Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy

Russian Church of Kopimizma Rallies For Battle Against New Piracy Laws 77

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the that's-one-plan dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Church of Kopimizma Rallies For Battle Against New Piracy Laws

Comments Filter:
  • Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FatLittleMonkey (1341387) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @03:18AM (#44483883)

    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.)

    • 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...)

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      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.

      • by aXis100 (690904)

        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.

      • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Define religion.
      • by Thanshin (1188877)

        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

        • By your definition, politics seems quite religious.

          • by Thanshin (1188877)

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

        • by loufoque (1400831)

          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.

          • by Thanshin (1188877)

            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.

            • by sg_oneill (159032)

              "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?

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

      • 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" aro

        • 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?
    • "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.
    • by mjwx (966435)

      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.

    • 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 g

    • 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 o

      • 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.

        • 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 hea

        • by Mathinker (909784)

          > 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.

      • 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

        • 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 toge

      • by DrXym (126579)

        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 dog

        • 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 we

    • Re:Religion? (Score:5, Informative)

      by lxs (131946) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @04:34AM (#44484183)

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

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

    • 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 t

  • BS vs BS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @03:21AM (#44483891)

    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.

    • by mjwalshe (1680392)
      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.
      • by Arrepiadd (688829)

        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.

    • 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 m
      • Don't forget copyright infringement.

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

        • 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.
  • by dunkelfalke (91624) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @03:48AM (#44484003)

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

    • 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.
  • now that Steve Jobs is dead? Surely not Bill Gates.
  • use proper inflexion (Score:4, Informative)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:30AM (#44484379)

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

  • by GeekWithAKnife (2717871) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:58AM (#44484463)

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

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

news: gotcha

Working...