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."

93 of 358 comments (clear)

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 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!
5. 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...
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Re:Is the clipboard by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why didn't all religions have that?
  
  --
  What?
12. Re:Is the clipboard by noobermin · 2012-01-04 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  That sounds more like 4chan.
13. 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!
14. 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"?
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
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.
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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."
6. 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
7. 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)
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.
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 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.
2. 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
3. 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".
4. 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.
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 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."
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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!
5. 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.
6. 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.
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 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.
3. 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.
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
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 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.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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).
9. 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 :(
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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?
17. 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
18. 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.
19. 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
20. 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?
21. 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?
22. 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
23. 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?
24. 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.
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!
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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
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.
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
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 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).
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.
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."
Oh well... by Holammer · 2012-01-04 08:33 · Score: 2

There goes my Atheism!
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.
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.
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)
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.