×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Android Scans DVD Bar Codes, Downloads Movies

ScuttleMonkey posted about 5 years ago | from the unifying-theory-of-gadgetry dept.

Handhelds 181

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

181 comments

nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362421)

brilliant.

Really makes me want an Android phone.

Although Android is kind of a dumb name.

Re:nice (3, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 5 years ago | (#27362799)

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.

Re:nice (4, Informative)

BlackCreek (1004083) | about 5 years ago | (#27362905)

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/ [biggu.com]

Re:nice (1)

ndavis (1499237) | about 5 years ago | (#27362967)

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.

Re:nice (4, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | about 5 years ago | (#27364259)

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.

I can't imagine this lasting long (2, Insightful)

rouge86 (608370) | about 5 years ago | (#27362425)

It will suffer the same quick death like the program that directed you to torrents from Amazon.

Charging 2.99 (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27362429)

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

Re:Charging 2.99 (5, Interesting)

castorvx (1424163) | about 5 years ago | (#27362519)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#27362595)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362775)

> 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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (5, Interesting)

The End Of Days (1243248) | about 5 years ago | (#27363653)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (4, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#27362797)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

RMingin (985478) | about 5 years ago | (#27363075)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (3, Funny)

Chosen Reject (842143) | about 5 years ago | (#27363185)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#27363411)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 5 years ago | (#27362849)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#27363077)

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. [vincentchow.net] And hand over your geek card too. Just to be sure.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 5 years ago | (#27363155)

I think you didn't get much past #1 in the definition.

Please check #4. That is the definition I was intending.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 5 years ago | (#27363215)

Re:Charging 2.99 (0, Flamebait)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#27363849)

That fourth "definition" is made-up bogus fearmongering bullshit, straight from the **AA headquarters. Which was exactly my point.

Appealing to authority [wikipedia.org] (the dictionary) does not change anything.

Re:Charging 2.99 (2, Informative)

mjeffers (61490) | about 5 years ago | (#27364677)

"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 [wikipedia.org]

So in other words, your original post and your followup are both pretty much completely wrong.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

hurfy (735314) | about 5 years ago | (#27364241)

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... :)

Re:Charging 2.99 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27363311)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (2, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | about 5 years ago | (#27362863)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | about 5 years ago | (#27363111)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

Seto89 (986727) | about 5 years ago | (#27363395)

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!

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

sricetx (806767) | about 5 years ago | (#27363431)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 years ago | (#27363787)

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).

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#27363813)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27364083)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | about 5 years ago | (#27362817)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 5 years ago | (#27364021)

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?

Re:Charging 2.99 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27363191)

What's wrong with pirating movies? Everyone does it.
Last time I checked my country was a democracy. Majority rule ... right?

Re:Charging 2.99 (2, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | about 5 years ago | (#27363197)

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.

Song of the South (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#27364181)

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?

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#27362521)

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).

Killing Android (1)

shmlco (594907) | about 5 years ago | (#27362813)

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...

Re:Killing Android (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#27362937)

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.

 

Phone sold separately (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#27364231)

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?

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | about 5 years ago | (#27362601)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (2, Insightful)

sogoodsofarsowhat (662830) | about 5 years ago | (#27362685)

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.

Re:Charging 2.99 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362929)

Smells like a Flamebait/Troll

Lack of counter augments - check.

Stereotypes of the users - check.

Ignoring the issues - check.

Ignoring the valid uses - check.

Oh and if the MPAA sues the phone companies because of the app, then can they sue Microsoft for allowing BitTorrent apps to run. They can sue intel of not having chip-level BT blocking. They can sue the network company for not restricting P2P.

Re:Charging 2.99 (1)

torkus (1133985) | about 5 years ago | (#27363007)

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.

This isn't an iPhone (4, Funny)

GweeDo (127172) | about 5 years ago | (#27362491)

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?

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | about 5 years ago | (#27362559)

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.

Re:This isn't an iPhone (2, Insightful)

cortesoft (1150075) | about 5 years ago | (#27362805)

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?

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | about 5 years ago | (#27363047)

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.

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | about 5 years ago | (#27363289)

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.

Green Bases is the place to be (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 years ago | (#27364287)

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:This isn't an iPhone (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | about 5 years ago | (#27363625)

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.

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | about 5 years ago | (#27363933)

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.

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | about 5 years ago | (#27364065)

Come on, now, keep up. Theoboley was talking about getting this kind of thing on Windows Mobile based phones, most of which lack keyboards.

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | about 5 years ago | (#27364115)

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.

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | about 5 years ago | (#27364157)

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.

Re:This isn't an iPhone (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 5 years ago | (#27362893)

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.

They charge you for it? (4, Interesting)

d474 (695126) | about 5 years ago | (#27362545)

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.

Re:They charge you for it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362707)

Isn't the usual statement that downloading isn't illegal, it's the uploading that people get in trouble for?

Re:They charge you for it? (1)

racas (633636) | about 5 years ago | (#27362907)

The thing about torrents is that once you have a portion of the file downloaded, your client begins uploading. So you ARE an uploader.

Wait and plunder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362823)

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 :)

Re:They charge you for it? (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | about 5 years ago | (#27363085)

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".

Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 seconds? (3, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#27362561)

"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?

Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362623)

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.

Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon (4, Funny)

D Ninja (825055) | about 5 years ago | (#27362669)

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 (1)

Loko Draucarn (398556) | about 5 years ago | (#27362683)

What's next? Video texting?

Nah, the only thing anyone knows how to say over that is Y-M-C-A.

Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362961)

Please no! the last thing I need is to get 2girls1cup on my cell phone

Re:Err...uh...2 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes 38 secon (1)

dudeeh (877041) | about 5 years ago | (#27364225)

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

Quality? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#27362581)

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.

Re:Quality? (1)

castorvx (1424163) | about 5 years ago | (#27362663)

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.

Re:Quality? (1)

c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) | about 5 years ago | (#27362953)

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.

Re:Quality? (1)

hansamurai (907719) | about 5 years ago | (#27363193)

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.

scan and download? (0, Redundant)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 5 years ago | (#27362589)

How is this not enabling copyright infringement?

Re:scan and download? (1)

manekineko2 (1052430) | about 5 years ago | (#27362651)

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.

I can't get behind it... (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 5 years ago | (#27362655)

... 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.

Re:I can't get behind it... (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | about 5 years ago | (#27363219)

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.

Re:I can't get behind it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27363753)

[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.

Because what a movie pirate needs is a bigger p (1)

bombastinator (812664) | about 5 years ago | (#27362723)

Seems terribly convenient. The RIAA can use their special civil rights ignoring superpowers to monitor the channel and bill your cell phone account automatically.

"Downloads the movie"... which one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27362939)

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?

DIY (1)

migla (1099771) | about 5 years ago | (#27363135)

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)

Re:DIY (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 5 years ago | (#27364123)

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.

Irony (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 5 years ago | (#27363247)

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 (0, Offtopic)

sharkey (16670) | about 5 years ago | (#27363303)

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

Dupe? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about 5 years ago | (#27363473)

Wasn't this article up like a week ago?

Or maybe someone commented that someone should make an app like this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...