threat to the health of the mother." Do some reading here if you think that rape/health problems actually represent large portions of the reasons women seek abortion each year.
  And to be clear: I am very staunchly pro-choice, and believe a woman should always have the right to seek an abortion if she wishes it. But I hold no illusions about the majority of abortions being for any reason other than ending an "unintended" or "inconvenient" pregnancy - too young, would interfere with education, can't afford a baby, don't want a baby, whatever the reason is, it is overwhelmingly NOT a "health" issue that drives the choice. But I would never say that a doctor running his own private practice should be *forced* to provide a service which he objects to. If he works under contract and his contract specifies that he must provide those services, then of course he'd be in violation of his contract, and thus subject to termination; but compelling individuals under no such obligation? No thank you.
21. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Bacon+Bits · 2012-01-04 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think his point is that the SlashDot community tends to conflate "Christian" with "fundamentalist" and "evangelical," which, while a number of very vocal Christians are are not the entirety of the Christian community. The fact that this thread starts with the comment "They could preach slavery, rape, murder, hating on gays/women/divorcees. Oh wait, that would probably let them justify having a state on top of a religion ^^" and nobody has stood up to denounce that hatred itself is indicative of the issue. Topics about religion on SlashDot invariably involve these kinds of generalizations about "Christians" or religious types in general and nobody seems to have a problem with it.
  The truth is that religion itself has nothing to do with slavery, rape, murder, or hatred of certain groups. Dogmatic thinking (religious or otherwise), willful ignorance, sectarianism, and xenophobia do. The very act of denigrating "Christians" -- whether with direct attacks like this or with callous mocking like FSM and invisible unicorns -- and lumping them together in this fashion as rapists, murderers, slavers, etc. perpetuates the exact same behavior here that resulted in these atrocities.
  Religion isn't what's wrong. Religion is not evil. Hate is evil. Perpetuating misunderstanding and resentment is evil. Humans are evil, not organizations.
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
22. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by gstoddart · 2012-01-04 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  You might be right, I have no idea what other countries do to not separate religion from the state.
  Well, that makes at least two of us. :-P
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
23. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Back 40 odd yrs ago we would have said
  This is the same as that whole "can a doctor be forced to perform an operation on a black man, even if he thinks they are unclean" thing, and its really scary that some people think the answer is yes, and fail to see how thats a fundamental violation of the doctor's rights.
24. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by mrchaotica · 2012-01-04 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Forcing someone to do something that they personally feel violates their own morality
  If doing your job violates your sense of morality, you have the wrong job!
  
  If a man finds it immoral to kill a man but is pressed into military service because of a draft do we make him take a gun and kill, because if he quits he is a deserter and will be hung, or do we let him be a consciences objector.
  The proper analogy here would be if that man chose to enlist and then decided to go AWOL.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
25. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-04 09:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's because I was slightly wrong. I was conflating two different but quite similar cases.
  
  The eagle case was one Mr. Hardman (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/994210.html). I remembered one crucial detail incorrectly though: He actually lost in court. The case I was confusing it with was one of those he cited as precident, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah). The religion in question there wasn't native american, but a decendant of an African religion requiring animal sacrifice. In that case, they won, and the ordinance was struck down as unconstitutional.
  
  The MBA actually *does* have an exception for native american religions, but Hardman didn't qualify as he was not a legal member of one of the authorised tribes.
  
  It can be so hard to keep all these cases straight when citeing from memory. I am not a lawyer though, I just debate this stuff a lot on the internet.
26. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by gknoy · 2012-01-04 09:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  An officer of the state, however, is acting as more than an individual, and should not be allowed to discriminate.
  So, your local priest or rabbi might decline to marry you and your (hypothetical) gay fiancee, but I dislike the idea of the local judge or magistrate declining to do so.
27. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-04 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Your draftee example is completely irrelevant. The doctor chose to provide health care to their community, they shouldn't be able to choose when not to provide the services just because they don't agree with the choice. Or rather, they can, but doing so should strip them of their position. Can firemen choose not to put out a fire because the homeowner is an atheist? Can servicemembers choose to disobey orders because they don't agree with them? Regardless, this is only an issue if the woman has no access to other doctors. Fortunately that is rarely, if ever, the case.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
28. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by SirGarlon · 2012-01-04 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  That depends upon how good the religion's lobbyists and lawyers are.
  
  I think that's kind of a cynical view. I'm quite pleased to see that inclusiveness in America can be more than just lip service, and we the people are willing to make some reasonable accommodations for bona fide religious groups. As another example, members of pacifist religions (Amish, Quaker, maybe Buddhists) can get an exemption from military conscription.
  Note however that several religions believe polygamy is perfectly acceptable, but we are in my opinion a very long way from legalizing that in the U.S. So I think getting a religious exception depends heavily on the degree of the exception being sought and how different the minority group's view is from the mores of the wider society.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
29. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-04 09:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And is it "entitlement" to expect firemen to put out a fire, even if their religious views conflict with those of the homeowners? Doctors are public servants, they have obligations to their community.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
30. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by bws111 · 2012-01-04 09:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Would you discriminate against a high-school dropout performing brain surgery on your child? If you are hiring firefighters, are you going to choose the 80 year old lady in a wheelchair, or the healthy 22 year old male? Do you think it should be legal for a man to marry his cat, so that the cat gets health benefits and the man gets a tax deduction?
  If you answered anything other than 'yes, male, and no', you are either a liar or an idiot.
  Discrimination is a necessary fact of life. Without it, we don't survive. Now, you may not like the criteria some people use when they discriminate, and that would be a valid discussion, but claiming there should be no discrimination is just moronic.
31. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-04 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  I can't find that Amish fire code one either, though I did find a rather amusing case in which one of them argued that his religion forbade him from displaying a 'slow vehicle' warning sign on his buggy... and actually won, at least at first! ( http://louisville-accident-lawyer.com/2011/09/kentucky-statute-189-820-for-slow-moving-vehicles-is-found-constitutional-for-amish-buggies/ ) The case was overturned on appeal. I can find many, many news stories and discussions detailing the conflict between the Amish and regulators over enforcing building codes (http://www.firehouse.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-91475.html, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466606,00.html, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1991276/posts ) but no actual case name.
  
  I discovered an interesting one in Wisconsin v Yoder though, in which they successfully challenged a state law requiring compulsory education as an infringement upon their freedom of religion - the Amish religion strictly prohibits any formal education beyond the eigth grade. I already knew that, but I didn't know they'd had to go to court to get it. It is one reason I am so comfortable mocking them all as ignorant: They actually are uneducated, and by choice too. Their deliberate refusal of education fuels my deep dislike for them, espicially as it makes leaving their community almost impossible: Someone raised in an Amish community is unemployable elsewhere. Can you imagine trying to get a job when you don't even know how to operate a telephone?
32. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by SirGarlon · 2012-01-04 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but no. In the U.S. the only people who can't be called to testify is the accused or his lawyer (and I am not even sure about the lawyer). I was surprised to learn when I served on a jury that a court can order a psychiatrist to testify. Confidentiality to a psychiatrist means he/she can only disclose the patient's details with a court order, not that the records are immune to a court order. The other jurors were surprised by this too. I imagine the defense lawyer had a chance to object and so on, but the bottom line is that excerpts from defendant's medical records were entered into evidence and the jury got to read through them during deliberations.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
33. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-04 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  I do find it amusing that the strongest campaigning against legalising polygamy as a religious right would come from other religions. That is the reason that a multicultural society is characterised by constant infighting: What one subcultural requires, another believes must be prohibited to all.
34. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by bws111 · 2012-01-04 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Pregnancy" is not a disease. It is not a 'health care' issue that requires correcting. Except in very rare cases, there is no medical requirement for an abortion.
  If your point is that a doctor is required to do anything a patient asks, where do you draw the line? Is a doctor required to perform piercings and other body mutilations? Is a doctor required to provide drugs just because a patient wants them? Is a doctor required to end a life?
35. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by dmbasso · 2012-01-04 10:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The fact that this thread starts with the comment "They could preach slavery, rape, murder, hating on gays/women/divorcees. Oh wait, that would probably let them justify having a state on top of a religion ^^" and nobody has stood up to denounce that hatred itself is indicative of the issue.
  No, it is indicative that people know what is written in the Christian Bible (and other religious books based on those ancient scriptures). Do we need to repeat ourselves and explicitly point the references for those atrocious acts in that book?
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
36. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by apcullen · 2012-01-04 10:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is one of the most ridiculous slashdot comments I have ever heard. Religions have always been allowed to discriminate.
  
  Should a rabbi be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for me then, even if I'm not Jewish?
37. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Well ofcourse noone preach about slavery, rape, murder, hating on gays/women/divorcees. Instead they preach about following the holy book without questioning, and then the book can do the talking about slavery, rape, murder, hating on gays/women/divorcees part.
38. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  > Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights.
  You are sanctioned by the state to perform state-approved marriages, which are not just somebodys private religious rituals, but legally binding agreements. Refusing to grant such a legal service to somebody based on his sexual preference is a violation of his rights to be equally treated.
39. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  The Amish are Christians, actually. A kind of Mennonite, if memory serves.
40. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-04 10:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The world doesn't owe me, but firefighters, doctors, policemen etc do owe me to do the job they signed up to do. Doctors have an obligation to treat patients, and if they don't want to, that's fine. They just shouldn't be doctors anymore.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
41. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-04 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  If a doctor is allowed to choose which patients they treat, where do you draw the line? Can a doctor refuse to provide care to a gay woman who is giving birth?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
42. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Can a doctor be forced to perform a opertion on a black person? Or to switch the question, should a doctor be able to deny operating on a black person? If not, then why should be be able to discriminate against pregnant people?
43. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you are a male, have you ever discriminated against a female for a potential relationship based on anything, her looks, age, race, religion, job, status, anything?
  If you are a heterosexual male, have you ever discriminated against a potential relationship with gay males?
  If you are an employee, have you ever discriminated against your potential employer based on the offered pay, conditions, type of work, location, etc.?
  If you are an employer, have you ever discriminated against your potential employee based on salary expectations, conditions, type of work, location, etc.?
  I can go on forever here, but you are not seeing the forest for the woods.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
44. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  Would you discriminate against a high-school dropout performing brain surgery on your child?
  If you're a libertarian wanting to get rid of all those pesky rules about licensing and government control of doctors so that the free market can sort it out, then of course not, bring on the quacks!
45. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by bws111 · 2012-01-04 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Eh? You have now somehow magically changed the question from 'should a doctor be required to perform not medically required procedures' to 'can a doctor discriminate based on sexual orientation'. Those two questions have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And, BTW, the answer to your question is 'of course'. It would be perfectly reasonable for a podiatrist to refuse to deliver a baby, gay mom or not.
46. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-04 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I was refering to my first example, the native american one. Actually, I remembered that slightly wrong: While they do have an exception to the Migratory Birds Act, it's granted by legislation rather than court.
47. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  have you ever discriminated against a female for a potential relationship based on anything, her looks, age, race, religion, job, status, anything?
  It's all good!
  If you are a heterosexual male, have you ever discriminated against a potential relationship with gay males?
  Mmm, traps!
  If you are an employee, have you ever discriminated against your potential employer based on the offered pay, conditions, type of work, location, etc.?
  Work or starve!
  If you are an employer, have you ever discriminated against your potential employee based on salary expectations, conditions, type of work, location, etc.?
  The only thing I ever worry about is whether they go on strike or not, but the government prevents me from discriminating against people who refuse to do the work I tell them to do. Funny... sounds like it's the same for doctors.
48. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Dozy+Lizard · 2012-01-04 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  So you would say it is OK for a hotel owner to refuse service to blacks?
49. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  the fact of the matter is that if the US was as Christian as you haters make it out to be stuff like abortion wouldn't have been legal for nearly 40 years now.
  Every Christian I know is pro choice. Banning "medical treatment" because you don't like it is as immoral as abortion itself, so abortion should be legal, but as much possible, people should be encouraged to carry the baby. Unfortunately, my circle of friends is apparently small and odd, as that doesn't seem to be a popular stance.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
50. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  Seems that you're presuming that I'm a Christian...
51. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2012-01-04 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Fun fact: In Finland, the only person you should confess a murder to is a priest. Even the court can't force a priest to break the secrecy."
  Better fact: The best kept secret is the one that no one else knows about.
  Two people can keep a secret - as long as one is dead.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
52. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  This is the same as that whole "can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion, even if he thinks it is murder" thing, and its really scary that some people think the answer is yes, and fail to see how thats a fundamental violation of the doctor's rights.
  Emphasis on the "thinks". The doctor may think freely what he likes to think and even say it openly outside of the care unit he is working in. It is still not defined as murder, just like the death penalty in many places, and the fundamental rights of the doctor where not fundamentally violated.
  Religious communities do get differential treatment in many countries. For example, the Jewish community in England have the right to settle issues relating to family law in their community according to the Jewish traditions, with some limitations of course. Africa has separate/shared Muslim/Christian/Pagan legislations in some areas.
53. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Firefighters and police are paid by the municipality to perform services for that municipality. You will note that they are absolutely NOT required to perform services for any other municipality (yes, I am well aware that sometimes they do, as a courtesy). Doctors are paid by the patient for services rendered. They are not required to perform services for anyone else (except possibly in an emergency, which elective abortion is most certainly not). Nobody owes you anything at all, you entitled prick.
54. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Australia the doctor has to give a referral to another doctor (who does or at least is likely to) if they refuse/can't give a certain treatment. This includes things such as OCP, abortions, vaccines (out of stock etc), lack of practitioner knowledge (eg. referral to specialist) and many others.
55. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 14:04 · Score: 2
  
  Wait, youre refusing to agree with me. Thats a violation of my rights, correct?
  I want to be clear what your position is here-- are you saying that it is discrimination for a priest / pastor to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony because it goes against his beliefs? Can you clarify whether you think it is permissible to compel him to perform the ceremony or else lose his position?
56. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  I really wasnt talking about anything other than requiring pastors / priests to perform a marriage. A local judge would probably go with whatever the law says, which is generally determined by what the people say, and is regardless not an infringement on his beliefs; unless I am mistaken he could recuse himself (right term?) if he had objections to the union.
57. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 14:21 · Score: 2
  
  The doc signed up to be the caretaker of health for the community, and must perform his duties, or step down.
  
  Scary issue #1: you seem to have forgotten that "doctor" is a private profession. It is generally not run by the state, and the doctor has every right to perform a non-vital procedure for any reason he chooses.
  Have a cyst and hes the only one able to remove it, but you called him a jerk and he is refusing? Tough luck, hes not a public servant. Just like as an IT guy I could refuse to do work for a lobby firm dedicated to hate speech, he has the right to choose his customers.
  Scary issue #2: There is no right to abortion. Neither is there some fundamental right to a state-sanctioned and state-benefitted marriage. Its great that we have it, but marriages have been going on for far longer than they got tax benefits.
  
  The doc can't push his ethics on others, he has no right to force a woman to keep her baby.
  Its real interesting what you just did there. You made it the doctors fault that that woman got pregnant, unless he gives her an abortion. How does that work, exactly?
58. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Ash-Fox · 2012-01-04 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  If a doctor is allowed to choose which patients they treat, where do you draw the line?
  I think law draws the line when they have crossed the point of no return in treatment.
  
  Can a doctor refuse to provide care to a gay woman who is giving birth?
  I'm pretty sure a doctor can and he'll likely be capable of giving a reason that is acceptable, even if that is not the truth.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
59. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  should be "refuse to perform a non-vital procedure". Clearly he does not have the right to run around grafting extra digits onto people for any reason ;)
60. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Doctors are public servants,
  
  No, theyre no, at least not most of them; and its kind of scary that people think this is true.
61. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Are you now claiming that we should impress unwilling doctors into service despite their desire to quit a profession they find amoral?
  Thats one heck of an interesting moral compass you have there; remind me never to vote for you as dictator.
62. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that this thread starts with the comment "They could preach slavery, rape, murder, hating on gays/women/divorcees. Oh wait, that would probably let them justify having a state on top of a religion ^^" and nobody has stood up to denounce that hatred itself is indicative of the issue. Topics about religion on SlashDot invariably involve these kinds of generalizations about "Christians" or religious types in general and nobody seems to have a problem with it.
  The original post which you quote doesn't say anything about Christians, nor does it generalise to all religious people. It does imply that all religions which have their own state preach the listed ideas - but is that incorrect? There aren't that many theocracies in the world, and all the ones I can think of have preached all of those things.
63. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-04 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, mod down, misread parents comment.
64. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by sveinungkv · 2012-01-04 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  You don't believe the doctor have the right to decide how he will use his own body. (What if not his body will he be forced to use to perform the abortion? What if not his body will he be denied to use to perform non murdering medicine if he refuse to become a murderer?) You also don't believe that the would be abortion victim have the right to decide that his own body should not be destroyed. Then you talk about the mothers rights towards her body.
  You say a doctor can't push his ethics on others by refusing to commit murder. Then you argue for forcing your ethics on the doctor by the government's guns. (The government will point their gun towards him and force him to commit murder or never practicing non murdering medicine again, destroying the way he puts food on the table for his children)
  What you wrote is modded insightful. My reply will probably be modded down. As God said through the apostle Paul in the Bible:
  
  And just as they had refused to continue to have a full knowledge of God, so it was to utterly worthless minds that God gave them up, for them to do things which should not be done.
  
  --
  Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
65. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Bacon+Bits · 2012-01-04 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that this thread starts with the comment "They could preach slavery, rape, murder, hating on gays/women/divorcees. Oh wait, that would probably let them justify having a state on top of a religion ^^" and nobody has stood up to denounce that hatred itself is indicative of the issue.
  No, it is indicative that people know what is written in the Christian Bible (and other religious books based on those ancient scriptures). Do we need to repeat ourselves and explicitly point the references for those atrocious acts in that book?
  First of all, I don't think anybody who would state what I quoted above is a person believes the Bible to be the Word of God, so I rather question the practice of quoting and interpreting what you believe to be false. It is on it's face a disingenuous argument. "This isn't true except when I say it isn't" doesn't work for the religious, so it shouldn't work for the non-religious either.
  Second of all, let's assume for argument's sake that a church is best positioned to interpret the Bible. This isn't much of a stretch to accept. If you want to understand Mathematics, you talk to a mathematician who has studied the field his entire life. If you want the best understanding of religion, you should talk to someone who has studied that field their entire lives: a priest.
  Now, let's consider some pretty divisive topics.
  Sexual orientation: no consensus.
  Homosexual marriage: no consensus.
  Abortion: no consensus.
  God as Trinity: no consensus.
  So Christians can't decide as a whole to do much of anything, it seems, regardless of what the Bible says. Yet when a non-religious person quotes Leviticus 18:22 it somehow means that all Christians are homophobic assholes.
  You want to know how to be a Christian? Read the Bible. Think about what it means to you. Decide for yourself what it's supposed to mean and what's really important. Believe what you want. Find the truth in there for yourself, and use it to improve your life and improve your community. Everything else is just ceremony and pageantry. Find someone who disagrees with you? Let them. You are no more an authority than they are. God is the authority. Let Him decide.
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
66. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  what if the doctor was a racist? should he be allowed to not help blacks? it is his right after all.
67. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by sixsixtysix · 2012-01-04 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  if anything, the cat should be covered under a family plan.
  
  --
  ...
68. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by bws111 · 2012-01-04 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  I just re-read this, and I can't believe how stupid it is. First of how, exactly how does a doctor 'sign up' to be THE caretaker of health for the community? Unless he is an employee of the municipality (and certainly most are not), he is either in his own private practice or works for someone else. If he is an employee, then his employee contract will say what services he must provide. Very doubtful that 'perform abortions' would be required by any employer other than an abortion clinic.
  A doctor, at most (like any other job) should be expected to perform his duties to the best of his ability without discriminating against race, religion, etc. A doctors duties are treating medical problems.
  As a medical condition, an unwanted pregnancy is exactly the same as a wanted one. The medical treatment and care of the patient is the same. If a doctor was refusing pre-natal care based on the race or religion of the patient, that would be a problem. If a doctor was refusing pre-natal care because he is a dermatologist, that is not a problem.
  The difference between unwanted and wanted pregnancies is not medical. It is social, economic, emotional, maybe even criminal. Since when is a doctor required to solve social, economic, emotional, or criminal problems?
  Refusing to provide an abortion to someone because she is black would be a problem. Refusing to provide abortions to anyone at all? Not a problem in the slightest.
  Saying a doctor should be required to provide abortions against his morals is no different than saying a physicist should be required to work on nuclear weapons just because he is a physicist, or an engineer required to work on execution machines because he is an engineer.
69. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Pentium100 · 2012-01-04 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, about the abortion thing, I think I have an explanation for it:
  1. There are doctors who specialize in abortion, so I guess they are OK with it. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, she probably goes to one of those doctors instead of trying to force someone to do the procedure against their will.
  2. However, if the abortion is not chosen, but is necessary because otherwise the woman would die (some kind disease or whatever), then most likely she does not have the time (or even the physical strength) to go looking for a doctor who is OK with abortion. In that case I think saving her life takes priority over the doctor's beliefs.
70. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights.
  It's the other way. They are banned, by law, from performing a marriage ceremony. Never has anyone been forced to perform a ceremony, even in the places where gay marriages have been legal. Allowing the marriage is increasing rights for *everyone* and taking rights away from *nobody*.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
71. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  Only an idiot thinks it should be illegal for private individuals to discriminate.
  So only an idiot thinks that making Blacks sit out in the alley to eat should be illegal? You are 100% opposed to a ban on employers deciding to not hire any women for managerial positions?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
72. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  God I wish. Then the AMA will hopefully lose its government enforced monopoly on medical care and we might get a free market in medical care (dropping prices and improving service, if the Libertarians are right). The AMA artificially restricting the number of doctors to increase their power at the expense of the quality of care available should be busted, and if it takes 100% of doctors to get there, I'm all for it.
  
  Forcing someone to do something that they personally feel violates their own morality is no better than the discrimination that the Gay/Lesbian community strives to over come.
  So a racist cop shouldn't be required to arrest a white man who killed a black man, as that violates his personal beliefs?
  
  If a man finds it immoral to kill a man but is pressed into military service because of a draft do we make him take a gun and kill, because if he quits he is a deserter and will be hung, or do we let him be a consciences objector
  In many (most?) cases, the draft was enforced over objections and the person in question was sentenced to a non-combat job, like a supply sergeant stateside. You don't get to say "I don't like killing" and get out of the draft.
  
  Your argument is sophomoric at best. Flame bait at worst.
  Yours seems the same when it works out so well for arguing that bigot police don't need to protect or serve if they don't like the victim or like the perpetrator. Perhaps the workers at the DMV should pick next based not on numbers taken in order, but no who they think looks best...
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
73. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-04 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  What is it with white males and their groveling at the feet of women? It's all about a woman's body or a woman's child, and has nothing to do with the male input.
74. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by dmbasso · 2012-01-04 17:29 · Score: 2
  
  You want to know how to be a Christian?
  No, I really don't. But I can't help, I'm forced to. You know, one of the best ways to learn something is by example, and the examples the media exposes are like:
  - a guy throwing a molotov on a mosque
  - people holding banners "god hates you, you are going to hell" for the soldiers returning from Iraq
  - same thing, but "god hates fags" (Foo Fighters performed exclusively for one of these loonies groups, oh how I wanted to be there)
  - a guy blowing up around 100 people in Norway
  - a nation, "bound under god", which defends the use of torture
  And all the people behind that have read the bible and, supposedly, "God have touched their souls".
  If god existed and had any authority, the world would not be the chaos it had always been. And don't give me the "mysterious ways" crap.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
75. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Americano · 2012-01-04 18:59 · Score: 2
  
  If doing your job violates your sense of morality, you have the wrong job!
  Fact: It's quite possible to be a doctor and never, ever, ever perform an abortion, or even have a patient request one from you.
  Fact: It's quite possible - in fact, it's the vast majority of cases - for an abortion to be requested for no medical reason whatsoever - instead, the request is made for social, economic, convenience, or other personal, non-medical reasons in the lion's share of abortions. In the small portion of cases where an abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother, the medical ethics of the situation are already fairly clear, because the doctor is required by his ethics to provide medical care when it is medically necessary.
  
  The proper analogy here would be if that man chose to enlist and then decided to go AWOL.
  Your analogy sucks: military service is, by definition, publicly funded. Military personnel are therefore public servants, and may not discriminate. Medical personnel in private practice (e.g., not government employees - military, NIH, CDC, etc. etc.) are NOT public servants.
  Or, if you really want to press the military analogy, you could also consider the fact that soldiers are DUTY-BOUND to refuse to follow orders that are illegal or immoral. So, for instance, if your division commander orders you to execute a hundred children in a village in order to get some intelligence out of the residents, you would be obligated by law, ethics, and morality to REFUSE that command because it is illegal and immoral. Why should we expect unquestioning obedience to the whims of state bureaucrats from doctors in private practice, when we have a very clear exception to this even for military personnel, who are public servants in every way imaginable?
76. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by voidphoenix · 2012-01-04 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  "can't afford a baby" is a health issue for both mother and child. Ever heard of malnourishment? Might not be too common in the First World, but in Third World countries, it's prevalent. "don't want a baby" is also a health issue, albeit psychological and not necessarily physical, and will affect both mother and child.
  
  --
  Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
77. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by randyleepublic · 2012-01-04 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  The practice of religion is the denigration of all that it means to be human. One takes one's mind and pushes the pause button. Then, instead of dying, no mind == dead person, one keeps walking and talking. Worse: one goes on the rampage to convince others, children even(!), to join them in zombiehood. Sounds like pure evil to me!
  
  --
  Social Credit would solve everything...
78. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by MRe_nl · 2012-01-04 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Religion isn't what's wrong".
  "Religion is not evil".
  "Hate is evil".
  "Perpetuating misunderstanding and resentment is evil". "Humans are evil, not organizations".
  Everyone of these assumptions is false.
  
  --
  "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
79. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 22:28 · Score: 0
  
  Two examples of religion giving special treatment under the law:
  The Amish are except from US social security tax. Similarly Haredi Jews in Israel are except from Military service.
  Both were possible BECAUSE they held strong religious beliefs. All Kopimism needs is a decree from their God that if they don't keep a full bit torrent running they are going to hell...
80. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by drsmithy · 2012-01-04 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  You know, if you'd stop your hating on Christians and take a true secular look on America you'd come to realize that America really isn't all that Christian to begin with.
  I guess that's why we've seen so many non-Christian US Presidents over the last couple of centuries.
81. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  I find it scary that you think doctors shouldn't be public servants. How is a doctor any different than a policeman, fireman, public defender, etc...?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
82. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  soldiers are DUTY-BOUND to refuse to follow orders that are illegal or immoral
  
  This is a common misconception. Enlisted soldiers are duty-bound to follow orders, unless those orders violate the UCMJ or some other military regulation. Enlisted soldiers are under no circumstances allowed to decide that an order is "immoral" and disobey it. That sort of thing can get you thrown in the brig. Officers have more leeway, but still, if you disobey an order, you will be court-martialed, and they will decide if the order really was "immoral".
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
83. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  you seem to have forgotten that "doctor" is a private profession. It is generally not run by the state, and the doctor has every right to perform a non-vital procedure for any reason he chooses.
  
  "Doctor" is actually, even in the USA, heavily subsidized by the government.
  Regardless, this whole argument only makes sense in a remote community with one doctor, so that the woman doesn't have the choice to simply go to another doctor for the abortion. In such a case, the doctor chose to be responsible for the medical services to the community, and should do his job, or step down. It's just like if there's only one gas station within 150 miles, and the owner refuses to sell you gas because he doesn't like you. The law should force them to sell you gas (even though there's no "right" to gas), because you have no alternative. It may not be the most "free" thing, but it's better than the alternative which allows blatant discrimination.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
84. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by roman_mir · 2012-01-05 00:22 · Score: 2
  
  The only thing I ever worry about is whether they go on strike or not, but the government prevents me from discriminating against people who refuse to do the work I tell them to do. Funny... sounds like it's the same for doctors.
  - my point is that it is none of government's business to tell private individuals who they must hire or who they must have as clients, just as much as it is none of government's business to tell individuals who they must date or marry.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
85. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  I clearly stated that the doctor should only be forced to perform the abortion if there are no other doctors available. For example, in a remote community that only has one doctor. In such a case, the doctor did in fact "sign-up" to be THE caretaker for the community, since the community can only support one doctor.
  It's just like if a remote town only has one gas station. The owner should be required to sell gas to all comers, because there is no alternative. I grant that this makes things a little less "free", but it is obviously necessary.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
86. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  And just as they had refused to continue to have a full knowledge of God, so it was to utterly worthless minds that God gave them up, for them to do things which should not be done.
  Wait, so a religious zealot wrote down that those who refuse to believe in his God have bad judgement, and will do things that his God doesn't approve of? Isn't it only logical that people who don't believe in your "God" won't follow the proclamations of the "apostles" of said divinity?
  I don't believe in Allah either, do you think I'm wrong for not following the words of Muhammad as well?
  Oh wait, that's right, only YOUR "God" is correct. All the other ones are misinformed. Why?
  Because you said so, that's why.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
87. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-05 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  What about halal meat? In the UK it is legal, even though the method of slaughter used would otherwise contravene animal cruelty and humane treatment laws. Similarly circumcision is allowed but other random mutilation of children's bodies is not.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
88. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by makomk · 2012-01-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a doctor practicing today who would refuse to perform an abortion if the pregnancy posed a legitimate danger to the health of the mother
  You might think that, but there are a whole bunch of Catholic hospitals in the US with a blanket policy of doing exactly that - and God help you if you're a pregnant women who gets taken to one of them when your pregnancy goes wrong, because they're certainly not going to.
89. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by bws111 · 2012-01-05 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Again, we are not talking about a doctor refusing to perform medically necessary treatment on someone, we are talking about a doctor being forced to perform non-necessary treatment just because someone asked for it. The fact that you keep trying to drag already illegal discrimination into it leads me to believe that you know your position is very weak.
  If a community is so remote that there is only one doctor, and that doctor is forced to retire because he doesn't want to perform abortions, how exactly does that help the community? A community with no health care at all is better off than a community where you can't get an abortion? Or do you think that other doctors are just lining up waiting for their shot to be the doctor who is required to do anything anyone asks in a community with so few people it can only support one doctor?
  What if there is more than one doctor, and none of them are willing to do abortions? Who gets to be the lucky guy who is forced to go against his beliefs?
  Why is abortion a special class of elective medical procedure, to the point that a doctor who doesn't perform it is forced to retire? If someone really, really wants their tongue bifurcated, should the doctor be required to do it? How about if I want my left arm cut off and grafted to the top of my head? Hey, it's my body, right? You are the doctor therefore you are REQUIRED to do that, or you must retire. Pretty stupid, eh?
90. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Americano · 2012-01-05 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Once again, you are wrong.
  The oath taken by soldiers is as follows:
  
  I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  See that last clause - "according to regulations and the UCMJ"? The UCMJ includes language that explicitly states that you are expected to follow lawful orders, specifically Article 92 (emphasis below mine) of the UCMJ:
  
  Any person subject to this chapter who—
  (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
  (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
  (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
  The UCMJ specifically states that you are required to follow "lawful" orders - not "all" orders, not "anything an officer says," though you may still be arrested and subjected to a court martial if the person whose order you are refusing believes his order to be "lawful." In much the same way, you may be arrested and charged with a crime if you shoot someone who breaks into your home and attacks you; you can make your "it was self defense" argument in front of the court, and let the powers-that-be decide whether or not your actions were reasonable and lawful.
  You seem to have a lot of very definite ideas about how things work, despite your inability to get even a single detail right in all your comments on this subject. Don't you think this might be the appropriate time to shut up and learn the facts, rather than spout off ill-informed opinions based on your own fanciful notions of how the world works?
91. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Americano · 2012-01-05 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, "can't afford a baby" is NOT a "health" issue. "can't afford a baby" is an economic issue, which may well have health ramifications, but is not, in and of itself, a health issue. If the mother comes to the doctor with a sick baby, his medical oath requires him to render any medically necessary life-saving treatment already. It doesn't require him to take the baby in, give it three squares a day, and finance its college education.
  If doctors are *compelled* to provide abortions when there is no medical necessity for that abortion (i.e., the pregnancy poses no risk to the life or health of the mother), then why aren't we also compelling doctors to cut a check for every pregnant woman who needs the money? After all, you've defined being unable to afford a baby as a "health issue," and "writing a check for $10,000" would certainly help fix that "health" issue, wouldn't it?
  Do you see how stupid your argument is? Or should we also talk about a doctor's obligation to end the "health issue of homelessness" by operating a free hostel for any homeless person who happens to need a place to stay?
92. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Americano · 2012-01-05 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Funny you should mention all that, because it's dead wrong. It is currently against the law for any healthcare institution to refuse to perform medically necessary emergency treatment on any patient for any reason. The Protect Life Act, which is (I believe) being debated by the Senate at this point, would allow hospitals to refuse abortions even if they are medically necessary emergency treatment, however that bill is not yet law and probably won't pass the Senate.
  This means if you go into a Catholic hospital's ER as a pregnant woman, with an emergency that is life threatening, and for which the appropriate (and only) medical treatment is an abortion, the Catholic hospitals are obligated by law to provide you that abortion. If the hospital refuses to do this, they are violating the law, and are thus exposed to criminal and civil liability.
  However, if the procedure is not medically necessary, then why should they be forced to provide it, if an effective alternate exists? If the procedure is not a critical emergency situation, then you have plenty of time to seek out an abortion at your leisure from someplace which will provide it to you. So what, in your estimation, is the issue with current law (doctors may not refuse if it is an emergency situation) that requires the violation of a doctors' right to operate his practice in a manner consistent with the law & his own ethics?
93. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Rich0 · 2012-01-05 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  They actually are uneducated, and by choice too.
  Congratulations - you just described 85% of the US population. How else do you explain our elections?
  Ignorance is not the same as a lack of formal education. Obviously the two tend to be somewhat correlated, but I wouldn't be surprised if many Amish people at age 18 are far less ignorant than their 12-year-educated peers. Now, the areas that they are most knowledgable about are likely to be fairly different. If you were shipwrecked on an island who would you rather have with you - an 18-year-old Amish farmer who has participated in 14 home-building projects and can sew, or some 18-year-old brat whose main focus of expertise is the application of Skype, Facebook, and their iPhone, and who demonstrated that they can cram info for tests?
  I'm sure many Amish are ignorant of many things, but the same is true of most groups. Since they don't have social security or accept welfare, I imagine the Amish can less afford ignorance than most (though I'm sure the disabled are cared for within the community).
  On the topic of laws, however, I hear that OSHA is another area that the Amish tend to pay little regard to.
94. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Rich0 · 2012-01-05 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yup.
  However, at least in the case of Catholic priests, I suspect that most would be willing to sit in prison indefinitely to avoid betraying a confidence given in confession. It is a fairly central tenet of the Catholic faith, and when you think about it Catholic priests give up quite a lot already so sitting in a prison cell isn't a great deal more (they'd probably just view it as another form of monasticism).
  I'm not sure the same would be equally true of other popular US faiths. Catholicism is relatively unique among the branches of Christianity in that it considers confession generally required for the forgiveness of sin, and as a result it considers maintaining the confidence of a confession as one of a priest's most important duties.
  Disclaimer - I'm not a Catholic, or a Lawyer. However, all a court can do (with current technology) is punish people for not testifying. They cannot yet truly compel testimony.
95. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Rich0 · 2012-01-05 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but that is a matter of state, not religion. I fully uphold the right of any religious body to recognize any marriage ceremony as being null and void. I also fully uphold the rights of anybody to get legally married as long as they are able to make an informed decision. Further, I'd personally prefer it if the government just got out of the regulation of marriage entirely since I don't see how it has any civil purpose at all - if people want to hold their property in common they can create a contract to that effect, and custody law already applies regardless of whether people are married when they procreate. If you eliminate all government regulation or recognition of marriage then the whole mess goes away and everybody can do as they feel is right.
96. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by stdarg · 2012-01-05 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless, this whole argument only makes sense in a remote community with one doctor, so that the woman doesn't have the choice to simply go to another doctor for the abortion.
  What made this woman incapable of getting to a new community that suits her beliefs and lifestyle? She chose to live in a community where the only doctor is against abortions.
  
  It's just like if there's only one gas station within 150 miles, and the owner refuses to sell you gas because he doesn't like you. The law should force them to sell you gas (even though there's no "right" to gas), because you have no alternative.
  No way. What's next, people being forced to harbor troops in their houses because it would be mean to make them sleep outside?
  The government does not get to force you to do things like that.
97. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Rich0 · 2012-01-05 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read the post you replied to? You're both saying the same thing. You both maintain that soldiers are required by law to follow the orders of a superior, unless that order is contrary to the UCMJ/etc. You just said it in different words.
98. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by bws111 · 2012-01-05 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  How about: policemen, firemen, and public defenders are paid by the public from taxes, and doctors are paid by the patients they treat. Even in the case of Medicare/Medicaid the doctors are not public employees, the public is just helping to pay for the care of a specific person. Doctors are no more 'public servants' than barbers and plumbers are.
99. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  This is not true. While they will most likely not intentionally kill the fetus/child under any circumstances, they will cause early delivery if it is necessary to save the lives of the mother and/or baby. They are not going to just stand by and let the mother and child die, which would be a serious breach of medical ethics.
100. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Except for the fact that doctors, firemen and policemen are given charge of life and/or death, while plumbers and barbers rarely have such a grave responsibility. Just because a person isn't paid entirely and directly by the government doesn't mean they don't owe the public a service. By becoming a doctor, one assumes the mantle of caretaker of the health of those around them. If someone doesn't want that responsibility, then they can choose some other profession which doesn't have such a weight upon it.
  And yes, they do owe this service to those around them. There are only so many seats in med-school, and they decided they were enough of a good-Samaritan to occupy one of them. This makes them beholden to the public which grants them the right to hold the title of MD.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
101. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  No way. What's next, people being forced to harbor troops in their houses because it would be mean to make them sleep outside? The government does not get to force you to do things like that.
  
  Really? You believe that the government shouldn't step in to ensure fairness when a free-market isn't available? It seems like you must have never faced much discrimination in your life. Quartering of troops is one of those things especially enshrined in the Constitution, and really isn't relevant.
  If you are the only provider of a service in an area, it is only fair that you should be required by law to provide that service as fairly and equitably as possible.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
102. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-05 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You believe that the government shouldn't step in to ensure fairness when a free-market isn't available?
  
  The government should never be able to compel a sale or servicing of a customer, except in incredibly rare and dire circumstances. Fighting Jim Crow laws in the South was noble, and I think might be one of the few examples where such laws are permissible, but even then comes dangerously close to the line of "not the government's role" (it is, unfortunately, essential that people have the freedom to be bigots).
103. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  even then comes dangerously close to the line of "not the government's role"
  
  Ok, if the government's role isn't to ensure the fair treatment of all her citizens, then what is it?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
104. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by jpapon · 2012-01-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops replied to myself....
  Ok, if the government's role isn't to ensure the fair treatment of all her citizens, then what is it?
  And on another note, isn't the idea that "all men are created equal" one of the founding principles of the USA? Doesn't that imply that one must treat all men equally in public? And no, a place of business like a gas station is not private property as a home is private property. That would imply that business owners are as Kings, and can do whatever they please on their property. Clearly some distinction must be made between private property which is a public place of business (like a store) and private property for personal use. On the former, you must treat people equally. On the latter, you can do (almost) anything you please.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
105. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Better make sure he IS a priest, and nobody listens in.
  In Germany, a policeman "solved" a mysterious crime by donning a priest's robe and getting a confession.
106. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I think his point is that the SlashDot community tends to conflate "Christian" with "fundamentalist" and "evangelical,"
  When, according to the polls, 45% of all adults in U.S. believe that Earth was created as is, with humans and animals and plants as we see them today, 10,000 years ago, it's not surprising that people start conflating the two. Still the wrong thing to do, of course, but understandable.
107. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  FSM is not callous mocking. For one to extract mockery out of a belief system that is exactly as valid as it's peers sounds like someone fishing for some persecution. It's no one's fault but their own that they get angry about beliefs; a well-adjusted human being simply doesn't do this.
108. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-05 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  Its to prevent the Uzbekistanians from invading, my neighbor from shooting me, and Joe from stealing my car. Thats the basic function of the government, not to make sure my feelings arent hurt. Theres other stuff above and beyond that, but at its core the government isnt about telling me how to live my life, its about letting me live it.
109. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-05 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't that imply that one must treat all men equally in public?
  
  The Bill of Rights and Constitution say that the government must treat everyone equally, but the 1st amendment for example seems to defend my right to be a bigoted jerk if I so desire.
110. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by LordLimecat · 2012-01-05 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just because a person isn't paid entirely and directly by the government doesn't mean they don't owe the public a service. By becoming a doctor, one assumes the mantle of caretaker of the health of those around them. If someone doesn't want that responsibility, then they can choose some other profession which doesn't have such a weight upon it.
  These are new rules youre making up. Im not sure that our government does or ever has agreed with this; I cant recall an instance where a doctor was compelled to perform a non-lifesaving procedure, and Im willing to bet they could refuse to perform even a life-saving one under certain circumstances (good samaritan and neglect laws aside).
111. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. I'm discriminating against you right now.
112. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by gknoy · 2012-01-06 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  True. And, the only reason this is an issue is that a "marriage" and a "civil union" (and the parties thereto) are not considered identical (except in name) by many institutions or laws.
113. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by stdarg · 2012-01-08 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You believe that the government shouldn't step in to ensure fairness when a free-market isn't available?
  Forcing people to engage with other people isn't fair, it's practically rape.
  
  It seems like you must have never faced much discrimination in your life.
  And I haven't discriminated against others much in my life. Most people are in this boat. What's your point? The example of the doctor who doesn't perform abortions isn't discrimination at all. He's not saying "I won't perform this abortion because you're black" he just doesn't do it period.
  And with the gas station example, where maybe it is discrimination, it's so minor that it's hard to distinguish between it and non-discrimination. What if the gas station isn't open on Sunday, but you're there on Sunday? Should gas stations be forced to be open 24 hours / 7 days a week? What if it's Christmas, should all gas stations be open on Christmas?
  What if the gas station owner isn't discriminating based on race, but he just doesn't like you? What if you ran over his dog and then he's like "I'm not selling you gas?" What about if the customer is the racist and he says stuff like "Hey n* boy, fill up my car" and the owner refuses?
  All those examples seem justified to me, and they all have the same conclusion as when the owner is discriminating -- you don't get gas. So yeah I don't see the point in passing a law to address the 1/1000000 chance that the gas station owner doesn't sell you gas and he's the only one around for 150 miles when those other situations are just as likely, just as disruptive, and legal.
  
  Quartering of troops is one of those things especially enshrined in the Constitution, and really isn't relevant.
  The whole point of that is that the government isn't allowed to compel you and your family to personally engage with strangers, even in a time of great need (i.e. war). I don't see how it could be any more relevant.
  
  If you are the only provider of a service in an area, it is only fair that you should be required by law to provide that service as fairly and equitably as possible.
  What's your reasoning though? Fairness is surely about more than race. Why is it fair that some people have money and can pay for that service but others don't? What about children of poor vs rich, why should they get to fly to Europe and see castles, while poor kids can't? Should airlines provide free flights out of fairness?
  It just doesn't make sense. You're talking about fighting all of human civilization and human nature.
114. Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  love your enemies, pray for those that persecute you? Turn the other cheek? Oh hold on, we HAVE to take some out of context passage from Deuteronomy or some crap. Nothing else matters does it?
Re:Why? by mrclisdue · 2012-01-04 06:57 · Score: 1

Because it's been hours, an eternity to ./, since God-bashing and Atheist-hating and....
Nevermind.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:57 · Score: 0

Killing two birds with one stone, attacking both copyright and religion.
MacChrist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Jesus copied bread & fish to the people... How should the bakers and fishermen get paid?
I'd say, sue Jesus!
1. Re:MacChrist by Shompol · 2012-01-04 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  What fishermen? Thou shalt pay to Microsoft for every fish and bread, or be sued into oblivion.
Site is down right now. by Metricmouse · 2012-01-04 07:01 · Score: 2

Help! Help! I'm being repressed! ... bloody Romans.
1. Re:Site is down right now. by mwvdlee · 2012-01-04 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps they should just share the admin passwords to their site so we can fix it.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
2. Re:Site is down right now. by itchythebear · 2012-01-04 07:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  came here to see the violence inherent in the system
  left satisfied.
  
  --
  If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
3. Re:Site is down right now. by cheesecake23 · 2012-01-04 07:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Since their webpage is slashdotted, here is the official press release from the Church of Kopimism:
  
  The Church of Kopimism is recognized by the state of Sweden
  
  Just before Christmas, the Swedish governmental agency Kammarkollegiet registered the Church of Kopimism as a religious organisation. This means that Sweden is the first country to recognize kopimism as a religion.
  
  The Church of Kopimism have tried to become registered as a religious organisation by Kammarkollegiet for more than a year.
  
  - Since Kammarkollegiet has been strict with formalities, we had to apply three times, a happy Gustav Nipe - board chairman for the organisation - says. He continues, I think it might have something to do with the governmental organisations abiding by a very copyright friendly attitude, with a twisted view on copying.
  
  For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament. Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organisation and its members.
  
  Being recognized by the state of Sweden is a large step for all of kopimi. Hopefully, this is one step towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution, says Isak Gerson, spiritual leader of the Church of Kopimism.
  
  The Church of Kopimism is a religious organisation with roots from 2010. The organisation formalizes a community that's been well spread for a long time already. The community of kopimi requires no formal membership. You just have to feel a calling to worship what is the holiest of the holiest, information and copy. To do this, we organize kopyactings - religious services - where the kopimists share information with eachother through copying and remix.
  
  Copy and seed.
4. Re:Site is down right now. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder what position a backup server admin would hold in such a religion? Backups are copying and preserving!
5. Re:Site is down right now. by ltcdata · 2012-01-04 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Si.. if i get a letter saying that i'm a filesharer and yada yada yada you will pay a lot fo money for that.. can i answer that my religion advocates that and walk away free?
6. Re:Site is down right now. by Darinbob · 2012-01-04 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But what actual benefits are there to being recognized officially as a religion? I presume some tax benefits but that applies to any charity or non-profit entity.
7. Re:Site is down right now. by j2kun · 2012-01-04 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Since their webpage is slashdotted, here is the official press release from the Church of Kopimism: The Church of Kopimism is recognized by the state of Sweden Just before Christmas, the Swedish governmental agency Kammarkollegiet registered the Church of Kopimism as a religious organisation. This means that Sweden is the first country to recognize kopimism as a religion. The Church of Kopimism have tried to become registered as a religious organisation by Kammarkollegiet for more than a year. - Since Kammarkollegiet has been strict with formalities, we had to apply three times, a happy Gustav Nipe - board chairman for the organisation - says. He continues, I think it might have something to do with the governmental organisations abiding by a very copyright friendly attitude, with a twisted view on copying. For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament. Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organisation and its members. Being recognized by the state of Sweden is a large step for all of kopimi. Hopefully, this is one step towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution, says Isak Gerson, spiritual leader of the Church of Kopimism. The Church of Kopimism is a religious organisation with roots from 2010. The organisation formalizes a community that's been well spread for a long time already. The community of kopimi requires no formal membership. You just have to feel a calling to worship what is the holiest of the holiest, information and copy. To do this, we organize kopyactings - religious services - where the kopimists share information with eachother through copying and remix. Copy and seed.
  Since their webpage is slashdotted, here is the official press release from the Church of Kopimism: The Church of Kopimism is recognized by the state of Sweden Just before Christmas, the Swedish governmental agency Kammarkollegiet registered the Church of Kopimism as a religious organisation. This means that Sweden is the first country to recognize kopimism as a religion. The Church of Kopimism have tried to become registered as a religious organisation by Kammarkollegiet for more than a year. - Since Kammarkollegiet has been strict with formalities, we had to apply three times, a happy Gustav Nipe - board chairman for the organisation - says. He continues, I think it might have something to do with the governmental organisations abiding by a very copyright friendly attitude, with a twisted view on copying. For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament. Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains, and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore, copying is central for the organisation and its members. Being recognized by the state of Sweden is a large step for all of kopimi. Hopefully, this is one step towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution, says Isak Gerson, spiritual leader of the Church of Kopimism. The Church of Kopimism is a religious organisation with roots from 2010. The organisation formalizes a community that's been well spread for a long time already. The community of kopimi requires no formal membership. You just have to feel a calling to worship what is the holiest of the holiest, information and copy. To do this, we organize kopyactings - religious services - where the kopimists share information with eachother through copying and remix. Copy and seed.
8. Re:Site is down right now. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  You've combined Holy Grail and Life of Brian into one movie? EPIC!
9. Re:Site is down right now. by StripedCow · 2012-01-04 09:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  But what actual benefits
  They're now allowed to, every hour, generate excessively loud noise for a couple of minutes. Just like the church in my street.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
10. Re:Site is down right now. by dontmakemethink · 2012-01-04 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  If information is holy, how come Kopimi treat artists and programmers like shit? We're the ones making the information valuable at all. As creators of the holy information, it is we you should be worshiping, not the information itself.
  As a Kopimi deity I hereby decree that you must STOP STEALING FROM US.
  
  --
  
  War as we knew it was obsolete
  Nothing could beat complete denial
  - Emily Haines
11. Re:Site is down right now. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 18:57 · Score: 0
  
  The Swedish legal system works differently for religious people and others. E.g. if you are a plain old nazi preaching hate against the gays you will be punished by the courts (freedom of speech here is a bit different from the American implementation), but if you're a pentecostal nazi preaching the same hate sprinkled with bible quotes you go free.
  Not that I think that this registration with Kammarkollegiet will persuade the courts to equate Kopimism with Christianity in practice, when judging file sharing cases. But it's a valid comment on the weirdness of the Swedish legal system.
12. Re:Site is down right now. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Real artists and programmers know that they are not creating anything.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY
I'm ashamed for being a Swede when this kind of bu by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:02 · Score: 0

llshit news is what the rest of the world sees. Just let me say for damn sure that not *every* Swede is a smug thief.
Re:Why? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-04 07:02 · Score: 0

.... looking stupid doing both ...

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:I'm ashamed for being a Swede when this kind of by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-04 07:05 · Score: 1

I know you have some nice outstanding citizens you could be proud of, like that Patrick Furstenhoff guy...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:I'm ashamed for being a Swede when this kind of by Joikas · 2012-01-04 07:09 · Score: 1

That island shooter is Norwegian.
Re:Why? by DC2088 · 2012-01-04 07:17 · Score: 1

Because filesharing is tech related.
What about the coreligionists? by Xeranar · 2012-01-04 07:17 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how Sweden's freedom of religion works but here in the US there would atleast be a decade of legal battles to establish their church's fundamentals and then severe restrictions on how the file sharing would work since it would at best be legal between two coreligionists of this church but not amongst others. I find it intriguing that the new political tactic is to approach things using religion's exemption rules to try and create a gray area and call a law into question. It's effective but at what cost of alienating coreligionists who see this as a plain attack on their beliefs? Also, before the random "Christianity is fool of bigots" stuff, remember atleast 80% of the left-wing is still religious, it isn't a question of which wing you believe in, it's a question of belief and the use of it as a weapon against unjust laws...
1. Re:What about the coreligionists? by AliasMarlowe · 2012-01-04 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  remember atleast 80% of the left-wing is still religious
  I guess you're referring to the US (where theists form a considerable majority), rather than to Sweden or Europe. For Sweden, about one quarter of the population are theists, another quarter are atheists, and half are deists. In the EU-25, about half of the population are theists, one fifth are atheists, and the rest are deists.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
2. Re:What about the coreligionists? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  So, since deism is really just a subset of theism, we can assume that ~80% of the population is theist/deist, and 20% are atheist.
  And this is different from the US, where you claim "theists form a considerable majority," how, exactly?
  I'm genuinely curious where you draw this arbitrary line between theism and deism, and how you conclude that having lots of deists somehow means the EU is far less religious, despite the fact that people acknowledging the existence of a creator tops 80% according to your own claims.
  You *do* realize that fundamentalist / evangelical christians are a fairly small (albeit vocal) component of believers in the US as well, right?
3. Re:What about the coreligionists? by Xeranar · 2012-01-06 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Deism is a subset of theism. They aren't an equivalent just because they use the same ending. Deism is something like being agnostic about an afterlife but feeling comfortably sure there is a theistic being out there. The fundamental difference for Deists versus more traditional Christians (Deism isn't exclusively Christian but almost always relates in Christian-majority countries) is that Christians believe God takes a more direct role in their lives. Deism is a more self-directed belief. Still doesn't remove them from believing, just makes them somewhat less religious as an active participant.
Re:Why? by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-04 07:18 · Score: 1

Because it's been hours, an eternity to ./, since God-bashing and Atheist-hating and...
No, we were talking about Apple and Google (respectively) then.
This is different.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Falkvinge on Kopimism by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-01-04 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party has a short writing on it, "Filesharing Approved as an Official Religion in Sweden".

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Copimaximism by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:23 · Score: 0

Join my even more holy religion, based on the sacred premise of not just copying information, but also copying the religion of someone that copies information!
Double sacred!
Re:I'm ashamed for being a Swede when this kind of by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-04 07:26 · Score: 1

Wait, wut?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Kreatism by poity · 2012-01-04 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

If only they'd get behind a religion of fervent creativity, production, and free dissemination of their collective work. This freeloader image they give off will hurt their cause more than help it.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
1. Re:Kreatism by Talderas · 2012-01-04 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, the entire faith is built around entirely giving in to our animalistic urges.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
2. Re:Kreatism by MimeticLie · 2012-01-04 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Most people's animalistic urges are about things like eating and fucking. If you count filesharing as the entirety of our animalistic urges, I'd suggest that you must be a huge nerd and/or very boring.
Great idea by fiannaFailMan · 2012-01-04 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

If a pyramid scheme can give itself a fancy name like Scientology and claim the status of religion and get the free pass that goes with it, why shouldn't file-sharers? If anything I hope this highlights the undue respect that is given to religion and the inappropriate treatment of "faith" as a virtue.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
1. Re:Great idea by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  The example of Scientology should provide motivation to AVOID the idea of making this a religion.
  More logically the idea that we need blind faith to believe in the concept that information should be free is nonsense. A logical evidence based reasoning process is all that is needed.
2. Re:Great idea by Dogtanian · 2012-01-04 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  If a pyramid scheme can give itself a fancy name like Scientology
  Please bear in mind that while it may be a way to extract large amounts of money from people by dubious means, that doesn't make it a "pyramid scheme", the latter of which's name reflects the structure of that particular scam.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Why? by TheReaperD · 2012-01-04 07:29 · Score: 1

That's the point. You point out the absurdity of an institution or action (in this case religion and copyright politics) by taking it to its most absurd extreme. It tends to work in other areas but religion seems immune to being shown its own absurdity. As an odd comparison, it shares that in common with disco (think the Funky Chicken).

--
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Religion and theft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:35 · Score: 0

go hand in hand. No surprises here.
Cryogenics, undead and broadcast rights by oneiros27 · 2012-01-04 07:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

You bring up an interesting point ... but he did die, and was resurrected, so there *was* a time of death to begin the timer ticking for the fixed term.*
But if someone's brought back to life after a long period (eg, cryogenically frozen and we find a way to restore it), does the 'fixed term' reset, or did their time frozen get subtracted from when they die the second time? (eg, you get frozen, then thawed 40 years later ... then die 20 years later, do you get 70 years from then, or 30 (remaining of the 70), or 10 (the counter never stopped)?
And what does this mean for zombies, vampires and the other undead? I mean, the current wording is:

endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the authorâ(TM)s death.
So, as there's a gap between their life and their death, what does this mean for holders of copyright who become vampires? (zombies might not be an issue, as they died and were re-animated)
* Unless you go with the theory that bungled the crucifixtion and took him down when he was simply conconcious, so he never died, and the shroud of turin was evidence of a warm body.

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Great! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-01-04 07:51 · Score: 3, Funny

now who do I pray to to get more seeders on my torrents?

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  You pray to the internet, offcourse. As you just did,
  though your prayer was incomplete, as it didn't specify which torrents. ^-^
  +1 religiously
Software Apocalypse by Tyr07 · 2012-01-04 07:54 · Score: 0

A world where sharing online is always 100% legal....
It's a desolate world, much like what you see after a horrible nuclear war. A post apocalyptic environment. Rabbid programs scampering about, programmers scavenging what they can....
Dust bunnies roll by, where once large corporate software stood. Just wrecks instead of nice pretty towers, you have beaten, broken glass buildings falling over.
That's what happens when it all becomes legal.
Because corporations, stop making enough money. So they find a different way to make money, something other than software. Employee's no longer are employed as companies stop putting out money for developers.
Software development slows greatly. Less open source apps are made, because they can't make a living off of it, and the consumers that are starving reach and grasp at you demanding always more.
No...you promote hell you do. Sharing...in moderation, is a moderate world. Free sharing is internet anarchy.
1. Re:Software Apocalypse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  Harold Camping? is that you?
2. Re:Software Apocalypse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  You exaggerate the issue greatly. Software companies have been combating piracy themselves for years, and have successfully made it painful enough that most users are willing to pay for software (aside from broke computer-literate teenagers). Online activation, updates, and crashy cracks make software piracy a real headache for the typical user or mid-large sized company.
  1. Big companies (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc) package software with hardware... if they can get you to buy the hardware, you will likely use their software. And thanks to vendor lock-in strategies and software integration, you will more likely pay for their other software. And continue paying for upgrades. And the cycle repeats.
  2. Other companies sell specialized software to which no comparable alternative really exists (Adobe, Maya, etc). They effectively already own the market, and with the high prices and anti-piracy controls, they do pretty well for themselves.
  3. Small companies and contractors develop specialized solutions for which no preexisting solution is available to fill the given need. People can not steal what does not yet exist. And if the International Sandwich Corporation hires me to develop a roast beef sandwich simulator, I could care less what they do with their software after they pay me and I deliver.
  New software will, for the foreseeable future, always be needed. Improvements, bug fixes, security vulnerabilities, new products, etc. And the tech industry is FAR from the only industry which needs software. Finance, health, science, education... everyone needs software, and many of them hire developers to develop their own solutions. Finance for instance typically keeps everything proprietary... so 50 different finance companies probably have 50 different implementations for HFT.
  And of course there are online services... which develop software but get their revenue from providing services or ad space. Pirating the code for Facebook wouldn't matter... people go there because everyone has one. And what about phones and tablets which are locked down so tight, no one aside from the curious hacker would bother pirating the software?
  You oversimplify and over-exaggerate the problem. Off the shelf standalone software with no anti-piracy protection is a minority of the income generated by software development. The people who should be (and are) scared of piracy are the media conglomerates, who have been ripping off artists and consumers for years, with very little value in return.
Professional Help by zooblethorpe · 2012-01-04 08:09 · Score: 2

There's already a Church of GNU Emacs. One of its tenets is that if you take the Church too seriously, seek professional help.
Why didn't all religions have that?
Oh, they do. It's just that the "professional help" in most cases means "the clergy". It's all about context.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
1. Re:Professional Help by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  seeking professional help in this context means switch to Vim.
Re:Why? by noobermin · 2012-01-04 08:20 · Score: 1

Notice this came from Idle, kill joy.
Re:I'm ashamed for being a Swede when this kind of by noobermin · 2012-01-04 08:22 · Score: 1

lol...
Oh well... by Holammer · 2012-01-04 08:33 · Score: 2

There goes my Atheism!
1. Re:Oh well... by mjwx · 2012-01-04 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  There goes my Atheism!
  Wait, no-one said there was a god involved.
  
  One does not need to be non-religious to be Atheist.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Oy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:43 · Score: 0

Sometimes I wonder why other people don't interpret this as fundamental dishonesty.
Religions aren't things you make up to get around laws in order to steal property.
1. Re:Oy. by bussdriver · 2012-01-04 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes they are. There is a lot more than stealing that goes on in cults... Also, to copy is not to steal.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
2. Re:Oy. by PPH · 2012-01-04 09:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Religions aren't things you make up to get around laws in order to steal property.
  Missed the bit in history class about the Holy Roman Empire?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:Oy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  No, religions are things you make up so you can lead a sect and have sex slaves.
4. Re:Oy. by AK+Marc · 2012-01-04 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Religions were made up to control people. The only novel thing is to make up one to reject control.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
5. Re:Oy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Religions aren't things you make up to get around laws in order to steal property.
  However, they are frequently used to get around laws and steal property.
  The Christians in Ancient Rome was not thrown to the lions because they believed in Christ, or God, or anything like that. They where thrown to the lions because they refused to pay taxes and obey local laws, and they formed powerful criminal networks to avoid paying mentioned taxes and obeying mentioned laws. Rome at that time had a greater diversity and respect for different confessors of religion and philosophies, then any city in the world today; there where tens of thousands of very different religions thriving together in Rome at the time.
  The Christians refusal to pay taxes, was, by them, justified by that some of the money was used for restoring temples to other Gods then their own and to pay for sacrifices to other Gods then their own (but of course, most of the taxes was spent building and maintain things like public baths, roads and aqueducts; help the poor and disabled, and generally making Rome a safe, nice and clean place to live). The Christians also harassed people of other religion, even before they became a real power factor. They was also known for defrauding and stealing from people of other religions.
  Those Christians, as times passed, become helped to commit their crimes by the increasing number of Roman bureaucrats that also was of a Christian "faith". They stuck together to protect each other. Basically they were a Mafia that corrupted the Roman society. And that Mafia, as its power grew, attracted more and more people; mostly not because of any real religious convictions, but because of the power and material benefits a conversion to Christianity would offer.
  Similar patterns was repeated as continental Europe become Christianised (with the added spreading factor that a Christian could not own Christian slaves, which lead to mass conversion among all slaves with newly converted owners, and a large hunt and import of slaves from the still pagan areas of Europe (that, as soon as they heard of the trick, converted to Christianity); this created a loss of cheap labour of unseen proportions, but a few hundred years later "the problem" was solved by the feudal systems of Europe (which in practice made almost everybody slaves, but not by name))
6. Re:Oy. by DaAdder · 2012-01-06 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Religions aren't things you make up to get around laws in order to steal property.
  So it's just something you adhere to for protection when you're caught raping children?
  Cool.
  
  Why someone creates a religion or belongs to it in the first place is a complex issue.
  I very much doubt their reasons are quite as lofty as we like to imagine though.
Re:Why? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-01-04 08:55 · Score: 1

Yeah it's as hilarious as "not jokes"... NOT
Norse by unixisc · 2012-01-04 09:25 · Score: 1

Actually, the Norse religion was not so bad. They were pretty similar to ancient Greek, Roman & Hindu religions - had a rich suite of gods & goddesses like Thor, Odin, Baldur, Frieda, Loki, et al.

That would be a far better religion for Scandinavians to follow.
1. Re:Norse by sveinungkv · 2012-01-04 13:19 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the Norse religion was not so bad.
  Sure. A religion where you go to Hel for failing to die in battle will definatly motivate you to avoid murder, rape, etc.* As we all know the vikings never ever did any thing like that at all.
  * The thread starter's complaints.
  
  --
  Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
2. Re:Norse by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-05 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  As with most other pagan religions, the religion of Vikings was largely defined by their way of life, not the other way around.
Re:Why? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-04 09:35 · Score: 1

File Sharing was news ten years ago, this is ... ten years later ... it is not news.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Why? by Killjoy_NL · 2012-01-04 09:52 · Score: 1

There's no space in my name good sir :)

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)
May the torrents be with you. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 10:01 · Score: 1

May the torrents be with you. And also with you.
And you.
And you.
And you.
[citation needed] by ArundelCastle · 2012-01-04 11:46 · Score: 1

No, you can't. If you take a public domain work and change it only a little bit, you've created a derivative work of the public domain work, and the expired copyright that once applied to the public domain work now applies to your new derivative work.
Black Pete of the W. Disney Corporation will drop by in the morning for a "review" of their "catalogue". You should skip breakfast.
Microsoft Luther '17 by ArundelCastle · 2012-01-04 11:57 · Score: 2

As long as Clippy isn't their prophet we are safe.
"It looks like you're starting a religion. Would you like help?"
(_) Add animated clipart [burningbush.gif]
(_) Create a bulleted list of [5] [7] [10] [12] Commandments - [_] Autofill?
(_) Increase top margin for nails - [_] Add guide marks?
[_] Don't show me this heresy again.
The "sanctity" of life hasn't prevented wars by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 15:30 · Score: 0

Most religions treat life as holy. But that hasn't prevented jihads and holy wars from being waged in the name of religion. So, no, there's nothing ungnusual with Kopimism worshipping information and treating the makers as shit.
Holy shit by Ramin_HAL9001 · 2012-01-04 16:47 · Score: 1

By by "holy" shit, I mean literally.
This is the first ever religion I have actually wanted to join. Its probably the first religion ever that actually means something.
Official religion? by leereyno · 2012-01-04 19:23 · Score: 2

I have a serious problem with the idea of governments rubber stamping religions as "official" as this goes against the principle that church and state are separate.

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
1. Re:Official religion? by sita · 2012-01-05 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  In the case of Sweden it is not rubber-stamped as "official". It is registered, which *only* means it can ask for collecting its membership dues over the tax returns (and there are restrictions to this right, even if you are registered). Some religious organizations use this, but not all. The only other thing covered in the law about religious organizations is that your guardian cannot apply to enter or leave a religious organization if you are over the age of twelve (it isn't mentioned if your guardian can veto your application to enter a religious organization, though...).
Ten Commandments... by luk3Z · 2012-01-04 22:27 · Score: 0

Now they only need Ten Commandments or 0xA Commandments ...

--
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
Religion for Slashdotters? by ZeRu · 2012-01-04 23:11 · Score: 1

Finally, a religion that nobody on Slashdot will bash.

--
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Legal ramifications by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 23:46 · Score: 0

Rick Falkvinge writes about the legal ramifications:
http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/05/legal-ramifications-of-file-sharing-now-being-religious-worship/
"... that means the communications between operators of trackers/hubs and the people who partake in the sacrament of copying now carries confessional status, by and large making it illegal and impossible to collect as evidence in a trial."
Re:Why? by DC2088 · 2012-01-05 03:57 · Score: 1

But it's a news event related to something that is tech related, even if it's well-established. Apple is an old company, but we still get news articles about Apple-related events, releases or not, yes?
As long as there are type things allows ton Copy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 04:23 · Score: 0

Cause some people already took "God word" a bit far when it was claimed "Go forth and multiply" . :)