Sweden recognises Kopimism

[KichigaiNeko]

Google IS GOD!!!

Along with Spell-Check!

[ElDinero]

Finally, a religion that makes sense to me!

[rubikscube]

Wow, a true religion!

[Epimethean]

It's yet another clusterfuck under the penumbra of religion. They want piracy and plagiarism to be the rule. You could call them the communists of intellectual property.

[Minimalist]

Does anybody know where I can apply?
Could come in handy.

You could probably be a bishop or something.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Does anybody know where I can apply?
Could come in handy.

You could probably be a bishop or something.

And then get painted as a little boys lover? No thanks!
And I'm not into wearing skirts and funny hats either!

[Rokcet Scientist]

It's yet another clusterfuck under the penumbra of religion. They want piracy and plagiarism to be the rule. You could call them the communists of intellectual property.

And you could call the multi-billion dollar copyrights holders like Sony, Warner Bros, etc. the ultra capitalist robber barons of intellectual property.
Aren't the fat cats fat enough yet?
Off of your money!

[Jackalope]

It's yet another clusterfuck under the penumbra of religion. They want piracy and plagiarism to be the rule. You could call them the communists of intellectual property.

And you could call the multi-billion dollar copyrights holders like Sony, Warner Bros, etc. the ultra capitalist robber barons of intellectual property.
Aren't the fat cats fat enough yet?
Off of your money!

You know what? (Speaking to U.S. law here) As soon as the big media conglomerates stop working to extend copyright far past what our constitution intended (I'm looking at you, Disney), deny consumers right of first sale (Copyright act of 1976, 17 USC 109), time- and place-shifting (Sony v. Universal), and format-shifting (i.e. if I want to content from a Blu-Ray that I purchased on something other than a Blu-Ray player, I should not have to break the law to do it - and it's a logical to view this as a right under Sony v. Universal, even if it's not recognized yet)...

If they're going to take the view that I purchased a license to use their content, it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that I won't be prevented from using it on any device I wish to.

Oh yeah, and stop trying to root my PC just because I want to watch a legal DVD on it. Oh, and you know what else? Deleting my recordings (per your agreements with certain networks) off my DVR after a couple of days is a dick move (I'm looking at you, DirecTV - though honestly, I don't know if they still do this, I dropped them).

Once they do that, I might start having a little sympathy for them.

I'm not pro-piracy, I'm pro-consumer rights. You know, those things protected by the aforementioned copyright act and USSC decisions, and gutted by licensing agreements and technical measures implemented by the big media playes, DMCA, and other onerous shit.

I pay for the stuff I want, I buy software or use free alternatives, I buy/rent movies, buy music, etc. It's the right thing to do. I don't happen to like that doing the right thing is enriching the fuckers who are actively working against my interests, though. Where possible, I vote with my dollars and buy DRM-free media.

I don't have any qualms about ripping DVDs or CDs I own for my own use, or downloading already ripped content (where I already have a license to use it by virtue of having the DVD or CD) in any format I like. I don't have a problem with downloading TV programs either - as it's perfectly legal for me to record them myself, or ask someone to do it for me - and as far as I know, nobody really gives much of a shit about that anyway.


As far as religions go, it's pretty silly - but they've got a point. The big media producers are run by dicks.

[Of_Tomato]

Here's their website. Its in swedish but there are links to local "churches".
http://kopimistsamfundet.se/

[Epimethean]

And where does it stop? You have a movie you streamed? This means you can copy it and give it to a friend who has not paid for it? If humans were good enough to abide by lending rules such as libraries (and Nooks) have, and to understand and accept that ownership is different from borrowing, if they could accept that intellectual property is still property, we might make headway here. If you buy a book on Nook, and you loan it to a friend for two weeks, at the end of the loan, it disappears. If the borrower-or the loaner takes steps to make the temporary arrangement permanent for others, that is theft, as it displaces a possible sale of the property and is akin to keeping a dvd or a book from the library.

What is wrong with actually paying for what you take?