Filesharing Now an Official Religion In Sweden 358
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."
Is the clipboard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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" whi
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:4, 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.
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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...
Re: (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.
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:5, 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.
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:5, 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.
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didn't all religions have that?
Professional Help (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is the holy sharing grail.
Re:Is the clipboard (Score:5, Funny)
As long as Clippy isn't their prophet we are safe.
Microsoft Luther '17 (Score:3)
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:Is the clipboard (Score:5, Funny)
Every byte is great.
If a byte is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Re: (Score:3)
their holy scripture?
No, But when you die, your soul goes to Pirate Bay.
It could be worse (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 ^^
Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, Insightful)
"Freedom of Religion" rights enshrined in the constitutions of most countries rarely provide for exceptions to go against the prevailing laws. So, this new religion won't change anything. A better path is being followed by the Pirate Party who actually seeks to change the prevailing laws around information copying.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, 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.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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", whi
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this true in most of North America and Europe? I don't believe this is unique to Finland.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, 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.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, 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 [allaboutreligion.org] of them, so you won't run out for some time.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems to me that religious institutions get plenty of opt-outs form the law when it comes to discrimination against gays.
Not having to perform a marriage ceremony is not a violation of someone's rights.
This is the same as that whole "can a doctor be forced to perform an abortion, even if he thinks it is murder" thing, and its really scary that some people think the answer is yes, and fail to see how thats a fundamental violation of the doctor's rights.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:4, 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.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:4, Insightful)
Should a rabbi be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for me then, even if I'm not Jewish?
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, 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.
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 r
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Religious Prosecution of File Sharers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 wh
Re:It could be worse (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
Re:It could be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [blogspot.com]. 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like China?
And isnt Theravada Buddhism big in Cambodia, or perhaps I should say Democratic Kampuchea?
As always, attempts to link this religion or that to "people being bad" fail hard. People will murder, rape, pillage, etc other people as long as humans remain human.
Re: (Score:3)
The Shinto religion was the vessel through which militarism and nationalism of Japan prior to WW2 was carried.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:It could be worse (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't realise Christianity had its own state???
It does, it's called State of the City of the Vatican [wikipedia.org] (Stato della Città del Vaticano). The Pope exercises principal legislative, executive, and judicial power over it.
The result will be deadly (Score:5, Funny)
sectarian violence between Kopimists and the ABBAnites over lost royalty tithe income.
so. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re:so. (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Joke (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Joke (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
> only hurt copyright reform movements.
How exactly? Your alleged "serious" copyright reform movements never achieved anything of significance. The Pirate Party has achieved siginificant visibility in Europe. They have seats in the European Parliament, in the Berlin parliament and will probably get seats in the German federal parliament next year. They have already forced major parties to seriously rethink their internet policies or risk losing the whole sub-30 generation.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Religious Freedom (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Religious Freedom (Score:4, 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 (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Christianity and broadcast rights (Score:5, 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?
Cryogenics, undead and broadcast rights (Score:4, 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:
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.
MacChrist (Score:2, Funny)
Jesus copied bread & fish to the people... How should the bakers and fishermen get paid?
I'd say, sue Jesus!
Re: (Score:2)
Site is down right now. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they should just share the admin passwords to their site so we can fix it.
Re:Site is down right now. (Score:4, Funny)
left satisfied.
Re:Site is down right now. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Site is down right now. (Score:4, Insightful)
But what actual benefits are there to being recognized officially as a religion? I presume some tax benefits but that applies to any charity or non-profit entity.
Re:Site is down right now. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
What about the coreligionists? (Score:2)
I'm not sure how Sweden's freedom of religion works but here in the US there would atleast be a decade of legal battles to establish their church's fundamentals and then severe restrictions on how the file sharing would work since it would at best be legal between two coreligionists of this church but not amongst others. I find it intriguing that the new political tactic is to approach things using religion's exemption rules to try and create a gray area and call a law into question. It's effective but at w
Falkvinge on Kopimism (Score:4, Informative)
Kreatism (Score:4, 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.
Great idea (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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" [wikipedia.org], the latter of which's name reflects the structure of that particular scam.
Great! (Score:4, Funny)
now who do I pray to to get more seeders on my torrents?
Official religion? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's been hours, an eternity to ./, since God-bashing and Atheist-hating and....
Nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's been hours, an eternity to ./, since God-bashing and Atheist-hating and...
No, we were talking about Apple and Google (respectively) then.
This is different.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point. You point out the absurdity of an institution or action (in this case religion and copyright politics) by taking it to its most absurd extreme. It tends to work in other areas but religion seems immune to being shown its own absurdity. As an odd comparison, it shares that in common with disco (think the Funky Chicken).
Re: (Score:2)
I know you have some nice outstanding citizens you could be proud of, like that Patrick Furstenhoff guy...
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wut?
Re:Oy. (Score:4, 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?