Presumably this is less about making file-sharing acceptable and more about making legal special cases for "religious beliefs" unacceptable.
Sweden has acknowledged that online file-sharing can be deemed a religion, after campaigners fought to get their cause recognised for more than a year. The Church of Kopimism was apparently registered by the Swedish governmental agency Kammarkollegiet, which - among other things - manages the purse strings on behalf of …
Presumably this is less about making file-sharing acceptable and more about making legal special cases for "religious beliefs" unacceptable.
...it is a win-win deal?
The are really starting to annoy me now.
they start big, so I scroll to the article. it then shrinks! moving the article up again! GRRR
flash block / ad block etc
I thought the rotten things had stopped, but no - they even drift this page down and up uncontrollably as I'm writing this comment. Grrrrrrrr....
That awkward moment when you realised you just complained about distractions from your user experience on a site for the tech-literate?
That awkward moment when you realised you just complained about distractions from your user experience on a site for the tech-literate?
Given that this is an ad supported website (didn't realise that did you?), and I quite like the website, blocking the ads is kind of counter-productive, dont ya think? hmm?
I even click on them, and heaven forbid, even show some interest in the products. I like the website, so I support it, not like you freeloaders/ bloodsuckers eh?
Just stop the adverts bouncing the article around and I'll be happy!
The folks at El Reg are well aware of commentards (as I am) who block ads and they have other means of revenue - say like that Very Last In Existence Boxed HP WebOS Tablet Giveaway that never appeared after they got their information from those who entered the contest (yeah, I remember Lester... you tried to hose me out of a Reg pin over ten years ago on another promotion. John Lettice is the man, hooked me up).
ANYWAY, moving on. Mr Dawson, you're one of the millions of random ad clickers that help promote the kind of ad you're bitching about - nothing concerning 'supporting the site" or any other self-righteous excuse you may have - u doan no how 2 deal wit ur chit, dat's all.
ANYWAY, moving on. Mr Dawson, you're one of the millions of random ad clickers that help promote the kind of ad you're bitching about -nothing concerning 'supporting the site" or any other self-righteous excuse you may have - u doan no how 2 deal wit ur chit, dat's all.
Its written down now, who am I to argue?
Is this a lead up to a 'yo mamma' joke?
... it's more of a shot at your expertise level - if you cannot figure out how to stop items or processes that hinder your user experience on your own kit and then expose that ignorance in a tech forum.... you kind of deserve anything you get. After all, El Reg does have a contact page and you ^could^ have asked someone on staff about it. Unlike quite a few sites, they will answer you.
"Is this a lead up to a 'yo mamma' joke?"
No sir. Due to advancements in reproductive science and social evolution, you could have a mother/father, mother/mother, father/father, or none at all.
...its the ones that take over the screen, move about too much or make noises that I don't like.
And because of them, I use ad-block and now block everyones adverts.
If advertisers played fare, many people would play along too. Be irritating and no one wants to know.
You sir, get it!
>Some might draw comparisons with
>the controversial Church of Scientology,
>which is recognised principally in the US
>as a religion
Who are these 'some', do they include you, Kelly Fiveash? Who on earth could possibly draw comparisons between a new religion which espouses communication and filesharing with a repressive cult whose entire existence relies on restricting and jealously guarding communication and information?
I think the comparison is that they are not so much actual religions as fronts for another purpose. Scientology began as a money making scheme for its founder (and presumedly remains one, though I couldn't begin to guess who's getting the money now) and this is nothing more than an excuse for copyright infringement.
"... to guess who's getting the money now".
L Ron still is, of course. Lo, he enjoys semi-eternal life after his "death" and is sat at the right side of Elvis, 'pon the Moon. Or some such.
The money, such as it is, goes to it's current weasel "chairman of the board" (how's that for a religious title?). It's a real question whether they actually MAKE any money anymore though - from what outsiders (read, non freakazoids) have ben able to detective out, membership is down to less than a tenth of its one-time peak.It's more like turning a big fortune into a small one. It's rather suprising that the who
le thing still hasn't imploded considering that most of the inner circle has long since left, sometimes VERY publicly so.
As for "recognized as a religion in the US". That's overstating a bit. The closest the US comes to doing that is the IRS accepting a claim of tax-ememption for religious institutions, which they did in 1993 because they were getting constantly hammered by lawsuits by Scientology, and finally decided it was an income-negative choice to keep fighting them. In terms of government in general, it's one of the big no-nos in our constitution that the state can't endorse any religion, so no, they don't endorse scientology.
That's all we need - another religion!
The others are going so well...
Everyone on the planet has a religion, even if that religion is aethism or agnosticism. And honestly a lot of aethiests are more rabid about their religion than any Christian, Jew, or Bhuddist I've ever met (to my knowledge I've never met anyone of any other religion, except agnostics, who tend to not care what you believe as long as you don't cram it down their throats).
Antithetical perceptions of a phenomena it can not be ultimately tautological.
Have a good day sir!
PS:Do you like to not play a game of chess as sport activity?
@"Everyone on the planet has a religion"
No, you are totally misrepresenting an atheists world view. Its nothing like a religion. An atheists world view is not based on faith, its based on Science, as in centuries of accumulating scientific knowledge that is continuously under extremely detailed scrutiny to check and recheck every aspect of it is correct. Religious leaders by contract demand belief in what they say and many religious leaders throughout history have caused their followers to inflict terrible suffering & abuse on non-believers to prevent anyone openly questioning the religious leaders.
What is interesting is that each religion has a different set of supernatural explanations for the world around us, so they can't all be right, but even more interesting is that all the followers of each of these religions fail to see they can't all be right. Also morality is ultimately empathy for others, so compare that with the harm that so many Religious leaders have and continue to cause the people they abuse.
Once you take out the supernatural explanations from religion you are left with a sense of community and morality is a means for the community to work together, which makes perfect sense. We are pack animals after all, so a sense of family and community is all part of our pack thinking. The supernatural explanations however are used by religious leaders to separate all of us into different groups, (followers and non-followers) because they want to build gangs of followers to give them power to influence others, as has been shown throughout history how religions seek to influence politics. A gang of people gives power to the leader to bully others into what the leader wants and being at the head of the gang is also a source of attention. Power and attention and a pack of lies about supernatural explanations, that is what religion is to the true religious leaders and its why they will never want people to see the truth. The followers of religions need to learn that they see religion differently to the true leaders of religions.
The problem is some of the lower level leaders of religions (who can do good for the community) are really just more religious followers, not true leaders, because they like all followers are blinded by a torrent of manipulation and lies from the truly powerful top leaders of religions. The top leaders of the religions need to be taken down and side lined by society. They are lying deceitful manipulators pretending to be pious. Don't believe me, then look at the catholic church and the number of cases of child abuse being reported now people are starting to openly question religious leaders online. Meanwhile we have other religious leaders calling for the death of non-believers and there are many others examples of how the religious leaders fail to practice what they preach. Its therefore no wonder religious leaders have refused to want their followers to learn an atheists world view which is so central to working out what is real and what is false and therefore a lie.
Everyone should be taught Critical Thinking so they can see through the deceit. The sense of community and morality is true, the supernatural explanations are lies and even religious leaders in different religions don't believe each others supernatural explanations. Take out the supernatural explanations and you are left with sense of community and morality but the religious leaders don't want people to think like that. They want division in society because they want as many people as possible to follow them as possible whilst they try to bully everyone else to also follow them. That isn't morality, that is abuse and more and more people are no longer standing for it.
An atheists world view is not based on faith, its based on Science and Science is about finding out what is true. Its no wonder the religious leaders don't want that because they secretly know they religious teachings are filled with lies and more and more people are learning the leaders are liars through reading the Internet. Some in society want to build up more followers for their particular religious gang and they will never want people to see the truth and they will put down anyone who speaks out against their lies. That is why atheists are now speaking out against the lies and abuses and hypocrisy of the religious gang builders.
Welcome to the Internet age where the dark ages of people being bullied into believing supernatural mysticism are finally coming to an end and it can't happen soon enough.
Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not smoking is a habit.
I not-collected-stamps all yesterday.
Maybe I should apply for a government grant.
Atheism is by no means based on science.
At its core, science is in the business of proving or disprovIng things. With regards to the existence of a god or gods it is completely silent. Why? Because it is not currently possible to determine whether god(s) actually exist.
Atheism on the other hand is concerned with the denial that god (s) exist. Considering we currently can't scientifically prove god doesn't exist, this means an atheist believes ( or has faith ) in the non existence of a diety. Ergo: its the faith in tht denial which marks atheism is as much a religion as anything else.
Agnosticism on the other hand simply states that god(s) might exist... Or might not. Which is much closer to the scientific view. Namely that it can't be proven true or false so they have no opinion on the subject.
"Which is much closer to the scientific view. Namely that it can't be proven true or false so they have no opinion on the subject."
You clearly have no understanding of scientific method.
Atheism fits the observable evidence, disprove my theory by providing measurable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a god and I'll accept your theory, until then I'm going to continue to be an atheist.
Furthermore atheism is not "concerned with the denial that god (s) exist" in the same way that my (deeply) religious relations' Christianity is not concerned with shouting to the world that God exists.
I didn't farm my fields for the last month, and the EU gave me £30,000 for the privilege....
I'm a non-farmer....
Almost spitting bile to defend atheism and condemn religion and blind faith, yet you use the name of the city/country of the ancient Norse gods as your handle, quite a few Norseman would say a religious name by all accounts.
Theism also fits the observable evidence, in that the universe exists and strange things sometimes happen. Sure, the evidence might squeal a little, but religions have eventually managed to incorporate scientific facts into their spiel and indeed most established religions claim that there's no tension between religion and science. Many (most?) prominent scientists are religious at least nominally, and most of those we consider the greats of the past were deeply religious (Leibnitz, Newton, Einstein, to name a few). In fact, these would claim that the very things they discovered about the universe are a strong indicator of a god's hand, because how else would it happen?
Atheism is a religious position because it takes a definite position on the existence or lack thereof of a God, which is an unprovable theory. There's no way to either prove or disprove it, so either position is valid - it's a matter of faith. You have faith there isn't a god. The Pope has faith there is. Either starting position is valid, scientifically, because you're the same distance from the answer.
The poster above made exactly the right point, which is that agnosticism is the only non-religious position.
I once was a simple man, believing many a thing without much thought.
I then stopped believing in any god - it seemed weird, wrong, stupid.
Someone then told me something along the lines of "Because it is not currently possible to determine whether god(s) actually exist." - That's when it hit me!
I couldn't disprove any god, from anywhere! I would have to believe it all.
"But this god was just created for use in a game" - wrong! He inspired the makers to include him in the game!
"But you just made up a cake-god in order to excuse eating more cake" -WRONG! Cakesus inspired me and made me know his existance, and then I ate more cake in his name!
Omni-theism was born!
As I understand it, the romans referred to Christians as "atheists", because the romans knew there were more than one God whereas the Christians had early on cleaned the bible of all scriptures that contained more than one God.
An agnostic hasn't commited to anything and is somewhat ambivalent.
The modern definition of atheism however is that the scientific approach must be followed. Occam's razor and all that. Given that no proof exists of the flying spaghetti monster, we disregard it as a kid's story. The same goes for the modern day version of Santa Clause. And the same goes for the Christian God. No proof, no dice.
You can make up any story you'd like, but unless you present any evidence, it will be just that: A story you made up.
And such kid stories should not be used as a tool to change laws or dictate how other people should live. It isn't OK to kill "witches", nor is it OK to taunt homosexuals (some good Christians even want to kill them). It is important that normal people stand up to those bible thumpers.
-- Omni-theism was born!
Shouldn't that be Om-nomnomnom-ni-theism?
"An atheists world view is not based on faith, its based on Science"
Not strictly true, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist, for whatever reason.
Nice nickname by the way, home of the Norse Gods..... :-P
@Chris lively … For you to overlook all I said in the previous post, you are clearly one of the religious gang builders I mentioned. I made the long post as I wanted to cover every base so to speak, as I know the religious gang builders love to manipulatively misrepresent their opponents to try to recruit more followers and you've done exactly that by trying to deny scientific method has anything to do with disproving the existence of god(s).
Science says a great deal about disproving the supernatural explanations for the world, its just the cult followers refuse to listen. The followers have learned (and been taught) a way of fearfully thinking that closes their mind from learning and being told they are wrong and so they cannot learn they are wrong, so they continue to think they are right. Its a fundamental failure of Critical Thinking to questions their assumptions so they stay closed minded and that is exactly what the religious leaders want. They want follower who only listen to them. Its all part of the deception.
The reason more scientists don't openly speak out against religions is that some fear the abuse from religious leaders whilst others simply let the religious followers get on with it and avoid the hassle of speaking out because they too know they will be abused. However that is changing now we have the Internet and also some scientists daily work means they have no choice but to speak out as their areas of science directly contradict the lies of the religious leaders such as the creationists. Which also blows a bloody great hole in your argument Chris Lively, as all that is associated with godly actions are being shown by science to not be controlled by a god or gods. Every single area that is claimed to be the work of a god is being proved to not be the work of a god, so we are left with nothing that a god does, so as it has no influence what so ever, it cannot truly exist and don't forget even the religious leaders of different religions don't believe each others explanations for the world around us. Yet scientific methodology is showing us how the world around us works and scientists can prove every single step of what they say.
Its not simply the religious leaders can't see the truth. They are not interested in truth, they are liars and their lies give them power and attention. Even worse the need for power and attention are classic warning signs of cluster B personality disorders and all cluster B's lack empathy for others, (because they are self interested) so they instead feign empathy and lie endlessly, but they don't really care, its just an act. There are so many examples which prove the lack of empathy of the religious leaders but none are more shocking than the many thousands of child abuse cases by religious leaders. Its absolute proof they don't care. By the way, child abusers are extreme examples of cluster B behaviour who show a callous total lack of empathy for others. Also look how many other people have also died in religious wars, again caused by religious leaders contempt for others and also look how long the catholic church opposed contraception resulting in millions more being put at risk of AIDS. This all shows an endless callous lack of empathy by the religious leaders who feign empathy when it suits them. There are so many examples like this that highlight the true top religious leaders are so often endlessly manipulative vile hypocritical liars and they are deceiving their followers.
@AC straw man argument about my Asgard name of ancient Norse gods. AC, you show yourself up as another manipulative misrepresenter. I refer you to the Asgard in the Stargate series who fought against and stopped all false gods ... I love mythology and all fantasy and sci-fi, but I know its false stories, not real and I like the Asgard in Stargate. I only wish the Asgard were real because if they were, I would happily go with them to leave this planet behind in a heart beat if I could, but sadly they are not real, but I would love to get away from all the cluster B lying bullshit we suffer on earth as well as all the dark age supernatural mysticism that some closedminded liars claim to be truth.
"I refer you to the Asgard in the Stargate series who fought against and stopped all false gods "
You forget that they were, themselves, false gods. Granted they took up that mantle to protect civilizations that they felt weren't able to handle the truth, but they were still false gods. Actually that also brings up another point: they were condescending bastards. Benevolent condescending bastards, but condescending bastards all the same.
Completely unrelated to the issue at hand (but related to something you said), condoms do very little to prevent HIV infections. The more people who know that the better. If you doubt it, just ask your doctor if a condom gives you enough protection to have sex with someone you know to be infected. The virus is smaller than the space between the silicon molocules, so trying to stop it with a silicone condom is rather like trying to keep water out of a submarine with a mesh screen. The only effective measure against HIV we currently have is responsible behaviour. That means getting tested regularly and keeping your sex life tied up in your long term, monogamous relationships. I'm not saying wait till you're married or anything (because we all know how well THAT message goes over, and, given that my eldest child is older than my marriage, trying to deliver it would make me a hypocrit anyway), but one night stands and the like are just a way of asking for trouble.
Rather odd that experts like the United Nations boasts such claims as:
"The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce
the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections." (Source below)
Now I don't know the scale of a condom Vs. The scale of the virus, but I do know that the HIV-virus is delivered via the liquids that are involved with sex and those liquids are blocked by the condom.
Your words prove my point.
The scientific method requires empirical measurable evidence. However, there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of a god or gods. Why? Because there is no reliable way to establish it. A God might exist, but simply be unconcerned with the matters of man.
In other words we have a situation in which there is an Absence of Evidence. Which is wholly different from an Evidence of Absence. The former proves nothing while the latter, which we can't verify, would support your argument.
BTW, I'm not trying to convince you to not be an atheist. For all I know you're 100% correct in your beliefs. So more power to you.
However I am clarifying that Atheism, by definition, is the "rejection of the belief in the existence of deities." In other words, with an Absence of Evidence you choose to believe that a god or gods do not exist. Which, by an honest logical deduction, means you have *faith* that god doesn't exist.
This doesn't mean your beliefs are wrong, just that they have no basis in science... like every other religion out there.
I ignored most of your post then, and now, because it quite frankly adds nothing to the discussion. Also, my own thoughts onto the existence of god(s) is immaterial to the question as to whether Atheism is "scientifically based" or not.
Yes, there absolutely are "religious" people who are simply in it for power, control and other self serving ideals. I agree, but that's not all of them. Regardless, calling what ALL religious leaders say "lies" is more than a bit over the top. After all, you can't be 100% certain that your Truth is the correct Truth.
Yes, there are scientists who do not believe in god(s), there are scientists who used to believe in god(s), and there are scientists who currently believe in god(s). So what? (rhetorical). What they believe and what they can prove are fundamentally two different things.
That said, the way you approach this is quite frankly no different than one of those religious leaders you are slamming: i.e. Misrepresenting others and failing to use any sort of deductive logic.
I truly wish you well; and fervently hope things work out for you just the way you want. No BS, no sarcasm.
...is knowing which direction your file server is so you can bow down in its direction five times a day.
What's next? The First Church of Kitty Pr0n?
Besides ... Labeling something a "religion" doth not automagically make it legal ... These dolts are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.
(With that said, I honestly think the ancient concept of "copyright" needs to be updated in regards to the digital world. Anyone who thinks that digital content can't be copied & shared is deluded.)
Hi Jake, you write "I honestly think the ancient concept of "copyright" needs to be updated in regards to the digital world. Anyone who thinks that digital content can't be copied & shared is deluded."
You've used the fact, in your sentence #2, that digital content in practice if not legally, "can" be copied and shared, to justify sentence #1, which says something about updating copyright law.
Where I'm confused is how you make that leap from something being practically 'possible', to its being desirable in moral terms.
You may have guessed I disagree with you, I do, but I'm primarily trying to focus on the logic (or what I see as the lack of) in your argument, the lack of a constructed argument there per se - something I find characteristic among anti-copyright advocates.
It's a matter of reality v.s. practicality v.s. economy of scale. I'll try to keep the following as simple as possible ...
I have the capability of copying any the top-ten New York Times best-sellers in my home printshop ... or indeed, a fair approximation of the NYT itself.
In reality, it's easier and cheaper to purchase the tat at my local book seller's.
To make it worthwhile economically, I'd have to print several hundred thousand copies, and then find a means of fencing the illegal copyright infringing material in order to make back my time+raw materials costs.
In other words, the cost of information transfer makes onsy-twosy copying cost prohibitive. Xerox made this a trifle easier (I have a first-generation Xeroxed copy of "Lions' Commentary" in my trophy-case, for example [Given to me by John himself, who made the copy for me in ~1979]).
With digital stuff, the reality changes. The cost of "publication"(sharing) is trivial. It can happen, it will happen, it does happen, it will continue to happen, and it can't be stopped.
The laws need to change to reflect this new, modern reality. The cats can't be swept back into the worm can behind the open stable door.
IMO, the old-school publishing companies should probably step into the real world & realize that they no longer control the content, nor the distribution channels ...
THAT said, I only use FOSS, pay no attention to TV and similar mass-media, and only listen to music that I hold distribution media for. Seems cleaner, somehow.
 Heidelberg KORD, Windmill (platen), Polar cutter, simple hand bindery gear.
 I hate printing sheet-fed newsprint ... too much lint.
Don't argue with Jake. He knows everyone and everything. His specialist subject on Mastermind would be "absolutely fucking everything". It's like banging you're head off a brick wall except without the satisfaction of seeing some brick dust on the floor.
"With digital stuff, the reality changes. The cost of "publication"(sharing) is trivial. It can happen, it will happen, it does happen, it will continue to happen, and it can't be stopped.
The laws need to change to reflect this new, modern reality. The cats can't be swept back into the worm can behind the open stable door."
To a very large extent I agree with you. The majors (be they print, film, whatever) have made it their business to exploit just how hard it was to make and distribute stuff, charging a huge premium for their service. As you rightly say, a lot of the old problem no longer exist (although there are some new ones).
And this is why we have the RIAA, MPAA et al trying to push through the likes of SOPA. Their business is against the wall, the firing squad is ready and they are trying to argue that bullets should be illegal rather than move with the times.
So, yes, copyright etc should change but it won't change in the way it should. It will just become more and more entrenched to enforce the status quo (e.g. now lasting 50+ years), create artificial barrier to trade (DRM, region codes) and maintain this years bottom-line (meanwhile the actual content creators will get screwed over and films like "Harry Potter" will be declared loss-making on paper).
There will always be a place for Random House, MGM etc. It will just be different and they are afraid of change.
And this is before we even consider the total dog's-dinner that is the patent system.
@ AC 00:39 GMT
You're trying to find logic in a post by a person who uses the word "automagically"?
"Automagically" has been in use in the techie world for over sixty years. My Uncles were using it in the Navy in the Pacific Theater during WW II. I got it from them in the 1960s, and found it already in common use at Berkeley in the late 1970s. Get used to it.
"Don't argue with Jake."
Please. Argue away. I love distractions :-)
"He knows everyone and everything."
Nope. But I'm really, really conversant with Silly Con Valley personalities, products & corporations, from the mid-sixties on. I grew up there. Someone had to.
"His specialist subject on Mastermind would be "absolutely fucking everything"."
Nah. For example, I know absolutely nothing about popular culture.
"It's like banging you're head off a brick wall except without the satisfaction of seeing some brick dust on the floor."
If you have rational arguments against my commentardary, feel free. I've been known to offer up a "mea culpa" on more than one occasion.
That's pronounced "your". Pardon my dust.
Out of curiosity, have you read this:
And that's from a music industry insider ...
Since when did pronunciation have anything to do with written punctuation? If you must know, dear, it was a Swype-induced typo.
So, basically, what you are saying is that toy input systems make your inability to proof-read your own typing OK? English is a precise language (oral and written), when used precisely.
Out of curiosity, did you read and comprehend your 00:15 commentardary, and think to yourself "yeah, that's it, perfect!"? The mind boggles ...
During the meanwhile, fanboi, instead of getting defensive over your own personal commentardary, weren't we commentarding on the presumed faults of my own?
We're waiting, with baited breath ...
Being in too much of a hurry to proofread one's text and not knowing the difference between 'your' and 'you're', which was your criticism, are two entirely different things. I ask again: what does pronunciation have to do with written punctuation? Or were you just being tongue-in-cheek, knowing as you do perfectly well that 'pronounced' was entirely the wrong word? Seems to me that if you're going to criticise someone for their abilities with the English language then it behooves you to get it right yourself?
Also, it's "bated breath", unless of course you're being a smart-arse again?
I approve highly of your observations. I did think however, it would be apt to point out that the saying is 'waiting with BATED breath'.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017