Filesharing Now an Official Religion In Sweden

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."

Comments

It could be worse

[obarthelemy]

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 ^^

Re:It could be worse

[JimCanuck]

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

Re:It could be worse

[gstoddart]

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.

so.

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:so.

[VortexCortex]

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

Re:so.

[prakslash]

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".

Re:so.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[prakslash]

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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[Blue Stone]

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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[Capt James McCarthy]

"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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[Blue Stone]

>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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[jpapon]

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?

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[gknoy]

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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[bws111]

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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[apcullen]

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?

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[jpapon]

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.

Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:Is the clipboard

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:Is the clipboard

[colinrichardday]

There's already a Church of GNU Emacs. One of its tenets is that if you take the Church too seriously, seek professional help.

Kreatism

[poity]

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.

Re:Joke

[muuh-gnu]

> 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.

Re:Is the clipboard

[GuldKalle]

Why didn't all religions have that?

Re:Site is down right now.

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:Oy.

[PPH]

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?

Re:Is the clipboard

[istartedi]

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.