Sweden Grants Religious Recognition To File-Sharing Church

[HeartofShadows]

Lmao!

Quote:Sweden has accepted that a “church” which believes in file-sharing as a religion: a move that will not please the Hollywood studios
On January 6, 2012 by Tom Jowitt 0

The Swedish government has formally recognised a “church” whose main belief is the right to file-share, in a move that is unlikely to be well-received by the Hollywood studios.

The recognition of the Church of Kopimism as a religion by the state of Sweden was revealed in a statement on the Church’s Website, after more than a year of trying to gain formal recognition.
Religious recognition

“Just before Christmas, the Swedish government agency Kammarkollegiet registered the Church of Kopimism as a religious organisation. This means that Sweden is the first country to recognise Kopimism as a religion,” said the church’s statement.

It said that board chairman for the organisation Gustav Nipe had to apply three times.

“I think it might have something to do with the government organisations abiding by a very copyright-friendly attitude, with a twisted view on copying,” Nipe was quoted as saying.

According to the statement, the Church of Kopimism regards information as holy, and copying as a sacrament. It also holds CTRL+C and CTRL+V (the keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste) as sacred symbols.

While the church does not directly promote illegal file sharing, it does believe in the open distribution of knowledge and holds religious services that it calls ‘ kopyactings’.

“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,” the church said.

The church also said the Swedish government recognition was a large step. It hoped that it was one step “towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution, said Isak Gerson, the 19-year philosophy student and self-confessed spiritual leader of the Church of Kopimism.
No formal memberhip

The Church of Kopimism is a religious organisation that began life in 2010. According to the church’s statement, it is made of a community that “requires no formal membership.”

“You just have to feel a calling to worship what is the holiest of the holiest, information and copy,” the statement said. “To do this, we organise kopyactings – religious services – where the kopimists share information with each other through copying and remix,” it added.

However the move has predictably drawn a less-than-enthusiastic response from campaigners seeking to uphold copyright protection.

“It is quite divorced from reality and is reflective of Swedish social norms rather than the Swedish legislative system,” music analyst Mark Mulligan was quoted as saying on the BBC.

“It doesn’t mean that illegal file-sharing will become legal, any more than if ‘Jedi’ was recognised as a religion everyone would be walking around with light sabres,” he reportedly said. “In some ways these guys are looking outdated. File-sharing as a means to pirate content is becoming yesterday’s technology.”
Political Moves

Sweden is well known for its file-sharing activists. During the European parliament elections in June, 2009, the Swedish Pirate Party (PiratPartiet) gained two Euro MP seats. But In September, 2010, the party was unsuccessful in its attempts to become a political force within Sweden after it failed to secure a parliamentary seat in the country’s general election.

PiratPartiet also said it planned to launch the world’s first Pirate ISP - a broadband service that would allow users to share BitTorrent files anonymously online.

Besides these Scandinavian developments, there seems to be a zero-tolerance towards piracy in many countries. In the United States for example the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is proving to be controversial, with a number of big name firms refusing to support the legislation in its current form.

In the UK, there is the Digital Ecomomy Act, which has also proved to be hugely controversial.

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/swe...urch-52689

[Absentinsomniac]

Nice.

[BaronVonStrangle]

typical hos thread

[HeartofShadows]

(04-15-2012 01:04 PM)BaronVonStrangle Wrote:  typical hos thread

[BaronVonStrangle]

typical hos response

[gore goroth]

Where do I sign up?

[Slayer_of_Poon]

In the name of Kopimism!

[Sociopath]

I've actually been apart of this for a long time. The church holds derivative works to be promoted as well as long as its within the goals of copying information.

My belief is that all ideas are common, and come from the public domain (since noone owns an idea), as such, copyrights should be abolished and ALL ideas should be moved into the public domain. This holds true for media, vidya, stories, artwork, etc.

(04-15-2012 01:19 PM)gore goroth Wrote:  Where do I sign up?

http://kopimistsamfundet.se/english/

[Wes]

(04-16-2012 01:53 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  I've actually been apart of this for a long time. The church holds derivative works to be promoted as well as long as its within the goals of copying information.

My belief is that all ideas are common, and come from the public domain (since noone owns an idea), as such, copyrights should be abolished and ALL ideas should be moved into the public domain. This holds true for media, vidya, stories, artwork, etc.

Where would be the economic incentive to produce said media, vidya, stories, and artwork if said media, vidya, stories, and artwork cannot be held under copyright for a substantial amount of time?

[HeartofShadows]

(04-16-2012 10:37 AM)Wes Wrote:  Where would be the economic incentive to produce said media, vidya, stories, and artwork if said media, vidya, stories, and artwork cannot be held under copyright for a substantial amount of time?

Same reason do media projects now with little to no economic incentive.
out of like.

http://www.moddb.com/mods

http://mother4.andonuts.net/

[Wes]

(04-16-2012 11:04 AM)HeartofShadows Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 10:37 AM)Wes Wrote:  Where would be the economic incentive to produce said media, vidya, stories, and artwork if said media, vidya, stories, and artwork cannot be held under copyright for a substantial amount of time?

Same reason do media projects now with little to no economic incentive.
out of like.

http://www.moddb.com/mods

http://mother4.andonuts.net/

The games that those mods modify and the games Mother 4 is an unofficial successor to were created by companies with the capital to expend and develop those games. A few fan mods don't constitute proof. Mods are derivative, and so are fan sequels.

Would companies have even made those games if they couldn't have obtained the copyright for them?

Will we have movies of the same calibre if big budgets aren't able to be allocated to these movies? Will we have games that are as good if they aren't commercially viable? What about novelists?

What other alternative is there to copyright (and patent, for that matter)? We have to have some way to know that we aren't destroying or severely reducing the sphere that our current copyrights protect. Patent is written into the Constitution of the United States. The Founders obviously thought it was a pretty important idea to incentivize the creation of new ideas and processes. I don't see how some sort of incentive is anything but beneficial.

I'm not claiming that copyright is necessary, but I think it very well could be. I'm rather undecided on the subject, so I'm playing devil's advocate. I do agree the current laws are too byzantine, though.

[Sociopath]

Again with the capitalism?

Quote:Where would be the economic incentive to produce said media, vidya, stories, and artwork if said media, vidya, stories, and artwork cannot be held under copyright for a substantial amount of time?

People would still donate to projects and the like even if they didn't have to pay for it, but aside from that, maybe my ideals should be cleared up a little before we proceed on:

An idea is a construct taken from the outside, the world as we know it, pictured in our minds, is taken from the outside and as such doesn't not belong to any one person. Things like the idea of the color blue and foxes don't belong to any such person, and combined they form a blue fox, which is nothing more than a compilation of things that don't belong to any person and so they shouldn't. I'll admit, I guess an amount of labor goes into it but that alone doesn't justify it belonging to them. True, maybe you were the first ever creator of the compilation of blue foxes, but it doesn't belong to you because the constructs you made them from don't belong to you.

You're a capitalist, I get it. Economic advancement? YOU WANT IT? ITS YOURS, MY FRIEND! AS LONG AS YOU HAVE ENOUGH ATTENTION: By moving all ideas into the public domain would actually increase competition for the makers of the highest quality in question. If they were copyrighted that would have to mean its stuck to one entity, so what happens if someone makes a really good idea, but puts it in practice, it turns out to be awful? Then the public is stuck with a shitty product and noone other than the entity can make a better version due to copyrights. Just THINK of all the new advancements that could come from the derivative works of other people! This economy might not suck so much ass after all if all we did was allow other people to compete for the highest quality product! That advances money AND quality; that's what you want, don't you?

Quote:Would companies have even made those games if they couldn't have obtained the copyright for them?

Considering people seem to have a rabid obsession with "supporting the developers" my guess is, yes! But if that's not good enough for you, consider that people make games for free for social status. And I do think mods count because mods are a work that requires labor, and maybe its not as long as an original game, but it does yield good results circumvent of copyrights and people make it and release it without getting paid. That's the thing here; people make things without getting paid, it doesn't matter if its a mod or an entire game, people make free things. Hell, Linus Torvalds made an ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM (Linux) used by LOTS of people, it must've taken a pretty effing long time to make it, AND HE DIDN'T ASK FOR A CENT! And these types of OS's are being constantly updated and created for no money whatsoever.

...and I cringe at the thought of what might've happened had the code it was written on been copyrighted and not allowed to be used...

Quote:Will we have movies of the same calibre if big budgets aren't able to be allocated to these movies? Will we have games that are as good if they aren't commercially viable? What about novelists?

They would have to have money beforehand to produce them first. You don't just say "hey imma make a great movie/story/art, uhh...but first you gotta pay me to see it." And that's not even considering if the project turns out to be shit. You're also not takiing into account customer dissatisfaction; what if you pay money to see a movie or buy a game and turns out to fucking suck and you cant get your money back? I realize people could 'abuse' this already unnecessary copyright construct, but be serious with me here; game demos and commercials for movies are but a small piece and there's no guarantee it'll be as good as the short few minutes of it. as for incentive, People are incentivized on their own merits to donate money to others, regardless of getting something back or not, that's how charity works.

Quote:What other alternative is there to copyright (and patent, for that matter)?

Public Domain Master Race.

Quote:We have to have some way to know that we aren't destroying or severely reducing the sphere that our current copyrights protect

boo-hoo...some guy wants an idea all to himself because if someone else uses it it'll make a BETTER version and we can't have that! we should stand behind him and protect his feelings even if its to the detriment of the world...!

Quote:Patent is written into the Constitution of the United States. The Founders obviously thought it was a pretty important idea to incentivize the creation of new ideas and processes.

Excuse me? Are you seriously pulling an appeal to authority by referencing the founding fathers? Gee, I can't seem to read your text so good, wez...can you see this alright, all there way back there in the 1800's? Regardless of whatever 'structure' this was built on we have to look at the ideals and compare and contrast, not give way because some old dudes that practically noone has heard about said they should be.


Maybe I'm being a little too aggressive in humor, but seriously, this seems to be the best course of action. In economic turn, and ideal. My argument focuses more on my ideal than economic impact. I mean, should we really keep a standard just because it creates money/jobs? I couldn't think so, else we might consider hiring torturers in our prisons, it'll create jobs and money. (granted copyrights aren't as bad as torture, but the principal of keeping a system based on financial status to the detriment of the whole is where I'm getting at.)


Looking forward to reading from you. Type me, nigguh!

[Sociopath]

Good day, sir!

I feel as if this thread happens to be of particular interest to certain parties, but sadly, it has drifted away from sight and may be overlooked by said interested parties. As such, it is my intent to bring this thread forthwith to the attention of all members involved by moving it to the top of the thread list, as insomuch as they may see the potential for this advancement of this peculiar subject.


Good day *hat tip*

[HeartofShadows]

(04-18-2012 04:54 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  Good day, sir!

I feel as if this thread happens to be of particular interest to certain parties, but sadly, it has drifted away from sight and may be overlooked by said interested parties. As such, it is my intent to bring this thread forthwith to the attention of all members involved by moving it to the top of the thread list, as insomuch as they may see the potential for this advancement of this peculiar subject.


Good day *hat tip*

Translated=Bump!

[Wes]

Why shouldn't people have a right to the exclusive use of the product of their minds?

[Sociopath]

(04-18-2012 08:14 AM)Wes Wrote:  Why shouldn't people have a right to the exclusive use of the product of their minds?

Maybe because it doesn't belong to them in the first place, as I have outlined on blue foxes?

But if you're big on the whole 'homestead principal' then I guess I could argue that information and ideas shouldn't be treated like they are in limited supply like material objects because they are not.

If you don't buy that (pun intended) then I suppose I could argue that it's up to each and every person to imagine what they want. Telling a person they cannot recreate something is restrictive on their negative liberty, and for what? So someone has already done something and so it belongs to them? Forever? Noone else can use it without their permission/till the end of their life? If someone else creates a blue fox, and I do it sometime later, then hey, he put effort into creating a blue fox, and SO DID I. If someone creates a TV, why can't I? This shouldn't be a game of 'finders keepers loser weepers' this is serious shit we're talking here, the freedom of any one entity to pursue their interest of expansion and development of ideas independent of others. copyrights are an infringement on my negative liberty. Like I said, if you want to claim an idea is yours, fine, but don't restrict me from what I want to do.

Linguistically, an idea can be created by someone, and they can be the first ever creator. But you cannot 'own' an idea. That would have to mean imagining an idea the exact same would be theft and we both know that's ridiculous. Likewise, if you circumvent this and say 'its OK to imagine an idea in your head, just not in material form' then even THEN you will be admitting the idea doesn't belong to the creator because of the lessen of restriction (you keeping up with me here?) had this not been true, it would give the copyright holder the ability to sue someone for thinking of their idea, which is just plain...uhhhh, I need an adjective here, uhhhhh, I don't know..."silly"?

You own the labor of an idea, not the idea itself. Let people recreate ideas to their will, the decision of where to place appreciation is left up to the onlooker's part.

[SoulRiser]

Sweden is awesome.

Oh no wait, they're not, they banned homeschooling... lolwut?

[Sociopath]

(04-18-2012 09:46 AM)SoulRiser Wrote:  Sweden is awesome.

Their government (that banned homeschooling) is not.

Fix't.

[Wes]

(04-18-2012 09:26 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 08:14 AM)Wes Wrote:  Why shouldn't people have a right to the exclusive use of the product of their minds?

Maybe because it doesn't belong to them in the first place, as I have outlined on blue foxes?

But if you're big on the whole 'homestead principal' then I guess I could argue that information and ideas shouldn't be treated like they are in limited supply like material objects because they are not.

If you don't buy that (pun intended) then I suppose I could argue that it's up to each and every person to imagine what they want. Telling a person they cannot recreate something is restrictive on their negative liberty, and for what? So someone has already done something and so it belongs to them? Forever? Noone else can use it without their permission/till the end of their life? If someone else creates a blue fox, and I do it sometime later, then hey, he put effort into creating a blue fox, and SO DID I. If someone creates a TV, why can't I? This shouldn't be a game of 'finders keepers loser weepers' this is serious shit we're talking here, the freedom of any one entity to pursue their interest of expansion and development of ideas independent of others. copyrights are an infringement on my negative liberty. Like I said, if you want to claim an idea is yours, fine, but don't restrict me from what I want to do.

Linguistically, an idea can be created by someone, and they can be the first ever creator. But you cannot 'own' an idea. That would have to mean imagining an idea the exact same would be theft and we both know that's ridiculous. Likewise, if you circumvent this and say 'its OK to imagine an idea in your head, just not in material form' then even THEN you will be admitting the idea doesn't belong to the creator because of the lessen of restriction (you keeping up with me here?) had this not been true, it would give the copyright holder the ability to sue someone for thinking of their idea, which is just plain...uhhhh, I need an adjective here, uhhhhh, I don't know..."silly"?

You own the labor of an idea, not the idea itself. Let people recreate ideas to their will, the decision of where to place appreciation is left up to the onlooker's part.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of: "does it work?" and I'm not so sure getting rid of all forms of intellectual property would work better than what we have now.

Also, you're blue fox analogy falls apart when looking at things like novels. Nobody is going to write the exact same novel as me or you, that's practically impossible. Thus, wouldn't a person who prints up non-authorized copies of a novel you or I wrote be sponging off our creativity without giving us a dime? They didn't write it. The writer put in the time and effort into writing it. Shouldn't they own it?

Also, what happens to the incentives to innovate? They're changed. Yes, people create stuff because they love to do so. There's no denying that. But one cannot ignore the role incentives have in getting creative people to create. At the very least, getting paid allows a creative person to devote more of their time to being creative and less to making money in other forms of labor. If there was no monetary incentive, then why do novelists get royalties at all? Why not just give novels to publishers?

I'm not completely convinced of either side. Of course I know that ideas, methods, and words aren't property (at least in the sense we usually think of it). However, just because it isn't property doesn't mean that people should have an exclusive right over it and be able to protect that right. The difference is that the creation of this right would be limited just long enough to effectively incentivize the creative, inventive sphere. Any longer would be superfluous and contrary to the goals of copyright and patent, unless those goals are to enrich some at the expense of everyone else.

However, if it can be demonstrated that creativity and inventiveness is equal to or better under a regime of no exclusive rights, it would make my utilitarian argument fall apart.

[HeartofShadows]

very nice bump there.

[Wes]

(05-06-2012 06:39 AM)HeartofShadows Wrote:  very nice bump there.

Look at the Share The Wealth thread. I was requested to bump this thread.

[Sociopath]

Quote:Also, you're blue fox analogy falls apart when looking at things like novels. Nobody is going to write the exact same novel as me or you, that's practically impossible. Thus, wouldn't a person who prints up non-authorized copies of a novel you or I wrote be sponging off our creativity without giving us a dime? They didn't write it. The writer put in the time and effort into writing it. Shouldn't they own it?

I'd argue against this by restating that an idea doesn't belong to a such person. I mean sure, they put labor into it, but that alone doesn't justify ownership. You're right, perhaps some people would be less incentivized to pay to an original author, however, this might be circumvented if we take into account that people are more willing to pay to the original creator than some distributor. I can't fully make that assertion in every scenario, but still. Aside from that, being able to build off of another author gives cultural enrichment, and I seem to have noticed, people happen to be supportive of a derivative artist to cite the original work in which said derivative artist built off of. I mainly saw this from looking at artist galleries from the furry fandom and from seeing the reactions from a few videos on youtube where a person ripped another video (like a youtube poop; parody videos) from other original creators, and the viewers were pretty pissed at the ripper.

Quote:Also, what happens to the incentives to innovate? They're changed. Yes, people create stuff because they love to do so. There's no denying that. But one cannot ignore the role incentives have in getting creative people to create. At the very least, getting paid allows a creative person to devote more of their time to being creative and less to making money in other forms of labor. If there was no monetary incentive, then why do novelists get royalties at all? Why not just give novels to publishers?

This brings to my mind a variation of the "is-ought" problem; Do they deserve to get paid? Well, maybe, I cannot make a generalization; usually, yes. If you create something and ask money for it, then its okay, you 'can' get paid; however, if you're asking "should people have an obligation to pay the original author to get a copy of the author's work?" My answer is No. Regarding your question of creative incentive and royalities, I got this from wikipedia:

Quote:Intellectual Monopoly;

"In the case of both patents and copyright, from the point of view of economics, there are two ingredients in the law: the right to buy and sell copies of ideas, and the right to control how other people make use of their copies. The first right is not controversial. In copyright law, when applied to the creator this right is sometimes called the "right of first sale." However, it extends also to the legitimate rights of others to sell their copies. It is the second right, enabling the owner to control the use of intellectual property after sale, that is controversial. This right produces a monopoly – enforced by the obligation of the government to act against individuals or organizations that use the idea in ways prohibited by the copyright or patent holder. - http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellec...gainst.htm

...results in a weaker incentive at creativity

"The evolution of copyright from an occasional grant of royal privilege to a formal and eventually widespread system of law should in principle have enhanced composers' income from publication. The evidence from our quantitative comparison of honoraria received by Beethoven, with no copyright law in his territory, and Robert Schumann, benefiting from nearly universal European copyright, provides at best questionable support for the hypothesis that copyright fundamentally changed composers' fortunes. From the qualitative evidence on Giuseppe Verdi, who was the first important composer to experience the new Italian copyright regime and devise strategies to derive maximum advantage, it is clear that copyright could make a substantial difference. In the case of Verdi, greater remuneration through full exploitation of the copyright system led perceptibly to a lessening of composing effort." - Scherer, F.M. (2004), Quarter Notes and Bank Notes. The Economics of Music Composition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Princeton University Press

I cannot completely promise you everyone will donate to the original artists/authors they like, however, an intrinsic motivation to support those they deem deserving in the works that enrich their lives is very much present. Much in the same way people buy games even after they've pirated them, or that people give money to charity without expecting anything in return, aside from the hopes that the money will go towards enriching their fellow human, which, might actually be more motivating because people don't ask to be helped.

Quote:I'm not completely convinced of either side. Of course I know that ideas, methods, and words aren't property (at least in the sense we usually think of it). However, just because it isn't property doesn't mean that people should have an exclusive right over it and be able to protect that right. The difference is that the creation of this right would be limited just long enough to effectively incentivize the creative, inventive sphere. Any longer would be superfluous and contrary to the goals of copyright and patent, unless those goals are to enrich some at the expense of everyone else.

I'd still have to argue that, even creating a complete and total ripoff from another author, is still perfectly valid under my ideals of negative liberty. As previously stated, people have an intrinsic motivation to support the original authors and shame those who rip it off. Aside from that, I'd guess I'd also have to bring up the point that such a thing might not be so bad, because we'd at least bring to attention the douchebags of the world, If someone sees a person who rips another author off, it shows just what poor character such a person is. Enforcing a copyright on this only protects them. (This is probably my weakest argument, but still...)

Quote:Society confronts the simple fact that when everyone can possess every intellectual work of beauty and utility--reaping all the human value of every increase of knowledge--at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no longer moral to exclude. If Rome possessed the power to feed everyone amply at no greater cost than that of Caesar's own table, the people would sweep Caesar violently away if anyone were left to starve. But the bourgeois system of ownership demands that knowledge and culture be rationed by the ability to pay.
—Eben Moglen dotCommunist Manifesto, http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html

Quote:However, if it can be demonstrated that creativity and inventiveness is equal to or better under a regime of no exclusive rights, it would make my utilitarian argument fall apart.

I lean more towards Prioritarianism myself. But you know what I would like? A chance. From the government, from the world, from the genral populace, maybe that they would at least try this system in practice before coming to a complete conclusion, only then could we be completely sure.

Quote:very nice bump there.

I requested Wes to bump this thread.

[The]

Is it a church or a political opinion?

[Sociopath]

(05-08-2012 09:41 AM)Nigger Wrote:  Is it a church or a political opinion?

Well, it's recognized as a religion by Sweden, but it itself is more a political movement. The don't have a holy book, a physical church, or worshiping.

[Wes]

Hmm, I realize that the idea of no intellectual property is fully consistent with a lot of the ideas I hold. Yes, ideas can't be owned. And yes, artists would probably still get paid. I still don't see how, if intellectual property significantly incentivizes creativity and innovation, that preserving it in some form wouldn't be a good thing to have.

[Sociopath]

I don't have any more arguments to support this at the moment. Those arguments I previously listed are my motivation to abolish all forms of intellectual property.

Also what's your stance on File Sharing? (Pirating)

[aCol]

First marriage or that church was also. Let's hope for some good DNA-Remixes!

[Wes]

(05-11-2012 09:29 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  I don't have any more arguments to support this at the moment. Those arguments I previously listed are my motivation to abolish all forms of intellectual property.

Also what's your stance on File Sharing? (Pirating)

Honestly, I do it. I don't think it's stealing, because it's not. I'm not really sure about it either way. Unconvinced. Just trying to point out some stuff to you, and I do think the majority of your points are legitimate.