Sweden recognises new file-sharing religion Kopimism
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
There are connections to the sociologist Gabriel Tarde and his ideas about imitative rays and imitation being one of the "fundamental interactions" of any kind of society, even nonhuman societies.
It's about rejoicing in multiplicity, abundance, overflow. Here an important influence is George Bataille, especially within the sub-sect of kopimists who emphasize the power of copying in itself over any particular piece of static information. The way a loudspeaker copies music into the minds of hundreds of dancers imitating each other — and the way all of this vanishes as it happens: quite useless, but fun.
There's a tendency for reporting to focus on Sweden as some kind of pirate paradise with The Pirate Bay being the major actor, but that's a really shallow and boring focus.
I think Kopimism as a state-recognized belief community is primarily a fun hack, but also a starting point of a new and interesting fractal development. Who knows what will happen? Media and internauts will copy this meme endlessly and inspire lots of lulz and weird stuff.
To think of it as satire is to think that the categories of the world are already pre-formed and that acts and statements are just commentaries or judgments. Worse still to think it's a way to "get out of jail free" — this completely misunderstands the situation, nobody believes this.
Kopimi tells us to explore the virtual possibilities of the world. What does it mean to invent a religion of copying? Let's try it and see!
[2]http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/78/31/04636561.pdf (English translation of [1])
[3]http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/o2m6d/filesharing...
As for the effectiveness of this movement, I'm skeptical. If the intention is promotion of freedom of information and critique on intellectual property, there are much more effective ways to go about it; and if the intent is humor/satire, there's not much of that either. I'd avoid discussing Scientology here despite the parallels because discussions about "religion" tend to be more verbose and speculative than what is acceptable at HN.
It also makes you think about these things in different ways. I mean, don't the debates on copyright seem as idealogical as religious debate? Can you imagine their idea, however tongue-in-cheek, could spark effective change -- on either copyright or religion? Which church would you rather go to, a mainstream one or theirs?
I've seen far crazier religions and far less effective ways to comment on copyright.
But considering that less than 4% of Swedes go to church regularly and only 17% say religion has an important part in their daily lives, I doubt there's a great change on religion to be had.
I doubt this method is any more effective than most other methods. Primarily because religion and Intellectual property are very combustible issues on their own and the mix of two will just drown out any rational discussion on either of topics.
The discussion will deviate from religion to IP and back at the whim of the parties involved and no consensus will ever come out on either of the issues. The topic is a very fertile ground for all kinds of logical fallacies. Take your pick from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Even if people keep level-headed and discuss the issue(s) at hand, the discussion will have no focus. This very thread can be a good yardstick. As this thread ages, count the no. of discussions regarding religion and no. of discussions regarding IP.
Whether people chose a given ethics because an invisible friend in the sky told them so matters for themselves, but not for anyone else. AFAIK, Buddhists don't have any proper imaginary friend in the sky, yet they're acknowledged as a religion.
I think there's a bunch or people, who might want structure themselves, who share a sense of ethics, of Good and Evil, a view on what's an ideal society... every politically relevant feature of an organised religion. I'm OK with them calling themselves Kopimistsm they need some label anyway. In a country where you have to publicly state your religious affiliation, such as Sweden, it ought to be a valid choice.
Pastafarianism is a satyre, because it says "So we need an imaginary friend, if we want our ethics to be recognized as legitimate? And we have do silly stuff to please Him? Here's an imaginary friend, and here are a couple of silly stuff He likes". Kopimism is respectful, by not mocking this implicit imaginary friend requirement. Up to their opponents to make an ass of themselves by explicitly demanding the imaginary friend, in which case I'd expect the response to be Pastafarian indeed.
Which other means to pirate content are in development? Could he be referring to Streaming rather than Sharing (e.g. Grooveshark vs Soulseek) as an upcoming form of piracy?
Pirating movies and software are still quite common though.
Boobies man. As in birdwatching.
See that part that says 'as in'? That's the part you're looking for.
In fact, the whole idea seems like a joke. If they actually are trying to get immunity for copyright infringement they aren't doing a good job. If this is some kind of social commentary or satire it still isn't very interesting.
Imagine if I claimed I could go around doing (insert religious privilege here) because my religion said I could. I wouldn't get away with it.
Religions allowed people to drink alcohol during the U.S. prohibition, and probably others.
Churches don't have to pay the same taxes.
Religions help you gain conscientious objector status to avoid fighting in wars.
Funerals go through red lights (not sure if I count that as religion).
Kids can stay out of school for religious holidays.
People use religion to get curricula into or out of public schools with varying degrees of success.
Juries in religious areas will accept religious arguments that might not be legal.
Etc.
Point is, not all religions are treated equally in most of the countries and there's a long long way to go until this religion gains enough popular fervor to get away with piracy.
Either you are against them being granted special privileges because they are a religion (and thus have to be against that in general to not appear as a complete hypocrite) or you defend that right, effectively allowing every Kopimist to freely share files without anyone being able to do anything against it.
Both outcomes are a win in my book.
Do you think this is the first religion to have an objectionable practice? We already don't let religions do human sacrifice or many kinds of animal sacrifice, we don't allow them to encourage rape — heck, most countries don't even allow polygamy. Nobody takes much flack for any of this.
If a person claims to be a Kopimist and only copies pop culture ephemera, then I think they're bullshitting.
"Make public data available, protect private data."[1]
Art isn't private data. Credit card info is. In other words, you are bullshitting.
There may be similarities, but a "religion" that claims to believe that information should be free would seem to have no room for private information. Keeping your private information private ought to be a cardinal sin in kopimism. If it's private, then you're not sharing it, but you claim that information should be shared.
Thus, kopimism a bunch of insincere, sophomoric rubbish.
Concerning this particular example, I really don't think that the Kopimism founders are out to get around any laws. Thy are much more interested in the philosophical question of what is morally right, where they land on the opposite end of the spectrum from hard-core copyright defenders.
A christian/amazonian group fought the government to import and consume a schedule 1 narcotic in their ceremonies. If sharing information is central to kopism's practices then it seems it would be discriminatory to prevent them from doing so.
I probably shouldn't write it and give them any ideas.
If those other religions sue them following MPAA, RIAA, etc practices, the Kopi-ists may claim the other religions followed their precepts of copying.