Russian Church of Kopimizma Rallies For Battle Against New Piracy Laws

colinneagle writes "File-sharing advocates are seeking to spread the Missionary Church of Kopimism, a religion steeped in file sharing as a philosophical concept, to Russia in an effort to overturn the country's controversial new anti-piracy law. Activists in several parts of Russia — Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Khabarovsk — are applying to form an officially recognized church of Kopimism, which they hope will enable them to challenge the anti-piracy law. ... Activists are reportedly planning to file lawsuits challenging the law as soon as the applications are filed. However, Russian lawyers and lawmakers told a Russian news site that the country's separation of church and state will make it difficult to make any progress through this approach. Kopimism was legally recognized by Sweden's government, where the religion was first founded, in January 2012."

Comments

Religion?

[FatLittleMonkey]

Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"? Unless religion means more than just any arbitrary belief, the word is meaningless to describe actual religions. (I say this as an atheist. Religious people do this too. "Atheism is just a religion", "evolution is a religion", "environmentalism is a religion". No it isn't.)

Re:Religion?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Any "stuff I believe in" isn't religion, but religion is purely "stuff I believe in" - without proof that is, I should add. One is a subset of the other.

(This aside, I haven't a clue what you're talking about...)

Re:Religion?

[gl4ss]

but for the belief that everything should be copyable what else do you have than belief? but a religion implies some organization, instead of belief which can exist by itself.

Re:Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Define religion.

Re:Religion?

[Thanshin]

Define religion.

My definition before looking for it online: "set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity, feelings of veneration and fear of it, moral rules for the individual and social conduct and ritual practices in its homage."

A found definition that I might agree with: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Re:Religion?

[aXis100]

but a religion implies some organization

No.... organised religion implies some organisation. Plenty of people have beliefs and dont follow an organised religion.

Regardless, the fact that they are registering churches implies it is an organised religion anyway.

Re:Religion?

[FatLittleMonkey]

but a religion implies some organization, instead of belief which can exist by itself.

No, religion isn't just organisation. It's the nature of the belief. People can have religious beliefs without belonging to a church, distinct from their non-religious beliefs.

If all beliefs, all philosophies, all personal preferences are "religion", then the word "religion" doesn't mean anything. If you redefine everything as a "hat", what do you call actual hats? How do you talk about hats when you've defined "hat" so broadly that not owning a hat is itself a type of hat?

Re:Religion?

[Opportunist]

If your belief has no base in reality, then yes, it's a religion.

I know that by this definition a lot of political views are religious in nature. Well, try to discuss it with someone who is a devout $political_stance, and you'll see how religious it gets!

Re:Religion?

[Opportunist]

By your definition, politics seems quite religious.

Re:Religion?

[Thanshin]

Either you live somewhere where politics are "about divinity", or we don't share the same definition of "divinity".

Re:Religion?

[hawkinspeter]

It's like madness, but spread out over a whole bunch of people.

Re:Religion?

[FatLittleMonkey]

While I know what you mean, I still feel that even there a distinction needs to be drawn between "like religion" and "religion". Ie, between "dogmatic belief" and "religious belief", because religious beliefs can be dogmatic or they can be fuzzy and soft, so clearly the two terms are not synonymous.

(My objection to the original story is creating a phony "religion" based on file sharing. While I'm happy to mock dogmatic religions with "pastafarianism" and the like, I cringe when people claim a "religion" around stuff they happen to like/want/believe. It reinforces the claim by those same dogmatic religious types and their apologists that atheism (or science, or anything they don't like) is "just a religion too". It also makes discussing actual religion impossible.)

Re:Religion?

[mjwx]

Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?

Religion is just "stuff people believe in".

(I say this as an atheist. Religious people do this too. "Atheism is just a religion", "evolution is a religion", "environmentalism is a religion". No it isn't.)

These aren't religions as they have a basis in fact (or in the case of atheism, the complete absence of belief).

With things like Evolution, it doesn't require your belief, evolution wont grind to a halt just because no-one believes in it. That's the difference between a religion and a science.

Re:Religion?

[SuricouRaven]

In this case, it's a non-religion deliberately 'faking' being a religion in order to benefit from legal protections or benefits granted to religious organisations and practices.

A lot like the 'church' of Scientology, to give a familiar example.

Or medi-share, a 'religious organisation' which, in exchange for a monthly contribution, promises to try to help with unexpected medical costs. A lot like a health insurance company - but by being legally a church, they can also be tax exempt.

Religious organisations get so many legal advantages, it's no great surprise some organisations would adopt religious appearance in order to take advantage.

Re:Religion?

[Anubis IV]

Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

That said, there are other definitions for the word, since English is a living language.

Speaking as a Christian, I'll add that the way most people I know are using the word these days, myself included but not merely limited to my Christian circle of friends, is in a derogatory manner. We use it to describe the organizations created by people who go through the motions without actually ever grokking the beliefs. To them, it's a set of rituals and rules they claim to believe but never fully own. By this definition, I'd argue that neither Christianity nor atheism are necessarily "religions" in and of themselves, but that both easily can be.

I've seen my share of "Christians" who go through the motions on Sunday, make hypocrites of themselves during the week, but will defend what they claim to believe until the cows come home, even if they're presented with quotes directly from the Bible that irrefutably demonstrate that they are most certainly not true believers in what it teaches. By that same token, we've all likely seen our share of "atheists" who quote Dawkins as if he were a prophet and will, without a hint of irony, use "because science says" as a full justification for something they claim, even if they're presented with valid scientific evidence that upsets their outdated beliefs regarding what is true. Both can and do engage in dogmatism, with replies oftentimes boiling down to "nah uh!" rather than being a rational discourse.

When people are like that, I'd say it's fair to refer to the structures they erect as "religions".

Alternatively, "religion" is oftentimes used to refer to beliefs that are taken on faith. In that light, some may refer to atheism as a religion since atheists do have to take it on faith that there is no supernatural being, given that it's impossible to prove a negative (I'm well aware of the idea of evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence, but since we're not dealing with a theoretical, frictionless vacuum, I think it's safe to say that there will never be absolutely conclusive evidence of absence, which means there will still be some faith involved, though there will obviously be sufficient evidence to convince many rational people). In fact, when taken far enough, any line of questioning will eventually result in us taking things on faith, whether through our lack of understanding, our lack of discovery, or our inability to discover, so in that light, nearly anything could be taken to be a religion. but, at least to me, that seems to be a rather weak notion and a poor way to define religion, even though I've heard it used that way.

Re:Religion?

[lxs]

Religion means special protections under law and in many countries tax breaks. So let's first get rid of those.

Re:Religion?

[Thanshin]

Ok, let's play your game. But let's play it correctly.

set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity

The universe was created in the big bang. There is no higher being, and if there is, it cannot and does not interact with this universe and is undetectable and unprovable to the point that it doesn't exist.

Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.

feelings of veneration and fear of it

Look out at the stars, isn't humbling how tiny and in significant we are in the grand scheme of things? There is so much we don't know, but we must never stop trying to understand it.

Wrong. In "and fear of it", "it = divinity". You established that the belief is that there is no divinity. Therefore, there are no feelings of veneration and fear of what isn't.

moral rules for the individual and social conduct and

Try to do things ethically, otherwise the ethics committee might pull your funding! Don't do things like plagiarize or try to forge results. If you do, we will fucking ostracize your ass. Try to be honest and not exaggerate results.

Right (2/4). Science is similar to religion in the fact that it establishes a set of moral rules for the individual.

ritual practices in its homage

Follow the scientific method and apply the best statistical methods in your analysis.

Wrong. In "in its homage", the it is still equal to "divinity" which you established as null. Therefore following the scientific method does not pay homage to "it".

Does it fit?

No. Only 2/4 conditions are fulfilled.

Could science be a religion based on this definition?

No. It couldn't and it isn't.

If science is not a religion, and by this definition it is, does that mean that this definition is wrong?

The premise of the question is false. By the definition, science is not a religion, as it only fulfills two of the four conditions.

However, that doesn't mean that the definition is correct, only that your path of reasoning doesn't prove it wrong.

Re:Religion?

[loufoque]

Your definition just relies on that of divinity.
The divine is whatever is transcendental and greater than oneself.

Therefore any set of beliefs concerned about things greater than oneself is a religion.

Re:Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.

Wrong. Science makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of a divinity. Indeed, you'll find both religious and atheist scientists. It is true that a scientific explanation cannot invoke a deity as argument, but it cannot invoke the non-existence of a deity as argument either.

Re:Religion?

[FatLittleMonkey]

since English is a living language.

Not for long if you keep beating it like that.

But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.

Re:Religion?

[Thanshin]

Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.

Wrong. Science makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of a divinity. Indeed, you'll find both religious and atheist scientists. It is true that a scientific explanation cannot invoke a deity as argument, but it cannot invoke the non-existence of a deity as argument either.

I was criticizing his methodology, not his beliefs.

Science does not make any statement one way or the other, but the act of assuming it does still agrees with the first criterion; unlike two of the other three statements.

Re:Religion?

[SuricouRaven]

I've seen some Christians who refuse to accept the label, because they believe the term has lost all meaning due to the vast number of people who call themselves Christians but pay minimal heed to the religion.

They instead insist on being called 'Christ-followers' to distinguish themselves from all the casual Christians-by-tradition who won't really follow the religion at all.

There's also a rich history of various Christian denominations declaring another denomination aren't really Christian at all because they disagree on some aspect of the religion.

Re:Religion?

[Thanshin]

Having said that, his definition is not appropriate anyway because it declares certain forms of Buddhism as non-religion (because there's no divinity there).

That doesn't make my definition wrong. It declared certain forms of Buddhism as not religions because they are most certainly not a religion; as declared by themselves, by theologians and by philosophers. The Buddha is not a divinity and in Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. Additionally. Even though strictly The Buddha is honored, those forms of Buddhism do not imply nor require (and I'd go as far as saying, accept) worship of The Buddha.

Re:Religion?

[Thanshin]

The problem with definitions requiring gods is that buddhism is generally regarded as a religion and obviously doesn't involve gods, "divinity" or "superhuman agency".

No. The problem is that some people believe that all forms of Buddhism are generally regarded as a religion, which is false.

Re:Religion?

[Thanshin]

Your definition just relies on that of divinity.

I agree.

The divine is whatever is transcendental and greater than oneself.

I disagree. I understand "supernatural" as one of the characteristics of "divine".

Therefore any set of beliefs concerned about things greater than oneself is a religion.

I disagree with the premise.

Re:Religion?

[sg_oneill]

"I disagree. I understand "supernatural" as one of the characteristics of "divine"."

So, no budhists (Well certain varieties, nothing did it), unitarians (Make no real claims either way, whoever you think did it), sikhs (The universe did it, and its reallly trippy guys), scientologists (Aliens did it) , raelians (Aliens did it) , Animists (The earth did it) then?

Re:Religion?

[Noughmad]

But American politics already have several "superhuman agencies". Most of them have as many letters in their name as "God". Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Religion?

[M. Baranczak]

How do you talk about hats when you've defined "hat" so broadly that not owning a hat is itself a type of hat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM4okRvCg2g

Thank God I'm an atheist.

Re:Religion?

[DrXym]

even if they're presented with quotes directly from the Bible that irrefutably demonstrate that they are most certainly not true believers in what it teaches.

By that definition, nobody is a true Christian (whatever that means) because the bible is filled with contradictory, cruel, ambiguous and nonsensical teachings. Literally hundreds of things which make little sense and which nobody however earnest could follow let alone interpret in the same way as the person sat next to them.

By that same token, we've all likely seen our share of "atheists" who quote Dawkins as if he were a prophet and will, without a hint of irony, use "because science says" as a full justification for something they claim, even if they're presented with valid scientific evidence that upsets their outdated beliefs regarding what is true. Both can and do engage in dogmatism, with replies oftentimes boiling down to "nah uh!" rather than being a rational discourse.

Except of course Dawkins has the facts and evidence on his side and qualifies remarks or opinion as appropriate, e.g. when uncertainty exists. And if you looked up the definition of dogma you would recognize how absurd it is to accuse him, or science of dogmatism. Science changes over time as ideas are tested. It's not inerrant. About the only thing that remotely approaches "dogma" in science are the natural laws of the universe, without are taken for granted simply because they're observable and testable.

In that light, some may refer to atheism as a religion since atheists do have to take it on faith that there is no supernatural being, given that it's impossible to prove a negative

It's also impossible to prove there isn't a monster sitting on my head, or that there is a spaceship in the middle of the moon or that my deceased Aunt Maude was psychic. So it's not a matter of faith to assume there is no supernatural being so much as the default position. There is no reason to suppose a supernatural being (let alone one claimed to be the creator of all things and to have handed down the one true set of religious teachings to a bronze age people).

Re:Religion?

[Anubis IV]

since English is a living language.

Not for long if you keep beating it like that.

Actually, I was merely reporting usages of the word of which I'm aware but with which you were seemingly unfamiliar. You do realize that the way that dictionaries function is by identifying these sorts of new usages for existing words and then adding them if they achieve wide acceptance and use, right? I hate to break it to you, but that first way of defining it that I provided is in fairly wide use across a wide collection of people from varied backgrounds. You yourself attested to the fact that you're hearing the word being used in more ways nowadays.

But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.

I'll take your slight aimed my direction as an indication that you skimmed or else didn't bother to read what I said, since I already pointed out just how poor the second definition was. I do think the first definition is valid, and you're obviously aware of alternative definitions entering wider use, so you should probably get used to seeing it around. That said, I know I'd consider it sloppy to say that "atheism is a religion" based on that first definition. Maybe "atheism is his religion", referring to someone of the sort I described in my last post, but I wouldn't use it to describe the whole shebang, by any means.

Re:Religion?

[intermodal]

Can we stop deliberately confusing "religion" with "the legal definition of religion"? The two are vastly different things, with vastly different purposes and roles.

Re:Religion?

[Mathinker]

> But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.

Actually, most of the words you just used in that sentence have definitions which are just as broad, so I fail to see what peeves you so.

Natural languages are not designed to be exact, and neither Anubis IV nor you are going to somehow miraculously cause the English language to become either useless or unused.

Re:Religion?

[Anubis IV]

And if you looked up the definition of dogma you would recognize how absurd it is to accuse him, or science of dogmatism.

Clearly you misunderstood, since I made no such accusations. In fact, I made a concerted effort to ensure that it would not be taken that way, since I was well aware of the fact that the Slashdot crowd was likely to read it that way. I accused everyday people of being dogmatic, fallacious creatures who fail to be rational at times. I did not make nor intend to make any such statement about science, nor about Dawkins.

Science changes over time as ideas are tested. It's not inerrant.

I completely agree. What I was describing to you are people who claim to agree to that as well but are actually closed minded, responding to new discoveries that undermine their currently-held beliefs, not with an honest intent to appraise their veracity with an open mind, but rather with a bias or with statements of dogma about what they claim that science says is true. They're bad scientists. They're the people that make real scientists look bad. They usually come around eventually, but it's more because peer pressure forced their hand and less because of their making an informed decision.

Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are slow to switch to a new way of thinking because they, despite keeping an open mind, remain unconvinced by the new evidence. I'm talking about the ones who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge new evidence if it challenges their beliefs, while claiming that they adhere to the scientific method and logic. They're frighteningly common, as we see time and again whenever a new school of thought displaces an old one in the scientific fields and ill-informed people on the Internet argue from their preconceived ideas using absolute statements about what must be true.

It's also impossible to prove [...]

I was just providing the definition and an explanation for it. I didn't say I liked it. In fact, I said I didn't.

Re:Religion?

[hawkinspeter]

So, as an outsider, how would someone distinguish a "real" religion from a "manufactured" religion? Is it just down to how long the religion has been around?

Re:Religion?

[hawkinspeter]

I almost feel sorry for posting this, but your post really reminded me of this:

ARTHUR: He has given us a sign!
FOLLOWER: Oh!
SHOE FOLLOWER: He has given us... His shoe!
ARTHUR: The shoe is the sign. Let us follow His example.
SPIKE: What?
ARTHUR: Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.
EDDIE: Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER: No, no, no. The shoe is...
YOUTH: No.
SHOE FOLLOWER: ...a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance.
GIRL: Cast off...
SPIKE: Aye. What?
GIRL: ...the shoes! Follow the Gourd!
SHOE FOLLOWER: No! Let us gather shoes together!
FRANK: Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER: Let me!
ELSIE: Oh, get off!
YOUTH: No, no! It is a sign that, like Him, we must think not of the things of the body, but of the face and head!
SHOE FOLLOWER: Give me your shoe!
YOUTH: Get off!
GIRL: Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
FOLLOWER: The Gourd!
HARRY: Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us!
ARTHUR: It is a shoe! It is a shoe!
HARRY: It's a sandal!
ARTHUR: No, it isn't!
GIRL: Cast it away!
ARTHUR: Put it on!
YOUTH: And clear off!
SHOE FOLLOWER: Take the shoes and follow Him!
GIRL: Come,...
FRANK: Yes!
GIRL: ...all ye who call yourself Gourdenes!

Re:Religion?

[interkin3tic]

Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?

Sure. Just tell me where the line is and why it isn't a completely arbitrary line. Because I think religion is just an extension of the tendency most people have to be convinced of things without sufficient proof. It seems to me that the things we call religion are just "I REALLLLLY think this, and other people do too, and no I can't prove it."

Then tell me why the benefits that state-approved religions should be exclusive to big organized religions that have been around for a long time. Seems to me that a religion of file-sharing has a cleaner slate than, say, a religion which has endorsed killing people because they're the wrong religion.

I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there: if Russia replaced all it's orthodox gay-hating citizens with citizens who liked sharing MP3s, Russia would substantially improve in a lot of ways. Furthermore, Russia should be encouraging kopism with tax incentives, since a marketplace of ideas contributes to society, and discouraging useless beliefs which have historically done little besides get countries into pointless wars and divided society.

The orthodox church should be looked upon as a hazard, if not a dangerous cult, while kopism should be looked on as a religion.

You might be interested in the religion of "word meanings should never change-ism"

BS vs BS

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

are applying to form an officially recognized church of Kopimism, which they hope will enable them to challenge the anti-piracy law.

I love it when clever individuals hijack stupid laws to fight other stupid laws.

Re:BS vs BS

[mjwalshe]

good luck with that ask pussy riot what they got for disrespecting the Orthodox church and I suspect that Nashi boot boys might turn up at some meetings.

Re:BS vs BS

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Well, even *if* they'd have their church registered there are many laws and regulations to silence unfavorable organizations. They can be accused of extremism, fraud, bribing officials, tax evasion, vandalism and many, many more truly phantasmagorical "crimes". Oh, and all that not counting hordes of brain-washed putinists, who would be happy to show this "sectants" some real orthodox christian love and compassion. Probably with metal pipes and bike chains.

So yeah, it seems like a funny way to speak your mind, but if they somehow manage to get real attention - they are surely going to regret it. Which is sad, but this is how government runs everything here now.

Re:BS vs BS

[SuricouRaven]

Don't forget copyright infringement.

I'm sure someone in the Russian government would consider that amusingly appropriate.

Re:BS vs BS

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Oh, absolutely. "Criminal masterminds caused untold damages to national music and filming industry by sharing three songs and one movie on vk.com". Damn, it's even better than planting heroin on them.

Re:BS vs BS

[Arrepiadd]

good luck with that ask pussy riot what they got for disrespecting the Orthodox church and I suspect that Nashi boot boys might turn up at some meetings.

If you think Pussy Riot had all to do with the Orthodox Church and nothing to do with political activism against Putin, you got your story as wrong as Kremlin wanted you to.

"country's separation of church and state"

[dunkelfalke]

Now that was a good one.
Orthodox church is basically a huge part of the state.
Here is the last example of that theocratic craze.

Re:"country's separation of church and state"

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Oh, that's still mild by their standards. Considering their slow cancer-like growth through all aspects of our country's life that's just child play. Now teaching their dogmas to kids in every state school, poisoning army and fleet with their "spiritual guidance", even creating theological faculties in nuclear physics research institutes - that's some truly fucked up shit.

legal meaning

[dutchwhizzman]

"Stuff you believe in" is about spiritualism. As soon as you organize that formally with multiple people, it's about religion. If you want any legal benefits from it, you register it as a "religion". This is why a bunch of people want to formally register their spiritual beliefs, to make sure that they are protected by law.

Who to Kopimismists worship

[ozduo4]

now that Steve Jobs is dead? Surely not Bill Gates.

use proper inflexion

[KiloByte]

What's that "church of Kopimizma"? You use either English or Russian grammar. Please write either " kopimizma" or " of kopimism".

Kopimisimists unite

[GeekWithAKnife]

Please feel free to copy and share this with everyone you know in any and all methods possible.

May the Kopimism be with you.

Self contradiction in kopimism

[janap]

The holiest act of kopimism is the sacrament of copying and spreading information.
Then there is the kopimist sacrament of the confession, which entails, indeed obligates, the holy secrecy of the confession

How is this seemingly unreconcilable contradiction between two of the holiest of their sacraments explained by kopimists?

Just curious.

Re:Learn what copyright means.

[janap]

How is this seemingly unreconcilable contradiction of the control of copying and the demand to make others copy explained by you?

I think you fail to understand what constitutes sacraments in a religion. The act of greeting someone is not a holy sacrament in kopimism, nor in any other religion that I'm aware of. Sacraments are well defined ritualistic acts that hold a significant meaning and are at the core of a religion. Like for example baptism, communion, confession and marriage in catholicism.

Believers' right

[manu0601]

The idea that there could be special rights (that is, privileges) for believers of some particular religion, sounds crazy to me.