You raise an excellent point, Chula. I acknowledge that Kopimism (like most -isms) is a utopian construct which is impractical in practice.

Much like the inaccuracy of the Libertarian mantra, "The freer the market, the freer the people" the Kopimist dogma of a purely free and open internet invites similarly corrupt evils like kiddie porn and the like.

I am intrigued by Dotcom's proposed "Meganet" (a de-centralized, non-IP based blockchain network) and the various other forms of the concept which have appeared over the past 10 years. There are incredible advantages to a network powered by the world's collective idle mobile bandwidth, but blockchain networks (like Bitcoin) clearly have their dark sides as well.

Great in theory, not so much in practice.

Fundamentally, I support Creative Commons and a rich and accessible public domain. I believe it is critical to the development of global culture and education. As the vast majority of the media I consume is not available for sale via the mass media markets, artists are not affected by my consumption (whether torrenting for my own music education or purchasing original pressings on the used vinyl market).

Still, I understand that the support of content creators is critically important and we need to develop new solutions for this challenge in an age of media abundance. (Scarcity no longer exists with digital media and few consumers are willing to pay for what is freely accessible everywhere.) But at the end of the day, artists need to be compensated for their work.

Kopimism resonates with my belief that media and information should be shareable and accessible. (And exploiting religious protection rights is a wonderful bonus.) But the concept is far from perfect and there is much work to be done.

Not quite sure how it's a religion.

Same could be said for Scientology.

I don't know how it is in the rest of the world but the word "religion," in legal terminology in the United States, is ambiguous.

The religious tenets of Kopimism are succinctly outlined here.

If it sounds ridiculous in whole or in part, I'd direct you to any of several holy texts discussing talking snakes, dragon slaying, transubstantiation, etc.

Not to these Christians.....

Texas Christians lament ‘freedom of religion’ while protesting Church of Lucifer opening

Not Dracula, Vlad the Impaler.

So? I said legally. Christians can't overrule SCOTUS.

his nickname is Dracula. His father is also known as Dracul.

I suppose it fits into a similar space as feminism when it comes to religions. No divine power, just a general belief in certain ideas.

Point being, too some folks it's not ambiguous at all.

God, Jesus, and King David's Bible = The only true religion.

I find those folks laughable.