Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Idle

Swedish File-Sharers File For Religious Status 420

Posted by samzenpus
from the guided-to-share dept.
nloop writes "A group of file-sharers in Sweden have requested that their religion, Kopimism, be officially recognized in Sweden. Although this status has been denied once in the past the struggle for religious freedom from persecution continues. Aside from deeming CTRL+C CTRL+V as sacred symbols other beliefs include the flow of information being ethically right and closed source software being 'akin to slavery.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swedish File-Sharers File For Religious Status

Comments Filter:
  • Heretics! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2011 @09:50PM (#35851656)

    All who follow the mighty Jobs know that the only proper religious symbols are cmd-c, cmd-v

    • by M. Baranczak (726671) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:27PM (#35851854)

      All who follow the mighty Jobs know that the only proper religious symbols are cmd-c, cmd-v

      Why such harsh language? No, they're not heretics. Just a few of our brothers and sisters - OK, a few of our brothers - who've been led astray. We may disagree with them, but we can keep this disagreement civil. Hearken to the words of Mr. T: yea, we do not hate the fool; we pity the fool.

      No, we must reserve our hatred for the vile, damnable, iniquitous cult of the yy and the p.

    • Re:Heretics! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VortexCortex (1117377) <`VortexCortex' ` ... -retrograde.com'> on Monday April 18, 2011 @12:00AM (#35852280) Homepage

      All who follow the mighty Jobs know that the only proper religious symbols are cmd-c, cmd-v

      All who are true practitioners remember the arcane incantations ctrl+ins and ctrl+shift+ins...

      Beware younglings, for ctrl+c or cmd+c may invoke the dark ones, who will promptly unleash their wrath and cancel your program depending on the gracious terminal that surrounds and gives meaning to your actions... At all times we must be mindful of the terminal, for it is the source of all, it permeates and binds our actions into reality.

      When in full presence of the holy terminal you must tread lightly and always remember to show your respect by donning the venerable shift key's cloak of distinction when you utter either form of the standard incantations, lest you interrupt the dark one's slumber.

      Only a false prophet claims there is but one true way. Only a fool believes such lies -- There are many paths to a single place depending on your origin.

      Also note that the good enjoy a hearty embrace -- Be wary of those that when greeted with a friendly grasp of hand, later claim you have held them wrongly.

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      I'm an orthodox Kopimist. I believe Ctrl+Insert and Shift+Insert are the proper path. Some of my friends belong to the reformed church and use the right click menu, but I believe their ignorance of church doctrine is somewhat unsettling.

  • by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @09:54PM (#35851686)
    Look I get that companies providing content (or more accurately, managing content distribution) are acting like thugs. I even agree that individual copyright violations for personal use aren't that big a deal. But are we going to go so far as to support something this ridiculous? To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all. If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing? Why is the idea of purchasing intellectual property of any sort, from software to movies, "akin to slavery"? Its economic privilege to assume they can just do it "as a hobby" or "contribute to open source". Open source has a place, but so does closed source. Fighting back against individual prosecutions is worthwhile and laudable. Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.
    • by gman003 (1693318) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @09:55PM (#35851692)
      It isn't supposed to succeed. It's supposed to make a point that the system as it is is completely and utterly broken, and motivate change.
      • by brit74 (831798)
        > "It isn't supposed to succeed. It's supposed to make a point that the system as it is is completely and utterly broken, and motivate change."

        In what way does it do that? By pointing out the ridiculous exceptions we give to religion? Sorry, but this is more ridiculous than the "church of filet mingon" which was formed by prisoners in an attempt to force prison administrators to provide them with free steak. As for a commentary on Intellectual Property, I fail how it does anything at all.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JambisJubilee (784493)

          I don't see any difference between the motivations of one who would join the "Church of Filet Mingon" and any other religion (say, Christianity).

      • by artor3 (1344997)

        But it won't make a point. All it will do is reinforce the belief that file-sharers are greedy kids who think they should be above consequences.

        Do you really think that even a single person, upon hearing of "Kopimism" and its holy shortcut keys will think "Gee, they have a point!"?

    • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:00PM (#35851726) Journal

      Even if you think their opinions are ridiculous (and I agree that they go a bit far, but to be honest crazy extremes on our side of the argument help to counter the crazy extremes on the other), it makes an equally good statement on the absurdity of giving religions (which, pretty much by definition, consist of the collective beliefs of a bunch of people) protected status. I'd challenge anyone to come up with a generic legal definition that encompasses major and minor world religions, without showing favouritism, but still excludes these guys.

      • You're giving the free entertainment crowd a lot more credit than they deserve. Is that the natural Slashdottian tendency to believe Europeans can't be stupid, greedy, venal people?

        • by MoonBuggy (611105)

          Their intent may or may not have been greed, but the fact remains that their point does raise the questions I suggested, intentionally or otherwise.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by unity100 (970058)
          compared to those in u.s., europeans indeed come up as the angels the gp portrays.
      • by MoonBuggy (611105)

        Just to clarify, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick: I'm of the firm opinion that everyone should be able to say and believe absolutely what the hell they like, and those rights should be protected indiscriminately for all, but the problems start occurring when you offer religious organisations tax breaks, exemptions from laws applied to other organisations, and so forth.

    • Hypocrites (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tsa (15680)

      I agree with you wholeheartedly. I also suspect that members of this sect will cry foul when for instance some of their GPL'd code is found to be plagierized and used in another program.

    • by hajus (990255)

      Yeah, I guess that's why comedians don't tell jokes any more.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sir_Lewk (967686)

      To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all.

      So fucking what?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?"

      Honestly...for love of what they do. Most writers never get published. Most bands never achieve fame. So many original ideas for movies go unmade. These same content distributors block a large amount of content from ever getting to us. Even so, people STILL create. They write, they play, they act, they dream. Even when they KNOW for a 100% fact they will never become rich, famous or widely

      • Money isn't necessarily the motivator, but it IS a motivator for people to INVEST in the production of creative works. Without that investment, what we have is a bunch of entertainment that doesn't get far above Youtube-grade. While I can say that a lot of Hollywood big-budget movies are crap, some have become cultural phenomena. Do you honestly think that millions would have been invested in those movies if the return on it would be virtually nil? Do you think that we'd have full-time authors if they could
        • You're assuming that great creative works (even collaborative ones) require investors. I disagree.

        • by mwvdlee (775178)

          Money may not be a motivator, but it's an enabler of creative work.
          Simply because it affords the creator time to create.
          If they didn't get money for their creations, they'd have to make money some other way and have less time to create whatever they do.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by UnknownSoldier (67820)

      > If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?

      Right, because money is the _only_ incentive for people to create. /sarcasm.

      Why don't you actually talk to people who create in their spare time. The ability of the human soul to express itself is driven by more then purely capitalistic greed. Apparently this paradigm is a foreign concept to you.

      > To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual p

      • Why don't you actually talk to people who create in their spare time. The ability of the human soul to express itself is driven by more then purely capitalistic greed. Apparently this paradigm is a foreign concept to you.

        So tell me, how many great works are done by people who do these things in their spare time? How many great artists, filmmakers, singers, actors, etc would we even know about if they couldn't make a living doing it full-time? When people can make good money from creative works, then they can focus on those works and continue to make them. Yes, we have some crappy "creative" works out there, but there are also some very good ones from folks who do it not just because they love it, but because it can suppor

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Americano (920576)

        Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money.

        What a trite, mealy-mouthed platitude. Will you be the first to swear a vow of poverty and do without money or any other standard of exchange for goods & services? Or will you be one of the autocrats who "volunteers" to administer the system out of the goodness of your heart?

        Why don't you actually talk to people who create in their spare time.

        You think it's that sim

  • by Antidamage (1506489) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @09:55PM (#35851700) Homepage

    This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

    • And me without mod points, too.

    • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:04PM (#35851750) Journal

      As I mentioned in a post above, if you think their opinions on sharing are ridiculous, then it makes an excellent statement on the problems with allowing religion to be a protected class. Religion is something that a group of people happen to believe - you can't give special treatment to certain types of belief without discriminating against those who do not subscribe to those particular types.

      • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:13PM (#35851784) Journal

        Just to clarify, in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick: I'm of the firm opinion that everyone should be able to say and believe absolutely what the hell they like, and those rights should be protected indiscriminately for all, but the problems start occurring when you offer religious organisations tax breaks, exemptions from laws applied to other organisations, and so forth.

        • by Toze (1668155) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @11:45PM (#35852214)

          As a Master's theology student and active church member, I agree. I'm increasingly uncomfortable with church tax breaks. Sure, it's nice, and maybe if there's rules for secular non-profits I wouldn't mind incorporating in that sense, but for governments to specifically say "you're a religious organization, you get tax breaks" is to say as well that "you're _not_ a religious organization, you get no tax breaks." You can't read a lot of religious history without getting nervous about governments deciding what is and isn't a religion.

          As an unrelated aside, the same kind of argument is why I dislike legal protection of "traditional" marriage.

          • by Zencyde (850968)
            I'm assuming you're a believer. Honestly, I hate deistic religions. But your views on the subject just earned you some respect points in my book.
          • by DigiShaman (671371) on Monday April 18, 2011 @12:22AM (#35852350) Homepage

            Why do you think Scientology was created? It was to provide tax-exempt status to a legalized pyramid scheme. The closer you get to reaching Clear, the more about this scheme is revealed to you. Of course, not until after you dump tons of money into it. So by the time you've reached Clear, you've now accepted that Scientology is complete and total bullshit yet but must keep your underlings in the dark just long enough to cash-out.

          • Where do secular non-profits not get tax breaks? IN every country I know of, there is some kind of registered charity system that gives all kinds of organisations with tax breaks.

    • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:20PM (#35851810) Homepage Journal

      This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

      It is, however, if they're successful, a way to enjoy the same legal protections granted to a number of other ethoses (ethoi?) which are demonstrably more counter-productive and childish than any amount of file-sharing could ever be. Which I kind of suspect is the point. "We don't care if you agree with us, just stop persecuting us" is a demand which has proven quite effective, in the civilized world, for all sorts of beliefs which previously been considered bizarre at best and criminal at worst.

    • it works fairly well for Pastafarianism. Why not here?

    • by owlnation (858981)

      This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.

      No. It's funny. Which means people like it. The power of comedy can be enormous. Ask Jon Stewart. It's a perfectly valid way of raising awareness, and using that awareness to create change.

      • by Americano (920576)

        Yeah, except they're not laughing with you, they're laughing AT you.

        Just like most people snicker and roll their eyes when Jon Stewart (or a similar show) does a "feature" on the Jedi "religion". It's not because they think it's such clever societal commentary, it's because they think these people are loons who are completely disconnected from the real world.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      Most people take organized religions more seriously than the claim that filesharing is essential to culture. How is that counter productive ?
  • by CrystalFalcon (233559) * on Sunday April 17, 2011 @09:59PM (#35851720) Homepage

    Don't miss out on Member of European Parliament Christian Engström's suggestion for a religious version of the Beginning [google.com] for this religion.

    Short version:

    1. There was chaos and soup.
    2. Somebody in the soup learned to copy. Thus was Life.
    3. Having learned to copy, they built magnificent things.
    4. We honor the beginning by copying and building magnificent things.

    Not bad, I think.

  • it supports selling heroin to teenage runaways (this is how the god judge\). robbing convenience stores(money is the root of all evil, it must be liberated from non-believers). etc.

  • If anything, the hex key should be the symbol of their religion.

    Also, their bible should come in a kit that you must assemble yourself to prove you are worthy.

  • by Trip6 (1184883) on Sunday April 17, 2011 @10:40PM (#35851912)

    They seem as whacked out as any of the religious freaks out there...

  • Not "winning". (Score:4, Informative)

    by v(*_*)vvvv (233078) on Monday April 18, 2011 @12:00AM (#35852276)

    You are free to believe in copying and preach about it all you want, but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.

    A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals. Thank god (or gov to be more accurate) it has never given them the right to do it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      or giving alcohol to minors...

      Oh wait, I guess if you believe in transubstantiation it's not wine, but blood, so that's ok.

      Carry on.

    • Re:Not "winning". (Score:4, Insightful)

      by js_sebastian (946118) on Monday April 18, 2011 @05:57AM (#35853566)

      You are free to believe in copying and preach about it all you want, but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.

      A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals. Thank god (or gov to be more accurate) it has never given them the right to do it.

      Then why can churches discriminate in ways that would get any other business or organization in huge trouble? Let's see, how many female priests does your church have? Have they fired priests for coming out as homosexuals? Think that is legal?

  • by Michael Woodhams (112247) on Monday April 18, 2011 @12:24AM (#35852354) Journal

    Something being part of your religion does not necessarily make it not illegal. In the USA, the standard used would be the Lemon test [wikipedia.org]. If file sharing was criminal-illegal (rather than civil law illegal) and the 'church' challenged this on first amendment grounds, the state would need to show:
    1 the law had a secular legislative purpose
    2 the law's primary effect is not to advance or inhibit religion
    3 the must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion
    An anti file sharing law would have no trouble passing these tests.

    Of course, this is all in Sweden, so different laws/precedent will apply.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Monday April 18, 2011 @05:57AM (#35853568) Homepage

    Yesterday, I downloaded and watched a national geographic show on "ape genius." It was primarily focused on the chimpanzee but also made comparative mention of the bonobo and human toddlers and a few other apes as well.

    What it was showing was that there are many, many things that the apes have in common with humans but then asked the question (the real topic of the video) "what is the thing that let us explode intellectually while the other apes did not?" They can learn and do all sorts of things so why not?

    Turns out, they lack an instinct for teaching and learning. We have that, and they do not. And teaching and learning is all about sharing -- information sharing. Without it, we would be at the same level as the other apes.

    So what are the copyright people doing? Putting a price and making it a crime to exercise our very instincts -- instincts which pre-date modern humanity.

"The Amiga is the only personal computer where you can run a multitasking operating system and get realtime performance, out of the box." -- Peter da Silva

Working...