Imagine if I claimed I could go around doing (insert religious privilege here) because my religion said I could. I wouldn't get away with it.
Religions allowed people to drink alcohol during the U.S. prohibition, and probably others.
Churches don't have to pay the same taxes.
Religions help you gain conscientious objector status to avoid fighting in wars.
Funerals go through red lights (not sure if I count that as religion).
Kids can stay out of school for religious holidays.
People use religion to get curricula into or out of public schools with varying degrees of success.
Juries in religious areas will accept religious arguments that might not be legal.
Etc.
Point is, not all religions are treated equally in most of the countries and there's a long long way to go until this religion gains enough popular fervor to get away with piracy.
Either you are against them being granted special privileges because they are a religion (and thus have to be against that in general to not appear as a complete hypocrite) or you defend that right, effectively allowing every Kopimist to freely share files without anyone being able to do anything against it.
Both outcomes are a win in my book.
Do you think this is the first religion to have an objectionable practice? We already don't let religions do human sacrifice or many kinds of animal sacrifice, we don't allow them to encourage rape — heck, most countries don't even allow polygamy. Nobody takes much flack for any of this.
If a person claims to be a Kopimist and only copies pop culture ephemera, then I think they're bullshitting.
"Make public data available, protect private data."[1]
Art isn't private data. Credit card info is. In other words, you are bullshitting.
There may be similarities, but a "religion" that claims to believe that information should be free would seem to have no room for private information. Keeping your private information private ought to be a cardinal sin in kopimism. If it's private, then you're not sharing it, but you claim that information should be shared.
Thus, kopimism a bunch of insincere, sophomoric rubbish.
Concerning this particular example, I really don't think that the Kopimism founders are out to get around any laws. Thy are much more interested in the philosophical question of what is morally right, where they land on the opposite end of the spectrum from hard-core copyright defenders.
A christian/amazonian group fought the government to import and consume a schedule 1 narcotic in their ceremonies. If sharing information is central to kopism's practices then it seems it would be discriminatory to prevent them from doing so.