I can't tell if they're satyrizing religion or copyright, or subverting religion to undermine copyright, or what, but I am interested to see where it goes.
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.
I think they simply cut out the unnecessary details. What's a religion, from a political and sociological point of view? It's an ethics from which you think laws, reputation, behavior, social organization ought to proceed; this view is normally shared by a statistically significant, and generally structured, group of people.
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.
In many ways copyright debates are idealogical, yes, but that's not bad. What (many) religions have is dogmatism, which is much more dangerous.
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've seen far crazier religions and far less effective ways to comment on copyright.
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.
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.