REM(RND)’s Techdirt Profile

drewcifer

About REM(RND)

A self-proclaimed computer expert, he has managed to do several feats of computing know-how that the infamous Geek Squad said was impossible. He is the owner of a budding computer repair business in the middle of nowhere with extensive computer experience dating back to 1982 and yes, he still knows his PEEKs and POKEs.



REM(RND)’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 6th, 2015 @ 11:42am

    (untitled comment)

    Streisand Rating: 4/10

    Made me actually Google "Jared Leto" to see who he was. Stopped reading after seeing "My So-Called Life".

    Perhaps his lawyer is more shrewd than you give him credit for.

  • Jun 25th, 2015 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Janice, meet Barbara. Barbara, meet Janice. Now, I want this to be a nice clean fight: no disintegrations! To your corners.

  • Jun 18th, 2015 @ 11:22am

    (untitled comment)

    That's a WOPR of a system. Runs HVAC, plays a good game of chess, and has data rates (even with the 1200 baud modem) that would make any Comcast customer jealous. Please say it can decrypt nuclear launch codes, too!

  • Sep 22nd, 2014 @ 12:54pm

    (untitled comment)

    "Everything was fine until the program was exposed by Wittes-less, here"
    "They caused terrorist attacks!"
    "Is this true?"
    "Yes, it's true. This man has no Wittes."

  • Jul 21st, 2014 @ 1:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    Other headlines as dictated by the CHP
    "Small fire breaks out on the Hindenburg."
    "Luxury liner, Titanic, takes on a little water."
    "NASA lander on rocky surface."
    "NSA only collecting a little data. Millions of terrorists identified!"

  • Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:43pm

    (untitled comment)

    News flash! Coffee DRM doesn't amount to a hill of beans!

  • Jun 25th, 2014 @ 1:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    This is like saying Click and Clack can't have a radio show because they're mechanics, not radio DJs or reporters. Nevermind that they are experts in their field answering questions related to their field, they can do that, just not on the radio.

  • Jun 23rd, 2014 @ 1:25pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think you should try. Nothing you listed showed it had to be *pro*-TTIP.

  • Apr 29th, 2014 @ 7:14am

    (untitled comment)

    I believe the following link has some relevance. It also explains the futility of DRM, copytrolling, and paywalls.

    http://www.cad-comic.com/sillies/20081207

  • Apr 15th, 2014 @ 8:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    Wait. They're talking about unplayable video games? I thought this article was describing the effects of Windows 8!

  • May 17th, 2013 @ 6:43am

    The Obvious

    You all missed it. Scientology is changing what its members are called as they arborize them: Saps.

  • Mar 30th, 2013 @ 1:22pm

    Random

    And now. Number 1. The larch.


    The... larch.

  • Nov 29th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

    scum

    tl; dr

    Dear jerk,
    Bring it!
    Sincerely,
    Mike

  • Jul 10th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    (untitled comment)

    If I were in a similar situation, with my luck the alien would be Xenu. And he would render unto me the glory that is the Holy Copywrits from which would be revealed his wisdom but would only be made manifest to me if I purchased a license, signed an EULA, and had a constant internet connection to his server which would painstakingly transfer one word per week. All at the low low cost of $9.99 per week!

    Then, and only then, would it be revealed that I had per the agreement (because who really reads those things anyway) now been married to Tom Cruise who wishes a divorce. The cad!

    Yet after all this the RIAA would throw the book at me (2201 Fascinating Facts by David Louis) because my screams of anguish had already been copyrighted (unlike a few remaining bird songs) and the MPAA would sew me to prevent me from making a moovey abowt it becays dey nefar mack misstaks.

  • Jul 20th, 2011 @ 7:07am

    Damn double post

    One of these days I'll figure out how to delete my double posts.

  • Jul 20th, 2011 @ 7:06am

    Who is an art?

    Based on several comments it would appear that there is some arguement over two things: that the operator is a musician and that the remix is considered art.

    Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary says that a musician is a composer, conductor, or performer of music. That is, one who plays or makes music. So, is the operator (nice neutral term) composing music? Well, taking bits of 39 different works and mashing them together would be considered composing as he had to orchetrate the series of the bits. Is he conducting it? Certainly looked like it to me when his fingers were snapping the time/rythym. Is he performing music? By the act of touching something and having tonal sounds result yes, he is.

    So, he's a musician. And I'm okay with that. I am NOT okay with groups of singers calling themselves a BAND. Bands play instruments, or at least most of them do. If all you do is sing, you're a chior or vocalist. And if you don't sing, by which I mean a reasonable degree of variance from the monotonal rapping...

    Anyway, back on track now...

    Is a remix considered art, Fair Use, and what have you? Well, everytime I look at these articles about remixing I am -forced- to look towards 'Weird Al' Yankovic. A man who has made an amazing career out of remixing and parodies for 35 years. While he does these parodies and remixes of famous songs into polkas he does ask the musician's permission -as a courtesy- even though he doesn't have to thanks to Fair Use. I'm sure that many out there would have little trouble agreeing that his works are already art and almost a poster boy for Fair Use. Here's a guy who takes the same words, the same sounds, or some combination of the two, and speeds it up to a polka beat, rewrites the words, and has made a decent living at it in addition to live tours, concerts, merchandise, online mp3 sales, etc.

    And there I go digressing again...

    So, is a remix considered art? I've always considered art something to be looked at and music something to be heard. But I would have to say that blending bits and pieces of previously done works, no matter how much or little of the work is used, and turning them into a completely different work is completely valid. Is it Fair Use? Again, I would say it depends on how much of it you use and how different it is from the original. If you take an entire movie and redo the last 5 minutes of it, you don't have a strong Fair Use case just because you wanted Voldemort to win or something.

    Now is it considered art even if I don't like it? Well, as it happens, I -do- like it even if you don't. However, art has been historically all about likes and dislikes. Art is about creating emotion through you and expressing the emotion of the artist. The musician has managed to create emotions within me as I hear his works, I have read your emotions in your words that the musician has created with you, the work in question has managed to cause a controversial and point-raising debate bewteeen opposing sides. Thusly I would have to consider the piece in question not only music, but art as well.

  • Jul 20th, 2011 @ 7:06am

    Who is an art?

    Based on several comments it would appear that there is some arguement over two things: that the operator is a musician and that the remix is considered art.

    Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary says that a musician is a composer, conductor, or performer of music. That is, one who plays or makes music. So, is the operator (nice neutral term) composing music? Well, taking bits of 39 different works and mashing them together would be considered composing as he had to orchetrate the series of the bits. Is he conducting it? Certainly looked like it to me when his fingers were snapping the time/rythym. Is he performing music? By the act of touching something and having tonal sounds result yes, he is.

    So, he's a musician. And I'm okay with that. I am NOT okay with groups of singers calling themselves a BAND. Bands play instruments, or at least most of them do. If all you do is sing, you're a chior or vocalist. And if you don't sing, by which I mean a reasonable degree of variance from the monotonal rapping...

    Anyway, back on track now...

    Is a remix considered art, Fair Use, and what have you? Well, everytime I look at these articles about remixing I am -forced- to look towards 'Weird Al' Yankovic. A man who has made an amazing career out of remixing and parodies for 35 years. While he does these parodies and remixes of famous songs into polkas he does ask the musician's permission -as a courtesy- even though he doesn't have to thanks to Fair Use. I'm sure that many out there would have little trouble agreeing that his works are already art and almost a poster boy for Fair Use. Here's a guy who takes the same words, the same sounds, or some combination of the two, and speeds it up to a polka beat, rewrites the words, and has made a decent living at it in addition to live tours, concerts, merchandise, online mp3 sales, etc.

    And there I go digressing again...

    So, is a remix considered art? I've always considered art something to be looked at and music something to be heard. But I would have to say that blending bits and pieces of previously done works, no matter how much or little of the work is used, and turning them into a completely different work is completely valid. Is it Fair Use? Again, I would say it depends on how much of it you use and how different it is from the original. If you take an entire movie and redo the last 5 minutes of it, you don't have a strong Fair Use case just because you wanted Voldemort to win or something.

    Now is it considered art even if I don't like it? Well, as it happens, I -do- like it even if you don't. However, art has been historically all about likes and dislikes. Art is about creating emotion through you and expressing the emotion of the artist. The musician has managed to create emotions within me as I hear his works, I have read your emotions in your words that the musician has created with you, the work in question has managed to cause a controversial and point-raising debate bewteeen opposing sides. Thusly I would have to consider the piece in question not only music, but art as well.

  • Apr 15th, 2011 @ 10:53am

    (untitled comment)

    Odd, the '3 strikes' looks so much like the ones on 'The Price is Right' that I expected the fail-music to play afterwards. Did they get the proper copyrights for that? I'm willing to guess the answer is 'No'.

    As for misusing the DMCA process, they still need something that works both ways for this. If I say something about someone and they say it's a lie, they try to sue me. If it's found out that they sued erroneously, then I am allowed to sue them for the initial suit. Thus, if my content is removed wrongfully, and is proven so, why then would I not be entitled to restitution?

    I also love they way that the Fair Use information (of which they explain little and provide no examples of positive Fair Use for comparison) and the information at the end about how to find more about Copyright via YouTube was drowned out by noise and moving images.

    They also failed to mention that because you are making that video more available to the public, that interest in the creator of the video and his content will grow, thus making him more money.

    Now, the question is if we make a parody of this video, and explain each point they make and how they are in error, is that Fair Use or do they get to sue us?

  • Apr 6th, 2011 @ 1:49am

    (untitled comment)

    I will admit, this is the first patent I have actually looked at in all the stories about patents that have been written here. And I have to say that I cannot believe that something so broad and generic can be locked down. Are all patents like this? I thought you had to be specific, like submitting code or a circuit or something other than just a flowchart saying 'somehow this happens and somehow that happens and therefore I own it'.

    It reminds me of a math comic where a scientist has written down a massive formula but in step 2 he writes 'Then a Miracle Occurs'. These patents appear to be protecting everyone's Step 2's.

    If this is what it's all about, then allow me to submit my patent for 'Method of Allowing One's-Self the Ability to Redirect One's Genetailia to Allow for Hind-Most Orificial Insertion with Mild Discomfort'. Then I can sue anyone who has ever told someone to go f&^$ themselves.

  • Mar 24th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    I have a dream...

    Of a world where FIFA continuously sues Kulula until they can but put a single word on a poster, but everyone will know. Then they won't be allowed to use words and will insert a single picture, but everyone will know. Then they won't be allowed to use pictures and will use a blank space, but everyone will know. Then some judge will actually look at what's going on, say "What the f...!?!", and begin the campaign for putting a stop to this bullshtick.

More comments from REM(RND) >>