6.28.2005

Out of his head

Hi, I'm James. Call me.

Say hello to a guy who calls himself indrax. A colleague recently pointed me towards an article about Bill Gates watching pirated videos, and the comments of indrax caught my eye:
Copying isn't stealing, copyright law is itself immoral. We have a basic human right to copy information. Published information can not be owned.

I can fully defend these points and more. It is not a rationalization, it is a very solid philosophical argument.
Ordinarily, I let stuff like this slide. But once in a while I enjoy mixing it up with a particularly loudmouthed PETA member or homeopath, or in this case a crank who doesn’t believe in intellectual property rights.

This bozo indrax takes the cake. He makes all sorts of wild-ass statements, like (all typos and grammatical errors are his):
Copying isn't stealing, copyright law is itself immoral. We have a basic human right to copy information. Published information can not be owned.
Copying harms no one, there is nothing immoral about it.

Artists should be paid for their work, for making art, not for makng copies. Copyright encourages artists to become publishers instead of artists.

When you make a copy, you are producing something of value, a copy, you are performing the work of publishing. Nothing is taken from anyone, and there is no reason you should not derive benefit.

I oppose copyright law as unjust because there is no true right to control information
And then he goes on to issue challenges:
I argue about copyright a lot…every time I disprove one of their arguments they switch to another one, desperately trying to find something that will back up their opinion.

…I have a single clear argument based on human rights and economics.

I can fully defend these points and more. It is not a rationalization, it is a very solid philosophical argument.
He even eggs on somebody who dares to disagree with him:
Come on, at least try to back up your view.
You can almost see him rubbing his hands together, gleefully saying, “I will bring you to your knees with the awesome power of my intellect!”

Indrax threw down the gauntlet. I picked it up.

So on indrax’s blog, I challenged his points, starting with the claim that copying is a basic human right and integral to free speech. His response was that it’s human nature to copy, and therefore a basic right. Get that? Copying is a right because we can, and we can because copying is a right.

Listen to some of this nonsense of indrax’s:
First, we have a basic human right to copy information. Repitition is simply what we do. Further, because we have real property rights, we are free to do as we wish with the property we own, such as computers and CD's.

Second, the ability to be copied is inherent in the nature of information. This is very important. You want to sell me an apple without selling me the seeds, telling me I can't plant my own tree. With information, the apple IS the seeds. This leaves you in the position of selling seeds which may not be planted. What are you selling?

Any model which treats information as property will lead to absurdities, because the concept of property was never designed to work with copiable things, let alone the retention of 'ownership' after sale.

In short it is not property because my recieving it takes nothing from you. I could copy your words a trillion times and it would do you no harm at all. Real property must be protected because this is not the case for it. If a million people cut accross my lawn, then I no longer have a lawn. The damage by any one individual is small, but real. The damage from copying is zero.
Indrax has a lot more to say about apples. I don’t know what his problem is with fruit:
Let me explain the apples: You are selling information, information is inherently copiable, in the same way that seeds are inherently plantable. You can use almost any apple to produce more apples. Apples are property, and when you buy an apple, you can do what you want this it.
Then he seems to get frustrated with apples, even though he was the one who brought them up:
The grown apples in my analogy do not represent derivative works, they are near perfect copies of the original apple. I notice you focus on the apples, but ignore the point about information, It is inherently copiable. what you are selling is something by by its very nature, can be used to produce copies of itself. Trying to deny that nature is like selling an apple, but prohiting use of the seeds.
I would wear out my typing fingers (okay, wear out the mouse button from cut-and-pasting) to share all the supremely stupid things indrax comes up with:
The first ammendment says nothing of 'creative expression' it talks about freedom of speech, and of the press, which sounds to me like a photocopier.
Get that? Using a photocopier is creative expression. That means that functionally, operationally, there is no fundamental difference between Stevie Wonder’s work and what indrax does by burning a disc.
As I see it, I could copy your work a hundred billion trillion times, and have no impact on you at all.
Copyright is not required to have a financial incentive for writing, creating art is a service, the market will find a way to pay artists, because the market wants art created.

The issue IS about what's in my head, freedom is not freedom to merely hum a song, freedom is the freedom to create and publish derivative works.
Ha ha ha. His freedom includes taking stuff that belongs to other people. What a maroon.
If I have some information that you created, my copying and distributing it in no way affects your ability to use it.

I can say anything I want, including things you said before.
How’s that for audacity? His freedom of speech includes all of my speech too. And also the works of Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen Jay Gould, and the Beatles. Wow. Just wow.

Indrax also apparently has some kind of fixation on Superman, which seem to be part of a fetishistic fantasy:
I am not free to make and publish my own serious creative works featuring superman…Superman is a part of our culture, He has a deep psychological resonance in millions of people, but we are very limited in how we can express our selves about him

Moreover, copying information is about as basic as eating. It is integral to thought and communication. This is why the superman thing is important.
Indrax is like a child playing with action figures, telling each of them who they are and what they should be doing:
selling copies is not the work of a photographer.

Pay artists for creating art, and pay publishers for copies
Indrax for musicians to keep making new music, writers keep making new writing, photographers keep taking new pictures. What is his role in all of this?
I want to copy, and sell the copies.
That’s right, he wants to be a parasite who makes a buck off other people’s work.

Indrax has all the answers – what people’s jobs are, what their relationships with other people should be, how creative people should value their work, and even how much is proper for somebody to earn:
A film that costs 80 million dollars to make should be sold for oh, maybe 120 million
A word about indrax. He’s a 27-year-old doofus from Buffalo, NY (my hometown!) who may or may not live in his mother’s basement. He has a number of blogs, mostly on crappy writing and other half-baked ideas. One of indrax’s blogs is particularly amusing, in which he invites people to call him on the pbone:
We can talk about whatever you want, I can give you a mini-interview if you like.

I'll post my impressions about the conversation right on this blog….You'll be famous!
To date, it doesn’t appear that anybody wishes to call indrax. I wonder why.

I’m not a psychiatrist, and I don’t play one on television, but it is my opinion that indrax has a narcissist personality. A narcissist personality is enamored with the brilliance and infallibility of his own thinking. A narcissist will never, ever admit that he’s wrong. Even when confronted with misstatements, lies, and contradictions, he will bend facts and definitions, performing extraordinary feats of rationalizing contortion just to prove hat he is true and consistent.

In the fetid mind of the narcissist, he is always right and you are always wrong.

The narcissist thinks that rules don’t apply to them, or that they can operate with a different set of rules than everybody else. They say one thing and do another, happily oblivious to the hypocrisy.

Sigmund Freud traced much of personality to defecation and toilet training. Some babies don’t want to give up their shit and are “anal retentives” who grow up to be private, reserved control freaks. Then there are the “anal expressives” who are proud of their shit and want to share it with everybody. These people grow up to be expressive, creative people.

Some people are still struggling with toileting issues. They never matured past that point, personality-wise. You can imagine the effect if those infantile urges interfere with your daily life. This is one of the issues addressed by psychoanalysis.

Indrax likes to rub his shit all over his body. In a metaphorical sense, you know. Since I haven’t met him, I don’t know for a fact that he smells like shit.

But that’s just my opinion, and not even really my opinion anymore since according to indrax you can’t own published words and his speech includes all of my speech. So they’re really his words.

And here’s what happened: Somebody – certainly not me – duplicated indrax’s identity and has started posted comments in various online forums.

Brilliant! By indrax’s own reasoning, he hasn’t lost a thing! He still has his identity; the other is just a copy.

What does indrax do when his information is copied? He claims property ownership rights and censors the speech of another person. All that bullshit about published information not being owned, how information cannot be controlled, about the basic human right to free speech – right out the window.

This is MY blog. WAHHHHHHH!!

What a wanker.

In any event, for a hilarious textbook case of a narcissist fruitcake in action, check out this thread:

Some of you regulars may already know the password. I intend to test out indrax’s model and sell access to the thread. You tell me what it’s worth to you to read it, and you can have it. I don’t care if it’s twenty-five cents, a dollar, ten bucks or a hundred. But please, no less than a nickel. That just gets to be a pain in the ass. I think quarter is a reasonable minimum, but I’m not putting pressure on anybody. This is a free market.

It’s very, very important for this page to stay out of the hands of indrax. The whole point of this performance is to take control of the information away from him. He can’t even see it. It doesn’t belong to him anymore.

Oh, and some false statements may be modified or deleted by the powers vested in me by Blogger and/or its computers.

Have fun!

18 Comments:

Blogger kkoser said...

/me rolls his eyes...

28.6.06  
Blogger Indrax said...

Aw come on. I understand copyright issues now. Give me a break.

Duplicating and distributing copyrighted material is stealing. I got it. And worst of all, the artists that are hurt the most are the ones we say that we like and admire.

I used to be a parasite. Not anymore. RIAA rocks! I've given them the names of all the bootleggers and pirates I know.

Come on. Please?

WAHHHHHHH!

28.6.06  
Anonymous chrisb said...

Woo hoo! What a riot. That guy is such a loser.

28.6.06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I call shenanigans. I think there's only one indrex, and he made that second identity himself so he could blame the other guy and discreit him. I think he's faking for sympathy.

28.6.06  
Anonymous GeorgeTirebiter said...

Five bucks is on its way to you!

28.6.06  
Blogger Citizen X said...

Five bucks is on its way to you!

Thanks!

28.6.06  
Anonymous anthony said...

This is a classic. It should be at fark.com

28.6.06  
Blogger kkoser said...

Shame on you citizen x. In fighting your battle with indrax, you have completely sidestepped nearly every point brought up by indrax. You have also failed to answer my questions while using this juvenile attempt to prove your point. It now makes me wonder if you “Freelance” by choice or by necessity.

But did you really prove your point? Or does this make the copyright law that much weaker? Because if you can do it while a copyright law exists, you most certainly can do it if the copyright law didn’t. Maybe somebody should post links to all the different blogs that indrax and yourself have been feuding. Maybe your followers might think differently of you.

Well…while it lasted I enjoyed the conversation until this. Now it makes no sense to post in hopes to read any response from you. As you played the “arrogance” card.

/me feels cheated because he thought he had found a person who understands his plight as well as his industries’.

28.6.06  
Blogger Citizen X said...

indrax said

Thank you.

Good luck with your experiment


False statements have been modified by the powers vested in me by Blogger and/or its computers.

29.6.06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH What a buffoon.

29.6.06  
Blogger Citizen X said...

kkoser:

I’m not the Answer Man, and I don’t think I could adequately answer your questions, even if they were expressed clearly.

I have no interest in engaging in an ongoing debate about intellectual property rights. The courts haven’t resolved the issue, society at large hasn’t resolved the issue, and I doubt you and I would achieve much here.

I’m not advocating anything, I’m not trying to make any sort of case, and I don’t want to pursue this any further.

I simply wanted to illustrate, in a very personal way, to one loudmouth blowhard that immaterial things like information, identity, and reputation have value and are owned. The stakes are quite different when it’s your information, which indrax demonstrated by exerting the prerogatives of ownership of his blog. He folded like Paris Hilton’s knees.

What annoyed me about indrax is that he wraps himself with the moral standing of promoting free expression and supporting artists. He said that he could “fully defend” himself with a rigorous moral and economic framework.

Game, set, and match.

indrax is a bragging bootlegger, and I have no sympathy for him. If I can get his IP address, real name and street address, so can anybody else. If RIAA or MPAA ever pops him, he deserves everything he gets.

I don’t know how to answer your questions. But I know this: If you think that artists are ripped off by studios, ripping them both off is not the proper response. If you appreciate the creative gifts that people share with you, ripping them off is not a good way to show appreciation. If you think that an artist is under-valued, ripping them off is not a help. If you think something is too expensive, taking it without paying is not the answer.

Sure, sometimes you buy something that isn’t all its cracked up to be. You seem to want some guarantee against disappointment, and you won’t get that in life. The toy isn’t as cool as it looked on TV. The movie sucked. You order a meal at a nice restaurant and it’s terrible.

So what do you do? Send it back. Get a refund. Tell friends not to waste their money on it. Whatever. But you don’t walk out without paying. You don’t consume the product, use the product or service, and then say it isn’t good enough and you’re not paying.

Go find somebody else to debate. My work is done.

29.6.06  
Blogger Citizen X said...

This forum is not a place to discuss copyrights, intellectual property rights, or related matters. Take it someplace else. I reserve the right to delete off-topic or argumentative comments.

Have a nice day!

29.6.06  
Anonymous LongDongSilver said...

indrax prolly really is on the payroll of RIAA. I bet he talks shit like that to have cred with other piraters.

29.6.06  
Blogger Citizen X said...

Maybe somebody should post links to all the different blogs that indrax and yourself have been feuding

For the record, all my comments are signed with my name. If somebody else is harassing indrax or impersonating him, it isn't me. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Personality has annoyed quite a few people along the way. I've heard from some of them.

29.6.06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a tool. Indrax thinks he's some kind of idiot savant. He's half right.

3.7.06  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Hi Citizen X,

Greetings from somewhere in Soviet Canuckistan.

I don't suppose that you have heard of the old saying that goes:

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

have you?

Unfortunately it is all too true. . .

They may not actually beat you in the argument. You may run circles around their own circular reasoning but ultimately if you keep it up for *too* long you end up looking a bit like an idiot yourself. It may be that this is what is meant by "they beat you with experience". . . ;-)

I have been having a little run in with indrax lately on my blog that exposes and denounces Unitarian*Universalist aka U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy The Emerson Avenger

It turns out that indrax is indeed an U*U. Anyone who wants to see indrax in action need only wander over to The Emerson Avenger blog and check out his comments and my responses to them. BTW He is quite suriously accusing me of being a liar on my blog. He has challenged me to find just ONE person who disagrees with him in this point and one or two other points. Feel free to claim the dubious honor of being that ONE person.

This recent thread is a pretty good example of what I am talking about, as is this one. There are others for those who want to browse around a bit, including one or two where I felt it was necessary to use that quote. I expect that there will be others in the future. . .

28.10.06  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

'suriously' should read 'spuriously'

28.10.06  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

And the indrax troll aka James Andrix is still at it with the wild*ass statements as may be seen here. . .

2.8.09  

Post a Comment

<< Home