Android Scans DVD Bar Codes, Downloads Movies

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Android Scans DVD Bar Codes, Downloads Movies

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday March 27, 2009 @07:45AM from the unifying-theory-of-gadgetry dept.

cars writes "Remember how you can scan any bar code with an android phone and it will tell you where to find that product for cheaper? A new Android application called BarTor (formerly ScanTorrent) can scan any DVD bar code and then signals either uTorrent or Vuze on your PC to download the movie from BitTorrent. How long do you think this will last?" Other features include purchase opportunities on barcode lookup, Google base product lookup, and site-level filtering.

181 comments

nice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 07:48 · Score: 0

brilliant.
Really makes me want an Android phone.
Although Android is kind of a dumb name.
1. Re:nice by think_nix · 2009-03-27 08:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  now all they need to do is port TPB vpn service to it and voila !
2. Re:nice by 0100010001010011 · 2009-03-27 08:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The barcode recognition is the biggest feature IMHO. Imagine the apps you could build with a good barcode recognition.
  Scan a list of 'to buy'. Sort of a "Wedding registry" but how many times are you out and you see something that looks like a decent product but you want to check reviews? Scan a barcode, dump it into a Google docs document.
  The biggest IMHO is "crowd sourcing" grocery lists. So you go to the store and scan in what you're going to buy, punch in the price and it gets added to a database. Use the GPS to determine the store.
  Get a few hundred people checking prices and you'll have a fairly accurate database of prices. Then you go home, made a grocery list and have it calculate where the cheapest place to shop is.
3. Re:nice by BlackCreek · 2009-03-27 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The barcode recognition is the biggest feature IMHO. Imagine the apps you could build with a good barcode recognition.
  Scan a list of 'to buy'. Sort of a "Wedding registry" but how many times are you out and you see something that looks like a decent product but you want to check reviews? Scan a barcode, dump it into a Google docs document.
  The biggest IMHO is "crowd sourcing" grocery lists. So you go to the store and scan in what you're going to buy, punch in the price and it gets added to a database. Use the GPS to determine the store.
  What you describe already exists for Android since pretty much day one: http://www.biggu.com/
4. Re:nice by ndavis · 2009-03-27 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest IMHO is "crowd sourcing" grocery lists. So you go to the store and scan in what you're going to buy, punch in the price and it gets added to a database. Use the GPS to determine the store.
  Get a few hundred people checking prices and you'll have a fairly accurate database of prices. Then you go home, made a grocery list and have it calculate where the cheapest place to shop is.
  I like this idea but I also wish you could get this to work with the local grocery store so I can scan and bag all the items then walk up and check out within seconds. A local Giant store has their own handheld scanners and this is terrific especially the bag as you go part.
5. Re:nice by cdrguru · 2009-03-27 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The biggest IMHO is "crowd sourcing" grocery lists. So you go to the store and scan in what you're going to buy, punch in the price and it gets added to a database. Use the GPS to determine the store.
  Get a few hundred people checking prices and you'll have a fairly accurate database of prices. Then you go home, made a grocery list and have it calculate where the cheapest place to shop is.
  The problem with this is this pushes grocery stores to complete solely on price. Selection no longer matters, customer service doesn't matter, just price.
  Personally, I see enough of that already. The Internet certainly has the power to transform all purchases into a simple decision based on price while taking all other factors out of it. Then, we will all be shopping at WalMart. Forget about anybody else, they can't compete as effectively on price.
  Is that what you really want? Because that is exactly what we are in danger of getting.
6. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  Price is what the consumer demands.
7. Re:nice by Krneki · 2009-03-27 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is why we read reviews before we buy.
  Now imagine near the price also some links to the product review.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
8. Re:nice by Rue+C+Koegel · 2009-03-27 13:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  the solution isn't to limit technology, but to encourage non-profit cooperative... at a non-profit grocer all prices can stay rock bottom for even the highest quality goods.
  plus, with the national co-op networks in place co-op grocers, and therefor the buyers themselves, can work together to encourage the manufacturers to make better products that cost less than, rather than more than, the crappier products.
  [i call this the wall-mart strategy, since they're notorious for successfully setting their own buying prices and demanding changes in manufacturing practices.]
  a good example of this could be: a sugarless wholegrain cereal at a co-op could cost less than a high sugar content bleached and then re-enriched cereal, or a sugarless organic peanut butter--which is naturally sweet--could be cheaper than sugared inorganic name brand crap.
  this would do away with the need to waste a customers time scanning the products at every grocery store to create a customer friendly database of product pricing schemes across a city/nation.
  please take note that such a system could be modified by retail agents.
  also note the fact that: in most areas the majority of the grocers are owned by the same organization. in seattle it's really just kroger vs wal-mart, and whole foods vs co-ops. all of kroger's stores are strategically designed to appear in business against each other in order to influence the sales of certain items. [i am the horses mouth]
  
  --
  DON'T CAPITALIZE! CO-OPERATE! AND FREE EVERYTHING!
9. Re:nice by pnotequalsnp · 2009-03-27 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry sir but you are wrong. I'll reiterate my limited econ 101 experience: we assume perfect information for markets to be perfectly efficient, so having the price across all offerings is a good thing. What you should decide is if the extra cost at the given store is worth the added benefits (customer service, locality, other factors). This is commonplace today, for example when choosing eco-friendly dry cleaning, products without lead etc. Obviously people choosing Walmart are making the choice that the added services are not worth the extra price. Not everyone has the same values (which determine price) as you.
10. Re:nice by ronocdh · 2009-03-27 14:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Selection no longer matters, customer service doesn't matter, just price.
  How can you say that? If I scan something and I find out no store in a 15-mile radius has that product, won't I buy it immediately?
  
  Seems to me this barcode scanning phenomenon would be better for consumers all around. Stores will have to compete not just on price, but on whatever consumers demand. If you want selection, then choose on selection.
11. Re:nice by KermitJunior · 2009-03-27 16:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I hear they're naming the next model DATA and if it is a success, another one named B4.
  
  --
  There is a Universal Life Value Check it
12. Re:nice by mustafap · 2009-03-27 20:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >Price is what the consumer demands. Only the stupid ones. The rest of us demand value for money, quality, reliability. Unfortunately 'the stupid ones' constitute a very large proportion of the general public, which is why we have to put up with so much shit coming out of Chinese factories. We ask for cheap shit, and they can make it. Rant over :o)
  
  --
  Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
13. Re:nice by damburger · 2009-03-27 23:55 · Score: 2
  
  And because not everybody has the same values, the combined data isn't meaningful beyond a way to measure the lowest common denominator.
  The brutal oversimplification of 'econ 101' when applied to real world situations does not generally lead to good outcomes. People are just too complex.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
14. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-28 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Customer Service, Shopping Experience, Ambience --- for groceries??! ha ha ha .. you must be american.
15. Re:nice by forgottenusername · 2009-03-28 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  I could not agree with this post more. Unfortunately not enough people do. Healthy price competition is one thing, creating a miserable work environment and a crappy shopping experience for all is another.
  Ever been to a walmart or costco on a Saturday afternoon? Is that really the experience we want spreading everywhere?
  Ask yourself, how are prices so low and where is the money going? It's an obvious observation, but we're dumping out our wealth on other countries to get the lowest price, which ultimately eliminates 10s of thousands of jobs, making our economy poorer and more people dependent on being supported by government programs etc.
  I lament the disappearance of small, well run shops with caring owners who make fine products and charge a fair price.
  Unfortunately this trend is here to stay. Funny how the globalization of markets has nothing to do with healthy cross-cultural exchange, and everything to do with creating items Americans want as cheaply as possible, with miserable working conditions all round.
16. Re:nice by speculatrix · 2009-03-28 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  cheap imported goods are temporary benefits of globalisation - wages have been rising rapidly in India and China as the people there want a bigger share of the huge profit margin. Good examples are Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong: once, anything made there was cheap crap and each has pulled themselves off the bottom run of quality and price. This is beginning to happen in China, prices are rising. However, it's a slow process because China has a vast agrarian population to draw on who are cheap labour.
  
  Some of the big multinationals are now looking at Africa for manufacturing and call centres, where people don't want a salary, they just want to not starve, so will literally work for just food, water and shelter.
17. Re:nice by AmiMoJo · 2009-03-29 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  We already have this in the UK, and I can tell you that you really, really, REALLY don't want it.
  Years back people started to realise that we were being ripped off on a massive scale. Retailers used to call the Britain "Treasure Island". One notable example is car prices. There was an investigation that showed UK car prices were thousands of pounds higher than European ones. A guy from the car industry went on TV and blamed it all on being right-hand drive, import costs blah blah prices will definitely not come down, but people stopped buying new cars and eventually prices did fall by thousands to more realistic levels.
  Soon shops were having permanent sales, or having one really expensive shop in London and then advertising the goods as 80%+ off in their real stores. Naturally quality fell dramatically too, and high pressure selling of extended warranties and rip-off credit agreements rose.
  We are now starting to see a new breed of shop, based on European models. A less adversarial way of buying and selling, based on the seller being reasonable and fair, rather than constantly trying to maximise profit and minimise expense. I love shopping in Japan, because unlike the UK were you either feel like you "won" or were screwed over, the shops here treat you well, have reasonable prices and try to make you feel good about the whole experience.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-29 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  never mind that, what about barcode beasties!
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-03-27 07:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Charging 2.99 by geekoid · 2009-03-27 07:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

to people who don't want to pay for a movie? GLWT.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:Charging 2.99 by eln · 2009-03-27 07:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I assume there will be a cracked version out shortly.
2. Re:Charging 2.99 by castorvx · 2009-03-27 07:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Try not to confuse people who don't want to spend a ridiculous sum of money for a 90 minute film that probably sucks with people who are simply thieves.
  
  I suspect a lot of people download movies rather than paying for them because $30 for a movie is just not viable.
  
  People may well buy that application for $2.99, because $2.99 is a reasonable price for a little phone application.
3. Re:Charging 2.99 by MBGMorden · 2009-03-27 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Now that the idea is out there though, I'd imagine that the code could be easily reimplemented and the same functionality achieved with a FOSS app.
  If that makes it out there than all hope of squashing it is gone. They can kill a company, but not an idea (see Napster. Sure they're gone, but P2P is just a common as ever, because it's a hell of an idea and people like it).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
4. Re:Charging 2.99 by eln · 2009-03-27 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If $30 for a movie is unreasonable to you, there are plenty of other ways to see the movie without violating the law. You could go rent it at Blockbuster. Or you could get a Netflix account and get it there. There's no particular reason you need a permanent copy of the movie to call your own, especially if it "probably sucks".
  There are a lot of excuses as to why people download movies rather than renting them, but they're all pretty suspect.
5. Re:Charging 2.99 by Gat0r30y · 2009-03-27 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Its about convenience not price. Yea, some folks are just thieves but there is still a market out there for a convenient app like this. At least for some of us it isn't so much the "i don't want to pay for a movie I may not like" as it is "I have no need for another DVD laying around, I have no need for previews of other movies, the FBI warning, and DRM. So I'll rationalize my theft by saying its about convenience." As for the 2.99, a one time fee conveniently offered over the app store might be worth the cost.
  
  --
  Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
6. Re:Charging 2.99 by sogoodsofarsowhat · 2009-03-27 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sorry but if its about something for nothing. Its about PIRATES which is ANYONE who steals anothers work without paying for it and this is exactly what torrents are doing. Now im no fan of the MPAA/RIAA but if Andriod as a community continues to abuse things in this manner they WILL NEVER be taken seriously as a phone platform. Seriously, you want to be take seriously you have to learn you cant enable stealing from others. And that is what this app does...plain and simple. Further more if it is about convenience not price then Apple has already made this solution and Netflix and Voodoo or a host of others even Comcast. No this is pretty much about pirating movies so you dont have to pay for them. Laugh all you want iTunes store has done what no other online seller of music/movies has been able to do which is provide a simple / easy way to get the music/movies you want. It is not perfect but it is way better than pirating movies. Oh and if you think other phone makers will love Andriod for this...wait until the MPAA/RIAA sues the makers of the phones for their losses...unlike your grandmother...they are going to have some explaining to do.
  
  --
  . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
7. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  > What's wrong with waiting a whole four days and then buying the book yourself?
  The buying.
  > Or, waiting a few days longer and borrowing a used copy from a friend?
  The waiting.
  > Or, waiting a few days longer and buying a used copy via eBay?
  The buying.
  > Or, borrowing a copy from your local library when they have it?
  The waiting.
8. Re:Charging 2.99 by CannonballHead · 2009-03-27 08:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  People spend $30 at Starbucks in a week pretty easily, spend probably half an hour or so in line (presuming 10 visits to Starbucks at $3 each visit, 5 minutes in the store). Many still think that $30 (or even $15) for 1.5 to 3 hours of entertainment, no matter how bad it is, is too much.
  And Starbucks, IMO, isn't even all that great coffee.
  
  There are a lot of excuses as to why people download movies rather than renting them, but they're all pretty suspect.
  IMO, very true. Seems one of the more common ones is "Well if I like it, I'll buy it." Apparently, we only have to pay for what we use if we like it. Try doing that at a restaurant, hehe.
9. Re:Charging 2.99 by sbeckstead · 2009-03-27 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  If $30.00 is not viable then you don't have to buy it. If you don't buy it you don't get to have it anyway. A movie's cost is irrelevant to whether you are breaking the law or not. And there is no difference between people who don't want to pay a ridiculous sum for a 90 minute movie that probably sucks and people who download it anyway if they both download and watch it without paying for it. They are both simply thieves.
  
  --
  Why bother
10. Re:Charging 2.99 by ArsonSmith · 2009-03-27 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  so far, the only movies i've pirated are ones I saw in the theater and wanted to see again. I would find a cam version and watch it, sometimes a couple of times. I then will usually buy the DVD. When there is a movie that I like it is purely convince for me to download it, but then I am someone who can enjoy watching the same movie several times. I know many people who can only stand to see a movie once.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
11. Re:Charging 2.99 by amiga3D · 2009-03-27 08:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You offer many vaild points. The perception remains however that companies that charge 30 bucks for a shitty movie are practically thieves themselves. No one really feels guilty for stealing from thieves.
12. Re:Charging 2.99 by Hurricane78 · 2009-03-27 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oh.. ohh.. let me solve:
  Coffe is a addictive drug?
  Did I win the jackpot?
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
13. Re:Charging 2.99 by torkus · 2009-03-27 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding?
  Did I miss the /sarcasm somewhere?
  This will be the shining light for Android. An open platform will show the true desires of the majority population. If everyone felt the same way about 'piracy' then it wouldn't happen on anything approaching it's current scale. Unfortunately the laws are in conflict with the desires of the general public.
  Offer up something like this, i see a lot of people jumping on it and it bringing a lot of popularity from those who purchase phones and apps. Sure the MAFIAA will have a heart attack but their hissy fit will only serve to educate more people about the existance of this program.
  Other phone makers will hate Android for stealing marketshare when people realise they can get what they want from an open platform and abandon the DRM-ed to death closed trust-us-and-pay-dearly options.
  You confuse idealistic desires with the common behavior of the general public.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
14. Re:Charging 2.99 by RMingin · 2009-03-27 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Been there, done that.
  "Waiter, this steak tastes like shit. Get your boss out here so I can tell him I refuse to pay."
  Incredibly enough, the manager usually comes, and unless he thinks you're simply trying to scam a free meal, he'll usually apologize and offer to get you something else. If you decline, the demand of 'no charge' is typically accepted.
  Then again, resturants are an intensely consumer-driven industry where a good or bad review makes a difference, and they know it.
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
15. Re:Charging 2.99 by Hurricane78 · 2009-03-27 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  so far, the only movies i've pirated...
  Yarr matey! You too?
  These modern iron ships are so hard to conquer. But we arr harrderr! Rrright? ARRRR!
  P.S.: You got infected with **AA bullshit. Please disinfect yourself. And hand over your geek card too. Just to be sure.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
16. Re:Charging 2.99 by Chabil+Ha' · 2009-03-27 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not, but it really shows an unfulfilled need. Wouldn't it be cool if there were an app that did the same for a legal service such as Netflix? Maybe we should stop trying to demonize the way people use technology and adopt similar uses for legal activity. It just shows that consumers have and want greater control of their media. Content providers can adopt and change, or suffer at the hands of consumer ingenuity.
  
  --
  We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
17. Re:Charging 2.99 by ArsonSmith · 2009-03-27 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think you didn't get much past #1 in the definition.
  Please check #4. That is the definition I was intending.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
18. Re:Charging 2.99 by Chosen+Reject · 2009-03-27 08:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  People spend $30 at Starbucks in a week pretty easily, spend probably half an hour or so in line (presuming 10 visits to Starbucks at $3 each visit, 5 minutes in the store). Many still think that $30 (or even $15) for 1.5 to 3 hours of entertainment, no matter how bad it is, is too much.
  Did I read this correctly? You are equating going to Starbucks as the same thing as watching a movie? Since we're on the subject of comparing totally different things, I fill up my car with gas about every two weeks for about $30 after about 5 hours worth of driving. At those rates, 2 hour movies ought to cost $12, and a 1.5 hour movie ought to cost $9. A flight from Seattle to New York (about 6 hours) ought to cost $35, but more if it's non-stop. Since all forms of entertainment are the same, a 3 minute song on iTunes should now cost $0.30. I like this new form of determining price; it makes everything so simple.
  Also, I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA will be glad to know that everyone in Starbucks also complains about the price of movies and so pirates them all. This certainly gives them an easy place to go round up all the copyright infringers.
  
  --
  Stop Global Warming!
  Just say no to irreversible processes!
19. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  What's wrong with pirating movies? Everyone does it.
  Last time I checked my country was a democracy. Majority rule ... right?
20. Re:Charging 2.99 by LandDolphin · 2009-03-27 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Try not to confuse people who don't want to spend a ridiculous sum of money for a 90 minute film that probably sucks with people who are simply thieves.
  If you don't want to pay what it costs, don't watch it. Wait for it to show up on TV for free. But it is not a valid justification for violating the copyright. The price point of when you start to violate copyright ($0.00 for some, more for others) does not make you any different or better.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
21. Re:Charging 2.99 by ArsonSmith · 2009-03-27 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pirate
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
22. Re:Charging 2.99 by el_womble · 2009-03-27 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  If could download coffee, I would.
  
  --
  Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
23. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  These dictionaries seem to disagree with you. Please re-educate your self.
  pirate [pahy-ruht] noun, verb, -rated, -rating.
  -noun
  4. a person who uses or reproduces the work or invention of another without authorization.
  -verb (used with object)
  8. to use or reproduce (a book, an invention, etc.) without authorization or legal right: to pirate hit records.
  -verb (used without object)
  pirate
  n.
  3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
  v. pirated, pirating, pirates
  3. To make use of or reproduce (another's work) without authorization.
  Pirate
  Pi"rate\, n. [L. pirata, Gr. ?, fr. ? to attempt, undertake, from making attempts or attacks on ships, ? an attempt, trial; akin to E. peril: cf. F. pirate. See Peril.]
  3. One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.
24. Re:Charging 2.99 by Seto89 · 2009-03-27 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's about convenience. Provided good internet connection you can get pretty much anything at any time of the day without leaving the warmth of your room. And the choice is enormous!
  
  --
  There are two kinds of people - those who are radioactive and those who have already decayed..
25. Re:Charging 2.99 by CannonballHead · 2009-03-27 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The point is spending money on something not necessary (coffee, especially Starbucks branded, is not necessary), not money -> hours necessarily. Point with the Starbucks thing was actually that people are willing to pay more money than its worth (IMO, of course) AND wait in line for X amount of time.
  I was not attempting to say that everyone who pirates movies also drinks coffee. However, I'm pretty sure some of the poeple that drink Starbucks coffee, epsecially with all the techies that go there, also pirate movies. And students. And ... etc.
26. Re:Charging 2.99 by sricetx · 2009-03-27 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot of excuses as to why people download movies rather than renting them, but they're all pretty suspect.
  
  How about this excuse: Just another way to stick it to the man.
  To hell with these large media corporations, their DRM, their lobbying to buy my government, their longstanding battle against *my* fair use rights, and their generally customer unfriendly policies.
27. Re:Charging 2.99 by The+End+Of+Days · 2009-03-27 09:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I kinda wish you had logged in. You gave the first respectable list of reasons to pirate this site has ever seen, without succumbing to the temptation to make it look noble. I commend your honesty, even in the face of your cowardice.
28. Re:Charging 2.99 by rolfwind · 2009-03-27 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Redbox. Can't beat $1 rental at the grocery store. (Between that, netflix, and gamefly - blockbuster will probably go out of business in 5 years).
29. Re:Charging 2.99 by eln · 2009-03-27 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I like redbox too, but their selection (by necessity I guess, since it's just a little box) is just horrible. I still go to Blockbuster if I want a movie right now and redbox doesn't have it. Of course, that's probably too small a niche for a company with the overhead Blockbuster has to survive in.
30. Re:Charging 2.99 by Hurricane78 · 2009-03-27 09:34 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  That fourth "definition" is made-up bogus fearmongering bullshit, straight from the **AA headquarters. Which was exactly my point.
  Appealing to authority (the dictionary) does not change anything.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
31. Re:Charging 2.99 by icebraining · 2009-03-27 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't buy DVDs, but I don't pirate them either. The net effect to the producers/sellers in 0. No profit or loss. Now suppose that I, in a act of pure thievery, downloaded a *copy* of a DVD. What's the new net effect to the producers/sellers?
  Yes, exactly.
  Now, the question is: if I had a machine that could make a duplicated of a car without affecting the original, would it be thievery?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
32. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  A flick would have to be special and of very good quality to waste disk space on it. Most people will burn it to a DVD if they want to keep it that badly.
  But the majority of people watch it and delete it when disk space is needed.
  I company called "Critical Mention" saves 60 channels to HD and sells it to the public in a goolge "like" search environment.
  Torrent junkies give it away. A simple tax on the media, HD, PC's, and DVR's would should resolve the issue.
  Just my 2cents.
33. Re:Charging 2.99 by hurfy · 2009-03-27 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  He also didn't provide an alternative... ... that I've copyright infringed... ... that I've infringed copyright upon... ... that i copied without permission under questionable circumstances...
  ??? GP, please clarify the corrections needed to his sentence
  Not that it matters...most of us aren't typing all that crap ;p
  Maybe we will just use the alternate definition... :)
34. Re:Charging 2.99 by meuhlavache · 2009-03-27 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Please share the bar code when you got it!
35. Re:Charging 2.99 by mjeffers · 2009-03-27 10:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]). The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
  So in other words, your original post and your followup are both pretty much completely wrong.
36. Re:Charging 2.99 by morghanphoenix · 2009-03-27 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I use redbox myself, $1 a day for movies, much beter than blockbuster and since I rent so few a month better than netflix as well. So far I've only felt cheated on one movie I've rented, it has to be really bad to not be worth $1 to watch.
37. Re:Charging 2.99 by sbeckstead · 2009-03-27 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming you paid for the parts, the energy the machine takes, and the engineering time of the guys that designed the car and all its parts and systems then I guess it wouldn't be thievery of any kind.
  
  --
  Why bother
38. Re:Charging 2.99 by sbeckstead · 2009-03-27 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh and you have enriched yourself to the tune of a bit of someone else sweat and not given the rightful owner his due so I guess you are right, there is no impact there either.
  
  --
  Why bother
39. Re:Charging 2.99 by morghanphoenix · 2009-03-27 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  I used to spend more than $30 a week on coffee, then I moved to an area where I'd have to make those purchases at Starbucks, now I spend $0 a week. I have nothing against paying for something, I do have something against paying the name brand markup for an inferior product. Why would I pay the same price for a drip coffee that tastes burnt at Starbucks as I would have paid for an amazingly tasty drink at my old coffee shop?
40. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't believe in logging in.
41. Re:Charging 2.99 by CannonballHead · 2009-03-27 11:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I actually just make it myself. I've even gotten into a small amount of coffee roasting, it's pretty fun and tastes much different when you actually get fresh (i.e., roasted 5 minutes ago) coffee. And real cream.
  I go to Starbucks probably once every two months, and most coffee expenditures for me are for beans (either green or roasted, depending on the status of my roaster) and milk and/or cream...
42. Re:Charging 2.99 by geekoid · 2009-03-27 11:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you can't afford something, then you don't get it. If you don't think it's a good value, then don't buy it.
  You are not owed a movie.
  and what movie costs 30 bucks?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
43. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  no, but you do win a free letter E that i had laying around. look s like you need it more than me...
44. Re:Charging 2.99 by Ashriel · 2009-03-27 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I fill up my car with gas about every two weeks for about $30 after about 5 hours worth of driving. At those rates, 2 hour movies ought to cost $12, and a 1.5 hour movie ought to cost $9. A flight from Seattle to New York (about 6 hours) ought to cost $35, but more if it's non-stop. Since all forms of entertainment are the same, a 3 minute song on iTunes should now cost $0.30.
  I know you were being sarcastic, but except for the airline ticket, all the prices you quoted seem to be right on, IMO. I'd pay $150 for a 6 hour flight.
45. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  Complaint to management, happens frequently enough in non-fast food. The trick is finding fault with the food(metal shaving in the ground beef, glass in the drink amongst the ice, etc.
46. Re:Charging 2.99 by Aladrin · 2009-03-27 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you pay $30 for a movie and watch it only once, you are an -idiot-.
  For your $30, you get more than 3 hours... You get 3 hours times however many times you watch it. For a good movie, I expect to want to watch it 5 or more times over the next 5 years.
  So if you look at it like that, then renting it for $2 a pop is a good deal, and you don't have to worry about losing it in the mean time... Or floods... Or fires... Or...
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
47. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  (coffee, especially Starbucks branded, is not necessary)
  Coffee isn't necessary?
  Coffee provides America with a constant, relatively cheap mental stimulus and provides health benefits for millions of Americans.
  Coffee fuels information workers and industries. Coffee trade provides third world countries with a significant source of income and an alternative to producing hard drugs. Coffee lowers the risk of diabetes, colon cancer, and Parkinson's. Coffee tastes delicious. Coffee helps with depression and helps former addicts on the road to recovery.
  I don't have exact numbers but you can assume that the positive effect of coffee consumption in America is in the billions of dollars.
  Personally, I'd value daily coffee intake at about 10% of my productivity at work.
  If every American stopped drinking coffee tomorrow, we'd probably go into a recession... oh wait...
48. Re:Charging 2.99 by Abreu · 2009-03-27 11:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I go to starbucks for the "buy a small coffee, stay in a comfy chair with free electricity and wifi for hours" promotion
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
49. Re:Charging 2.99 by Dan541 · 2009-03-27 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  If $30 for a movie is unreasonable to you, there are plenty of other ways to see the movie without violating the law. You could go rent it at Blockbuster. Or you could get a Netflix account and get it there.
  Or you can go to ThePirateBay which is certainly the best option.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
50. Re:Charging 2.99 by ravenshrike · 2009-03-27 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, nothing in hurricane's post except for that which lies between the comma and first period remains untrue.
51. Re:Charging 2.99 by Abreu · 2009-03-27 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think you misunderstood the parent poster.
  If he had a machine that could duplicate a car without affecting the original, he wouldn't be paying for engineering time of anyone, because the end product he's copying (the car) is already finished.
  And no, even in that case it would not be thievery in my opinion, although the automakers would probably want to argue patent infringement and would send an army of lobbyists to washington to outlaw such duplication machines...
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
52. Re:Charging 2.99 by icebraining · 2009-03-27 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  So, I should pay for the "parts", the "energy" to make the copy and the "engineering"/development time. The "parts", in this case is disk space, which I have paid for. The "energy" is my bandwidth/CPU (which I have also paid for) and bandwidth/CPU from the guy who is sharing with me and donates that to me.
  So now, who can I pay the guys that really made the content (read: artists) without having to pay for the "parts" nor the "energy" (read: sucking companies) ?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
53. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 12:29 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Apparently, we only have to pay for what we use if we like it. Try doing that at a restaurant, hehe.
  Buskers survive on this payment model, because it doesn't cost them anything to have more people watching the show. The same applies to movies when distributed via bittorrent. It does not apply to restaurants.
54. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  But what if this application worked to notify you of which one of your friends had this movie? And to save time they simply electronically sent it to you? And then what if that network of friends got large enough that you started using an application to keep track of all the shares?
  
  I dont think people using the first rule of kindergarten are thieves.
  
  That said, I use Netflix and I am lucky if I have time for a movie a month. I wouldnt mind an application that automatically added a movie to my Netflix queue I suppose.
55. Re:Charging 2.99 by Rue+C+Koegel · 2009-03-27 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  i'm all for netflix... to me they have both reasonable plans, and a fairly sizable database of movies to rent via mail. however they need to be granted the 'right' legally to make digital copies of all of those movies too... i prefer movies on demand, but their digital database is extremely limited because of our failed copyright law; and if this werent so, i'm sure more companies would make their own databases of digital film for distributing via streaming media services.
  if the for-profit monopolies want to survive they really need to embrace new technologies not shun them, as they have been since people were first able to duplicate another persons work. their efforts to stop technology from moving forward and their efforts to limit peoples control over access to entertainment media just makes them look worse and worse and worse.
  my generation was raised to spite them, and my child will learn about their behavior as well, as well as why it occurs, and how to stop it. surely other parents will tell their children too... and sooner or later, if they don't stop this madness, they'll simply be replaced.
  
  --
  DON'T CAPITALIZE! CO-OPERATE! AND FREE EVERYTHING!
56. Re:Charging 2.99 by castorvx · 2009-03-27 14:48 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Such high quality films as this.
57. Re:Charging 2.99 by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2009-03-27 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  How about using sensible figures? It's hard to respect an opinion when they are backed up with the sloppy use of facts, or exaggeration.
  For one, if a movie really sucks, why even download it? It's a paper-thin excuse to justify the activity. It's not hard to look at the rotten tomato score or a couple reviews to see that it's not worth the money or the bandwidth.
  Most movies that I've seen for sale don't cost $30 at a typical store unless you're buying a special edition (fancy package, extra discs, bonus features, Blu-Ray) or it's selling into a really niche market. Lots of standard edition movies I've seen are available for $15-$20. And that's for a new release. Eventually, in maybe one to three years, most movies get down to $5-$7 a piece.
58. Re:Charging 2.99 by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2009-03-27 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Huh. The whining.
59. Re:Charging 2.99 by snowraver1 · 2009-03-27 16:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have a home.
  
  --
  Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
60. Re:Charging 2.99 by retchdog · 2009-03-27 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck coffee. Caffeine pills. Cents on the dollar; less variability in dosage; and easier on your stomach to boot.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
61. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 17:51 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  in the words of the late Freddy Mercury:
  I want it all, and I want it NOW!
62. Re:Charging 2.99 by Arthur+Grumbine · 2009-03-27 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  Appealing to authority (the dictionary) does not change anything.
  If irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now...
  
  --
  Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
63. Re:Charging 2.99 by Arthur+Grumbine · 2009-03-27 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  Feed ye not the trolls!! Lest they grow strong beyond our imaginin'!
  
  --
  Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
64. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  the law as it stands deserves to be violated until it is changed into something reasonable.
65. Re:Charging 2.99 by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2009-03-27 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but if they don't want it, or they can't afford it, what makes you think they deserve it?
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
66. Re:Charging 2.99 by hachete · 2009-03-27 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  the subtitles. Lot of people out there want to see movies but the ones they want to see haven't sub-titles for the country where they live.
  
  --
  Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
67. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-28 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  There are a lot of excuses as to why people download movies rather than renting them, but they're all pretty suspect.
  There are a lot of excuses the MPAA gives for piracy always being bad, but they're all pretty suspect.
68. Re:Charging 2.99 by Ihmhi · 2009-03-28 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  If the meal is godawful, often they'll compensate you at a restaurant. Ditto on a bug in it or something like that.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
69. Re:Charging 2.99 by Egregius · 2009-03-28 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well the example the GP mentioned, the Pirates of the Amazon Firefox plugin, is a great example of an unkillable idea. The creators only made it as a sort of prank and university-project and in fact only told a number of their friends about it when they launched it, so when Amazon 'asked' them to take it down after 2 days of internetfrenzy, they did. But google for 'pirates of the amazon', and you can still find a download link under the second hit.
70. Re:Charging 2.99 by ColdWetDog · 2009-03-28 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  sez someone who's nick is "retchdog".
  
  Oh, the irony. And right here on Slasddot...
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
71. Re:Charging 2.99 by castorvx · 2009-03-28 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they deserve it, or what they are doing is necessarily the right thing to do. I was simply making a point about why people steal movies. My point is that most people probably don't steal because they refuse to buy anything, but more likely because the prices are so high.
72. Re:Charging 2.99 by alx5000 · 2009-03-28 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  You evil bourgeois!
  
  --
  My 0.02 cents
73. Re:Charging 2.99 by Hurricane78 · 2009-03-28 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Angry? Yes.
  Facts? ALSO YES.
  Flamebait? No.
  Moderator was a Troll? Definitely. :)
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
74. Re:Charging 2.99 by retchdog · 2009-03-28 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Good call.
  I'll be watching you; when you make a post about umbrellas or raincoats... I'll be there. ;-)
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
75. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-30 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  People spend $30 at Starbucks in a week pretty easily, spend probably half an hour or so in line (presuming 10 visits to Starbucks at $3 each visit, 5 minutes in the store).
  People are stupid, drug-addicted morons. News at 11.
76. Re:Charging 2.99 by sbeckstead · 2009-03-30 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but in any retail transaction, you don't get to cut out the middle man. That's the nature of the beast. But yeah, go on there's absolutely no impact to your copying those movies, as was pointed out.
  
  --
  Why bother
77. Re:Charging 2.99 by sbeckstead · 2009-03-30 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and by already finished, you mean that the design time of the engineers was paid for by the manufacturer, the first prototype engineering and testing and safety testing was paid for by um ditto. So yeah no larceny there at all, go right ahead.
  
  --
  Why bother
78. Re:Charging 2.99 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  "There are a lot of excuses" - Nope, just a few.
  - Easy
  - Free
  - Fast
  - No consequences
  Make me a better offer and I'll stop infringing copyright, an institution I don't believe in anyway. I consider it my moral duty to break the law when the law is wrong - don't you?
Android... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-03-27 07:54 · Score: 4, Funny

For a moment, I thought that they were saying that Lt. Cmdr. Data was now using BitTorrent.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
1. Re:Android... by Nebulious · 2009-03-27 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  It would only be fair. If anyone is allowed to download those episodes, it's him.
2. Re:Android... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 20:57 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, Data's dead.. even if B4 has his memories.
  - sad ST:TNG fan
This isn't an iPhone by GweeDo · 2009-03-27 07:55 · Score: 4, Funny

You can install apps that aren't blessed by the Hand of Steve. This app might not stay on the store, but it sure won't go away...now where is my Windows Mobile version?

--
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
1. Re:This isn't an iPhone by pak9rabid · 2009-03-27 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  This app might not stay on the store, but it sure won't go away.
  Cydia ftw ;)
2. Re:This isn't an iPhone by Theoboley · 2009-03-27 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed with this. This needs to come to WM.
  though my phone doesnt have the ability to read barcodes, i'd be happier than hell to input the barcode manually....
  Then again... there's not really any decent movies worth downloading that have come out recently anyhow.
  
  --
  Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
3. Re:This isn't an iPhone by cortesoft · 2009-03-27 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Umm, you would rather enter the barcode manually to search for a movie torrent in an app than to enter the name of the movie in a search? May I ask why? Is there something I am missing?
4. Re:This isn't an iPhone by sbeckstead · 2009-03-27 08:24 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  So you only steal it if it is really good! Nice!
  
  --
  Why bother
5. Re:This isn't an iPhone by ducomputergeek · 2009-03-27 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Cool app, but where are the android users? We've been looking at mobile smartphone development for our products and android isn't a blip on the radar. Our big internal debate was whether to support blackberry or iPhone first. Why? We're in a college town. The demographic we're targeting either have an iPhone or a Blackberry. And it is surprisingly evenly split. We have yet to see a single Android phone in the wild.
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
6. Re:This isn't an iPhone by Theoboley · 2009-03-27 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  If i'm at best buy, AFK, and see a movie i want, Instead of forgetting about it, I could enter said barcode into my phone, and poof. Done.
  
  --
  Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
7. Re:This isn't an iPhone by cortesoft · 2009-03-27 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  You could also enter the name of the movie into your phone, and poof. Done.
  I would think typing the name of the movie would be easier than typing a barcode. A barcode is a random string of at least 11 digits or so, where a movie name should be fairly easy to hold in your head while you type it into your phone.
8. Re:This isn't an iPhone by isaac338 · 2009-03-27 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Still doesn't explain why you couldn't just type in the title of the movie...
9. Re:This isn't an iPhone by SCPRedMage · 2009-03-27 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  There is something you're missing here, yes. When the GP said "type in the barcode", he was actually referring to typing in the number that the machine-readable barcode represents.
  
  Since this number is printed underneath the barcode, typing out this number is a HELL of a lot simpler than typing a name on a phone.
  
  --
  My sig can beat up your sig.
10. Re:This isn't an iPhone by cortesoft · 2009-03-27 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't all the Android phones have physical qwerty keyboards? I would think typing a movie name would be easier, because you would have to lift up the movie, look at the barcode while typing it in and checking to make sure you got it exactly right. The name of the movie could just be remembered for a second while you type it in.
11. Re:This isn't an iPhone by SCPRedMage · 2009-03-27 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Come on, now, keep up. Theoboley was talking about getting this kind of thing on Windows Mobile based phones, most of which lack keyboards.
  
  --
  My sig can beat up your sig.
12. Re:This isn't an iPhone by SCPRedMage · 2009-03-27 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Probably should have put a little more in there...
  
  Again, we're talking about WM-based phones, lacking QWERTY keyboards and barcode reading. Even considering that the UPC would be a little harder to remember, it would still be easier/faster to type in a number as opposed to a name on a phone. Even if the phone had a touchscreen keyboard, an on-screen numberpad would have larger buttons, and thus easier to type a number in quickly.
  
  --
  My sig can beat up your sig.
13. Re:This isn't an iPhone by cortesoft · 2009-03-27 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Damn it, my personal windows filter must have prevented me from seeing that it was a windows mobile phone. Although it still seems like too much work to have to enter a barcode, I can at least understand now the motivation behind not wanting to enter the name of the movie.
14. Re:This isn't an iPhone by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  I've been looking for any software that scans 1D barcodes with a built in camera on windows mobile and I have found nothing. Does anyone have something even vaguely similar to this?
15. Re:This isn't an iPhone by ravenshrike · 2009-03-27 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Standard phone layout makes it much easier to type in a number without errors than it does text.
16. Re:This isn't an iPhone by Theoboley · 2009-03-27 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Then you send me a link to a program that works on Windows Mobile that will download torrents and save the files to my phone. Thats what im looking for.
  
  --
  Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
17. Re:This isn't an iPhone by denttford · 2009-03-27 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.adisasta.com/wmTorrent.html
  
  HTH.
  
  --
  
  Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
They charge you for it? by d474 · 2009-03-27 07:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sounds like a nefarious MPAA plot. They've got your intent (barcode) and identity (paypal/credit card).

If the MPAA didn't hatch this idea, I bet they wish they would have.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
1. Re:They charge you for it? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't the usual statement that downloading isn't illegal, it's the uploading that people get in trouble for?
2. Re:They charge you for it? by racas · 2009-03-27 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  The thing about torrents is that once you have a portion of the file downloaded, your client begins uploading. So you ARE an uploader.
3. Re:They charge you for it? by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-03-27 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was actually Engadget (or maybe it was a comment on Engadget) a few weeks ago that sparked the idea. I remember saying "hahaha...just wait until someone makes this, then it'll be a reason to ban torrenting in the US".
4. Re:They charge you for it? by icebraining · 2009-03-27 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there are mods (http://leechermods.blogspot.com/2007/01/azureus-2502-shu-mod-ddj-hack-223185.html) to disable the uploading while enabling downloading.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
5. Re:They charge you for it? by SCPRedMage · 2009-03-30 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that the downloading is legal, 'cause it's not. It's that the penalties for downloading are NOTHING compared to the penalties for distributing.
  
  --
  My sig can beat up your sig.
Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 seconds? by Em+Emalb · 2009-03-27 07:59 · Score: 3, Funny

"How long do you think this will last?"
If there is a market and people are willing (think iTunesVideo) then I'm sure it won't take long for the MPAA to start suing.
You know, in the old days we had to go to the theater (oops, sorry, that's theatre for our friends across the pond) and sit with 200 of our closest friends to watch a movie. And we liked it that way.
Damned kids and your fancy technogoogle phones.
What's next? Video texting?

--
Sent from your iPad.
Quality? by TheRaven64 · 2009-03-27 08:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Will it find a version with quality appropriate to playback on the device? Ripping a DVD and transcoding it to play back on a mobile device is often more effort than I can be bothered with. Being able to just wave the device at one of my DVDs and have it automatically grab an appropriate copy would be great.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
1. Re:Quality? by castorvx · 2009-03-27 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's up to you. It's basically a way of taking a bar code, converting that into a product name, and then using that product name to search popular torrent sites. Which torrent you download is the user's choice.
2. Re:Quality? by c1t1z3nk41n3 · 2009-03-27 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well I suppose clicking 5 or 6 times before going to bed could be considered too much effort but in case you haven't checked your options recently check out dvd decrypter and handbrake. I find it to be very easy to reencode dvds (and other video sources) to watch on my phone that way.
3. Re:Quality? by hansamurai · 2009-03-27 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  The application is not made for instant gratification, you're still downloading the torrent on a dedicated, static IP machine that has its uTorrent/Vuze apis exposed via the web.
  
  --
  Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
4. Re:Quality? by MMC+Monster · 2009-03-27 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  You may be interested in Handbrake. It transcodes DVDs for various formats.
  Can target various mobile formats. Now available on Ubuntu (now with a GUI), Windows, and OS X.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
scan and download? by DaveV1.0 · 2009-03-27 08:01 · Score: 0, Redundant

How is this not enabling copyright infringement?

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
1. Re:scan and download? by manekineko2 · 2009-03-27 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Just off the top of my head, the use case defense might be for people that want to transcode DVDs that they already own to an electronic format, they can just use the scanner on their own DVDs and the "transcoding" is done automatically in the background and arrives in the next few hours.
2. Re:scan and download? by sbeckstead · 2009-03-27 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  It is, but pretty much any computing device enables that. this just ups the convenience factor.
  
  --
  Why bother
3. Re:scan and download? by Overzeetop · 2009-03-27 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, very nice indeed. You might call it crowdsourcing your transcoding tasks to minimize both wasted computational power and personal time. In fact, I might go so far as to call this a "green" technology for home theater buffs. Oddly enough, I already do this. I don't own a BD drive, but I own the discs. I use the net to download pre-compressed copies that will play on both my media server and popcorn hour. Now, I'm not all good and light; I've probably got 20-30 titles (out of about 400-450) for which I don't own a physical copy. Then again, that's probably close to the number of movies in my collection I haven't ever watched (hey, I busy). The two sets only have about a 30-50% intersecion.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
4. Re:scan and download? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-28 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't use VPN...yet. Besides, fuck copyright!
  :-) smile
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:04 · Score: 0

What's next? Video texting?
This made me laugh though probably for the wrong reasons. I read this and thought of someone making a video of themselves texting it just seems to fit with the pointless nature of some of these things.
I can't get behind it... by erroneus · 2009-03-27 08:06 · Score: 1

... well maybe I can. The reality is that if I am in a store that sells whatever it is I am interested in seeing, chances are good that I am prepared to buy it. There are rare moments, however, where I might just be curious about it and will want to preview it.
Still, this sounds like a commercial opportunity for media distributors everywhere. If I am curious enough to just want to preview something, that application could easily be modified to indicate my interest in seeing it online somewhere at which point I could pay like $1 for the privilege of seeing it as a stream or something like that. It would be a sale they wouldn't likely otherwise have. More often than not, if I am merely curious about a title, I will simply pass it by unless someone I know had already endorsed it.
1. Re:I can't get behind it... by dbcad7 · 2009-03-27 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think this is intended for use in a physical store.. seeing as the way you download this program, is to scan your screen., I think that basically it is using a barcode scan like a download link (no typing)... Since I don't have an android phone, this is my WAG (wild assed guess) but makes more sense than reading a barcode at WallyWorld.
  
  --
  waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
2. Re:I can't get behind it... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  [posted anonymously for obvious reasons]
  
  I agree. I generally dislike piracy of any type. The *ONE* non-FOSS thing I use Bittorrent for (old, like 1st doctor, Dr. Who episodes) aren't conveniently available any other way. They aren't in stores (the ones around here, anyway). They aren't on iTunes. I'm not going to wait a week to get them mailorder or pay priority shipping. And, when I want them, I want them today, anyway. I bought all my Torchwoods on iTunes and when I reach the later ones they carry, I'll buy my newer Dr. Whos on iTunes as well.
  
  If you have a DVD box in your hand and still want to torrent it, you're just trying to cost someone a legal sale.
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by D+Ninja · 2009-03-27 08:07 · Score: 4, Funny

What's next? Video texting?
Been there. Done that, old man. We're now onto Googlefacevidtweettubing.
Everybody's doing it.
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by Loko+Draucarn · 2009-03-27 08:08 · Score: 1

What's next? Video texting?
Nah, the only thing anyone knows how to say over that is Y-M-C-A.
Because what a movie pirate needs is a bigger p by bombastinator · 2009-03-27 08:12 · Score: 1

Seems terribly convenient. The RIAA can use their special civil rights ignoring superpowers to monitor the channel and bill your cell phone account automatically.
1. Re:Because what a movie pirate needs is a bigger p by damburger · 2009-03-28 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  A bit paranoid, but then again a small amount of paranoia is healthy in this day and age.
  I wouldn't have thought they would be able to do a blanket search and start adding money to peoples phone bills though. The phone companies would fight it for a start; they would be the ones pissing off their customers. Generally, communication providers have been resistant to freedom-infringing moves from content providers unless the communication provider is also in the business of content providing (i.e. Virgin).
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Killing Android by shmlco · 2009-03-27 08:19 · Score: 1

They may not be able to kill an idea, but they CAN kill the platform.
IMHO, these kinds of "screw the man" applications only serve to tanish the image of the Android platform. And remember, you need a network on which to run an Android phone, and in the US that means Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
Corporate America at its finest. And if they decide that only hackers, ripoff artists, freeloaders, and other "troublemakers" are using Android, they'll drop it like a hot potato and never look back...

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
1. Re:Killing Android by MBGMorden · 2009-03-27 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Corporate America at its finest. And if they decide that only hackers, ripoff artists, freeloaders, and other "troublemakers" are using Android, they'll drop it like a hot potato and never look back...
  You're neglecting to factor in corporate greed. You see, while some cell phone companies have some vested interest in media distribution, many do not. Cricket, for example (and they're by far not the only one) doesn't really give a damn whether or not people are pirating movies or not. They're not in that business, so it doesn't hurt them. What they care about is whether they are making THEIR money. As such, if all the other carries drop the platform, then there creates a niche for a carrier that WILL carry it (or really, any other programmable phone). That company that has a genuine profit opportunity for all those customers to now use THEM. Sure Sony, MGM, Universal, etc might be losing out, but as long as their carrier makes their $$$ then they don't care.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
How long do I think this will last? by Ynsats · 2009-03-27 08:19 · Score: 1

Well, probably only about...5...4...3...2...
1. Re:How long do I think this will last? by hosecoat · 2009-03-27 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  forever!
Wait and plunder? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:20 · Score: 0

If the MPAA didn't hatch this idea, I bet they wish they would have.
I dunno about that to be honost. From what I've read about that gang on /. it wouldn't surprise me if they'd simply let this continue for a while and then bust in to seize the customer database. Then they would have intent, the felony act to be commited (remember: its called file sharing for a reason) and I'd assume enough data to track such a customer down.
I think I'll stick to the old fashioned way :)
"Downloads the movie"... which one? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:28 · Score: 0

Given the dozen of formats and CODECs, not to mention the choice of resolution (not always but sometimes available), how the hell does it choose which torrent to use?
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:29 · Score: 0

Please no! the last thing I need is to get 2girls1cup on my cell phone
I don't remember the name of the movie but by ClosedSource · 2009-03-27 08:31 · Score: 1

now all I have to do is draw the bar code and scan!
Did you know? by rirugrat · 2009-03-27 08:41 · Score: 1

More IT Pros Could Turn To E-Crime In Poor Economy?
DIY by migla · 2009-03-27 08:42 · Score: 1

Surely one can run a home brew python (or whatever) program to do the same? Or can the phone be locked down even beyond that? (serious question)

--
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
1. Re:DIY by AvitarX · 2009-03-27 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that by default you need to use the Android Java environment. I am skeptical that a python interpreter is written within those confines.
  If you root it (or have the developers version I assume) you can install Debian ARM, and probably install python (I assume the bar is lower for python than LXDE which I have seen screenshots of).
  Since it is really being sold as an appliance, and not a computer, as a normal folk you don't have access outside of the bounds they set for you.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Irony by LingNoi · 2009-03-27 08:49 · Score: 1

Retail price is $2.99. Justin is a very talented developer and offers quality support for his products. If you would like to see new features, please purchase and support his app.
So are the people that you're ripping off when using this program to download stuff.
Is it some kind of joke that he expects people who pirate stuff to buy an app that lets you pirate stuff?
Questions by sharkey · 2009-03-27 08:53 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It is available in an animal-themed dildo casing, and are they giving them away for free at Radio Shack?

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Citation by Kadagan+AU · 2009-03-27 09:02 · Score: 1

For those who want to know more

--
This space for rent, inquire within.
Dupe? by jgtg32a · 2009-03-27 09:04 · Score: 1

Wasn't this article up like a week ago?

Or maybe someone commented that someone should make an app like this.
Somewhere out there, by spacefiddle · 2009-03-27 09:51 · Score: 3, Funny

the CueCat people are howling.

--
That which does not kill us makes us... st
"download the movie from BitTorrent" by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2009-03-27 09:57 · Score: 3, Informative

BitTorrent is not a place. It's a protocol. Correct usage would be "download the movie via BitTorrent".

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Song of the South by tepples · 2009-03-27 09:58 · Score: 1

If you don't want to pay what it costs, don't watch it. Wait for it to show up on TV for free.If you don't want to pay what it costs, don't watch it. Wait for it to show up on TV for free.
I want to watch the film Song of the South legitimately. The copyright owner has declined to authorize the broadcast of the film or the sale of copies on DVD, and I'm not willing to pay over $17 billion for a majority stake in the copyright owner. What's the next step?
1. Re:Song of the South by LandDolphin · 2009-03-27 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Short answer: Don't watch it
  
  It is the property of whoever owns the copy right. IF they choose not to share it, you don't get to. It is theirs, not yours. You do not have a right to something they created, and/or purchased the rights to.
  
  Bad analogy time:
  
  I do not have a "right" to watch your home movies. Just because you refuse to let me, does not give me the right to break into your house and watch them.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
2. Re:Song of the South by icebraining · 2009-03-27 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Really bad analogy: in that case, he would have been breaking in the guy's home (violating private property) and watching private footage (violating privacy), no of which applies in this case, as AFAIK P2P sharing doesn't require house breaking, and a movie displayed in cinemas all over the US is hardly private, so who is he hurting?
  Remember, we are not law-abiding robots. Humans made the laws, and they are subject to changes. Law breaking is not an ethical argument, as the laws follow the people's ethic code and not the reverse.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
3. Re:Song of the South by LandDolphin · 2009-03-27 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  "so who is he hurting?"
  
  Does it matter? Why does someone have to be hurt?
  
  "violating private property" & "violating privacy"
  
  Isn't violating a copyright the same as violating someone property and their privacy? Isnt what they own their private property that they can choose to share with you or not? removing the breaking into your home part, what makes your home videos any more private then someone else's movie or music?
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
4. Re:Song of the South by tepples · 2009-03-28 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't violating a copyright the same as violating someone property and their privacy?
  The constitution of the country where Disney is headquartered states that copyright exists "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". If a film has already been widely exhibited to the general public, how does withholding the sale of copies in the same manner as other films that have been similarly exhibited "promote [] Progress"?
  
  Isnt what they own their private property that they can choose to share with you or not?
  Disney made that choice decades ago when it released Song of the South in theaters.
5. Re:Song of the South by LandDolphin · 2009-03-28 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  How does you watching it for free "promote Progress"?
  
  Sure, you can give rare cases where it could, but in raelity, it's just you wanting to watch stuff for free.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
6. Re:Song of the South by tepples · 2009-03-28 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  How does you watching it for free "promote Progress"?
  I never said it did. I just think it would be more fair if I could send Disney's store $25 from my PayPal and it would ship me a DVD of Song of the South.
7. Re:Song of the South by Renegade+Iconoclast · 2009-03-28 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  We have rights guaranteed by the constitution that are in direct conflict with the law, though. Perhaps if copyright terms were reasonable, like 20 years, people would come to appreciate the commons, and pay for newer content. Telling me I have to pay 15-20 bucks for an album released in 1963 is outrageous, and I think most people intuitively see it as outrageous, even if they've never heard of Lawrence Lessig.
  The way I see it, our rights have been repeatedly violated by Disney and congress. There's no reasonable argument that 75 years plus the life of the author is a "limited time." It's longer than the average lifespan of the people who wrote the constitution.
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by dudeeh · 2009-03-27 10:01 · Score: 1

What I never get when it comes to these copyright-infringing applications and cease and desist notices being sent about and what not...why not simply host it outside the US? How can anyone actually stop applications such as this is they are hosted all over say Europe and Asia. Outside of the US (and the UK, which I generally see as America's sidekick), there are a lot of countries without such stringent laws or where they are simply not being enforced as much as in the US.
(serious question by the way, I always wonder about this when I see copyright infringement, patent cases etc...)
PS: I don't mean big companies who have to actually be legitimate entities in order to do bussiness, I'm talking about small programs made in someone's free time
Phone sold separately by tepples · 2009-03-27 10:02 · Score: 1

you need a network on which to run an Android phone, and in the US that means Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
I thought a multi-band GSM phone with no subsidy lock could operate with any GSM network's SIM card. Am I mistaken?
Green Bases is the place to be by tepples · 2009-03-27 10:06 · Score: 1

I would think typing the name of the movie would be easier than typing a barcode. A barcode is a random string of at least 11 digits or so, where a movie name should be fairly easy to hold in your head while you type it into your phone.
One can enter a 13-digit EAN blind, using the DTMF key-clicks to let you know when you've miskeyed it. T9, on the other hand, needs a lot of manual cleaning up after it: Green Acres isn't spelled Green Bases.
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 11:32 · Score: 0

(oops, sorry, that's theatre for our friends across the pond
... and to the North)
Thanks,
Oft-neglected Canada
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 15:49 · Score: 0

tweettubing.
a grotesque tub girl variant involving big bird?
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by carterhawk001 · 2009-03-27 17:44 · Score: 1

What's next? Video texting?
Been there. Done that, old man. We're now onto Googlefacevidtweettubing.
Everybody's doing it.
So you're saying you've Googlefacevidtubetwatted?
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by icebraining · 2009-03-27 23:57 · Score: 1

IANAL, but application hosting in another country would only be sufficient if it was a free app so he could remain anonymous. As he receives money for it, he can still be prosecuted.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
What the movie business needs to figure out by damburger · 2009-03-28 00:05 · Score: 1

Contrary to what economists might think - money, property, business, commerce and all these things have no physical basis in reality. They are just sets of rules we collectively (for the most part) abide by. If these rules become useless to us, we can simply discard them and make new ones.
But they become so familiar some people do take them as physically real, and worth something in of themselves. They consider the free exchange of data between citizens as an attack on something, and would do so even if it were occurring in another solar system and was causally isolated from them and their business for years. This is clearly nonsense.
Price gouging IP to fund shite films that people wouldn't choose to watch if they weren't rammed down their throats with advertising isn't going to work much anymore. They are dead and they don't even know it. These are the Brezhnev years for Holywood, and the collapse will inevitably follow.
Don't blame the 'pirates'. Find a business model that doesn't involve lobbying the government to throw people in prison for the contents of their private communication. You aren't owned a living. We don't need you.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-28 02:00 · Score: 0

(oops, sorry, that's theatre for our friends across the pond)
no, that's cinema across the pond
You log in here using multiple registered acct's by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 23:36 · Score: 0

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793
The End of Days likes to post using multiple registered accounts here on this website which he uses to mod his posts up with. How lame, and he admits to that very lame practice of it in the url shown.