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."

23 of 358 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 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
2. 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.
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 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".
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 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
2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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?
8. 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
9. 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.
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!
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.
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
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.
Re:Is the clipboard by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why didn't all religions have that?

--
What?
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.
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.
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"?