Isak Gerson is spiritual leader of the world’s newest religion, Kopimism, devoted to file-sharing. On 5 January the Church of Kopimism was formally recognised as a religion by the Swedish government.
I’m not sure how it is recognized as an official religion without a deity?
Surely they are taking the piss?
Or want to legitimize piracy in a groovy new manner?
I’m so tempted to join, but … do you think the Great Green Arkleseizure will be annoyed and get all snotty? :-X
We always run that risk!
It does legitimize piracy which is good but I still don’t understand how it got religion status. But then it makes about as much sense as some others…
Should probably be a separate thread, but since we’re here … if antipiracy laws are abolished, how will creative types make a living?
Rigil
i tend to agree with rigil. the geeks of the world make a living my sitting behind monitors and farting out stuff that make your life nicer. be it software, movies… things are too expensive, and the fat-cats are living too nicely, i do partake in torrents and piracy.
i bet i would feel much stronger about this, if my work was being ripped off though.
Two examples (but I do believe in more limited copyright laws since citizen’s rights are being trampled upon all over in the name of a song or two) to illustrate:
Copyright does not exist in the world of fashion. It was long ago declared that something as necessary as a garment, or a feature of a garment, cannot be copyrighted. So any fashion designer can copy any other fashion designer to their heart’s content. True story. The ONLY thing in the fashion industry that cannot be copied is a trademark, and hence it’s so common to see designer handbags festooned top to bottom with the trademark, even working into the patterns of the fabric. So, you can make a shoe that is exactly like parisian shoe designer X. But you cannot put their name on your product, and so dealing with counterfeiters is still easy and possible. Also, it allows unlimited remixing. Someone can incorporate any feature from any garment to give it a new slant or a new edge, without fear of litigation (a win for innovation).
This has several effects: Fashion design is highly creative, every season has to have something new to keep you ahead of copycats. They are highly secretive. They realise that the person buying a cheap knock-off is NOT their customer, their customer is the serious fashion slave with a lot of money, who wants the genuine article. They still make mountains of money.
Second example: Open source. Yeah, the geeks are slaving away, and they don’t even expect money for it, they even give it away freely. They expect to make money from the recognition of their expertise, by controlling certain markets (Optimise a certain free product, like java, for a certain machine, and sell lots of those machines), through consultation fees, or by charging people who want to request a certain feature money to prioritise that feature, bug, etc.
Interesting examples Boogie.
Re the clothing, I also suspect that the man in the street will find it somewhat difficult to make for himself something as complex as a t-shirt or a pair of shoes. In contrast, Xerographing a magazine, or ripping a Dolly Parton record into MP-3 format are relatively effortless undertakings. This could also partly explain the need for legislation protecting the one industry, and not the other.
The freeware industry, as described in your post, almost seems to trade services rather than merchandise, which make copywrite law kind of irrelevant anyway. I’m a bit sceptical about a reliance on donations based on the end user’s appreciation of the skill that went into the creation of the programme. I for one have never mailed a $5 note to anyone. But maybe I’m just being a d!ck.
Rigil
Well, copying of physical items is something manufacturers are starting to worry about. The rise of cheap 3D printers could create a “copyright” issue for them in the very near future, in fact some of them are already starting to make loud throat clearing noises about what these machines “should be able to do”. And what happens once we start creating replication technology?
As for the donations thing: Every once in a while a bunch of small game developers sell the “Humble Indie Bundle”. They put a group of their games into one bundle, and you can pay for it what you want. The last such offering exceeded $2m in revenue, which is great money for them. The average seems to usually sit around $4-$5, and remember, people are basically setting this price all out of their own volition.
I am a fan of the use of copyleft
Same way they made a living for centuries before there were any copyright laws?
I don’t particularly care whether they can make a living out of it anyway. As YouTube and the blogosphere show us, there are huge numbers of creative people out there who keep right on being creative whether they make a living out of it or not.
It used to be that a musician’s job was, well, to make music. He would make much of his income through giving concerts. He would also sometimes make good money giving lessons, and then would make some by selling his compositions, although it was not at all likely that he would be able to make a living from the proceeds of a single hit.
Today of course, you can indeed retire on the proceeds of a single popular hit song. No more concerts, no need to compose a single further note. You sit back and the money streams in, and my tax money is used to make sure that you can, in effect, sell the same piece of work over and over, and when you croak, your kids (or your publishing company) can continue to do so for decades after your death.
I am not at all clear on why I should pay tax to enable musicians to do this. Why can they sell the same work over and over while I have to do new work every day?
@brianvds Of course nothing prevents you from creating an album and then just sittin’ back and lettin’ the money stream in. ;D
I wonder if musicans will agree that it is that easy.
Perhaps I’m being obtuse, perhaps it is Monday, but how does this work?
On a related note, I found this site that gives away open-source files you can use in your home-brew 3D printer to make physical objects. In effect, open-source physical objects.
It may or may not be easy. Musicians have actually never had it very easy. You have to be very much into music to become a musician. Which is to say, be one of those guys who practices several hours per day. And if you do that, you can make your living by giving concerts. That’s what musicians do.
I don’t understand your question either. Must be Monday!
Methinks the question is, why do you have to pay tax for musicians to make money from copyright.
Answer I think, is because law enforcement, courts, etc. Are set up to “protect” the musicians from copyright infringement, hence you are paying tax to enforce a law you don’t necessarily agree with.
Okay, yes, that makes sense now, and that is what I meant. Copyright law does not come for free - it has to be enforced, and it is us, the taxpayers, that pay the bill for that.
Okay, but by that reasoning there is boatload of things I’m more pissed off at regarding tax money being abused.
True enough. What irritates me about copyright law isn’t the tax but that it frustrates my attempts to download stuff for free. 