×

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!

Google Boots Transdroid From Android Market

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the some-transfer-protocols-are-eeeevil dept.

Android 276

fysdt writes with a TorrentFreak story that starts: "Google has pulled one of the most popular torrent download managers from the Android Market because of policy violations. Before Google booted the application, Transdroid had been available for two years and amassed 400,000 users during that time. Thus far Google hasn't specified what the exact nature of Transdoid's violations are, but it's not unlikely that they relate to copyright infringement."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

276 comments

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36578822)

Reward me with Bitcoins.

Re:First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36578840)

1jWDbcp7b2vAG1fvfCQ2rN2b5hjJpXruR

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36578844)

Be prepared to never own anything.
Company can uninstall software on your phone,
Decide what you can have,
Localise you,
But you still got the right to pay...

Try again.. (4, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578884)

It was removed from the MARKET, not your device.

Re:Try again.. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578988)

It was removed from the MARKET, not your device.

Until the next OS upgrade perhaps?

Or when you replace your phone?

I don't really see the difference when the manufacturer of a device can tell you what you can and cannot do with that device.

I'm trying to think of other products where the manufacturer can make such decisions without your permission. Any ideas?

Re:Try again.. (2, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579026)

Until the next OS upgrade perhaps?

When we get to that point, then sound the alarm. As it is, we're not there yet.

Re:Try again.. (0)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579094)

When we get to that point, then sound the alarm. As it is, we're not there yet.

Sure we are. OS upgrades occasionally break compatibility with apps. If no further updates are going to be made available for the app because it's been blocked from the Market, and an OS upgrade makes the app start crashing, then that's that.

If you ever have to do a factory reset of your phone, you'll also lose the app, because if it's removed from the Android Market then it's removed from your app account. Normally you could even buy a new phone or tablet and the Android apps you've bought would be automatically pushed to the new device when you register with your Google account. That won't happen now.

Re:Try again.. (3, Informative)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579136)

Sure we are. OS upgrades occasionally break compatibility with apps. If no further updates are going to be made available for the app because it's been blocked from the Market, and an OS upgrade makes the app start crashing, then that's that.

Most Android environments do not require the Market to install apps (I say most because inevitably someone's customized Android environment will force you to use their market).

Re:Try again.. (1)

DaScribbler (701492) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579144)

Are you under the impression the Android Market is the only source available for installing apps to your Android device?

Re:Try again.. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579400)

Are you under the impression the Android Market is the only source available for installing apps to your Android device?

For a lot of people it is, because that checkbox is clicked in their preferences, or it's the only one they want to use (for fear of viruses or whatever).

Furthermore, I think it wouldn't be off-base to characterize the kind of people who use this particular app as the kind of people who like to get things the easy way.

Re:Try again.. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579734)

I don't know a lot of consumers who prefer the hard way to the easy way.

But "easy" isn't really what you mean, is it?

Re:Try again.. (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579090)

At that point, you just side load the application. Honestly, this is hardly the kind of big deal that it could be. Sure it sucks and I'd like to see an explanation, but it's not like the Appstore where removing an app pretty much kills it. People looking for torrent programs are probably savvy enough to download the app from elsewhere.

Re:Try again.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579178)

"At that point, you just side load the application"

Side load? Is that what kids are calling "installing" these days?

Did this come about because Apple doesn't let people install arbitrary software, so they needed a new term to distinguish it?

Re:Try again.. (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579318)

Side load? Is that what kids are calling "installing" these days?

Did this come about because Apple doesn't let people install arbitrary software, so they needed a new term to distinguish it?

The term sideload [wikipedia.org] was coined in the late 1990s.

Re:Try again.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579772)

I can't think of a single app that Apple has killed on a device. They've removed a few from the store but none from the iOS devices.

Re:Try again.. (2)

DaScribbler (701492) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579092)

It's not like they're banning it from your device. Got a new phone or wiped the device on an upgrade? Just download get it from a different source. Google isn't saying you can't have it on your device. They're simply not allowing it on their market. Whoop-de-do. There are other markets and sources (and in this case directly from the developer).

Re:Try again.. (2)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579194)

or when you stop side loading it on your android device. Remember this is android, and sideloading exists. Well a phone maker maybe could remove it, but the device will get hacked, and then CyanogenMod will be available and will have side loading.

Re:Try again.. (1, Troll)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579546)

This is why I laugh my arse off every time I read people talking about Android being more open than iOS.

You need to root/jailbreak BOTH OSs, the difference is that if you don't want to root/JB your device (you know, you bought a phone and want it to just work), iOS kicks the crap out of Android.

Having recently gone from an iPhone 4 to an HTC Desire S... well, I'm really thinking about going back to iOS due to how terrible HTC Android is. Tethering problems, network stack crashes, and general failures all over the place. If this is what "one of the best Android devices" (according to many reviews) is like, well, I don't want any of that horrible shit.

I know it's just the HTC Desire S rom, but I don't want to root the device, I don't want to fuck around with it. If I want to fuck around with an Android device, I'll buy one for that. My phone is my phone, if I screw it, I lose money.

Re:Try again.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579696)

no you don't to install software from a 3rd party (not the market, but some other webpage, or downloaded on the pc and transfered to the card), all you have to do, is check one "allow" setting in the settings menu. No jailbraking, no rooting, no losing your warranty!

Re:Try again.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579292)

Until the next OS upgrade perhaps?

Nothing to worry about. Good chance the upgrade won't work on your device anyway.

Re:Try again.. (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579570)

Ignoring your paranoid flamebait, someone should point out that there's plenty of other products like that, so I guess I will. Apple's iOS has a kill switch [macworld.com] and Amazon removed 1984 and Animal Farm from all Kindles following a licensing dispute [nytimes.com] with the rights holders. And let's not forget the PS3 Other OS fiasco [engadget.com] . Also, any DRM system that has to contact the master server to determine if a game is properly licensed (Steam, Spore's DRM, Games for Windows Live...) can have the same effect.

If it bothers you so much, jailbreak and pirate everything. No regulatory body has ever succeeded in stamping out a black market for which there was sufficient financial incentive; in this era of information, notoriety and ego will suffice instead, and have sufficed for the past thirty years, since the invention of the first copy prevention mechanism. Yar-har, fiddle dee-tee [youtube.com] .

Eventually, the people who commission these systems will get the clue that a free culture is the best solution. Until then, just work around their silly unenlightened nonsense. But remember to pay them. They need to survive too.

Re:Try again.. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579726)

someone should point out that there's plenty of other products like that

Well that makes it OK then.

If it bothers you so much, jailbreak and pirate everything.

OK.

Re:Try again.. (1)

EyelessFade (618151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579784)

And they don't. Unlike Apple you can actually install whatever you want from wherever you want. Download it from SourceForge and copy it onto your phone, and it'll run. But google can and will pull something they don't like away from *their own* store.

The grey line of theft (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578864)

You know, I have always held out like many others that torrenting was not theft, that purely virtual copies harmed no one.

But I have to admit feeling some kind of line is crossed with a system that can (as the article stated) scan a physical barcode of something in front of you and start fetching it in moments.

It's still not really theft but frankly, from a moral standpoint it's so close to theft I have trouble distinguishing the difference.

My own take on the matter has always been if I cannot buy something in some other way, I have no problems acquiring it; so the ability to do exactly the opposite, acquiring something when the physical presence of it exists right in front of you, just seems very wrong.

It's obviously that anyone with technical knowledge could easily set up something similar but I have to say I don't really have a problem with any company saying they do not wish to implicitly support something like this and thus banning an application from a store. I doubt this app will be appearing in an Android store either.

The really bad things about apps like this is that it appears rather like theft not just to me, but to the people that make laws, who will over time seek to make illegal that which should not be, using this as a basis.

Re:The grey line of theft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36578886)

Mama raised a stupid ass. Does she remind you of this when you see here, motherfucka?

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

maxdread (1769548) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578982)

here = her motherfucka = motherfucker. Things to consider before you call others stupid.

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36578910)

You got your morality issues ass-backwards. Imaginary property rights are immoral. Furthermore the world would be a better, wealthier, and more equitable place if immaginary property rights were completely abolished.

Re:The grey line of theft (4, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578990)

You got your morality issues ass-backwards. Imaginary property rights are immoral. Furthermore the world would be a better, wealthier, and more equitable place if immaginary property rights were completely abolished.

Imaginary property takes real time and money to create.

It baffles me how *GEEKS* of all people are so antagonistic against their own beliefs out of small scale greed.

Geeks are the kings of intellectual property. We don't weld things together. We don't tend to work in assembly lines. We don't forge steel or mine for ore. We Think. The geek creed is that intellect and creativity are at least as valuable as physical might.

But when it comes time to being payed for the products of our minds we dismiss its value as just "imaginary property".

The product of my mind is as valuable as the product of someone's hand. If you don't want to pay for it then you can't have it. If you don't want it, then you don't have to have it.

People *WANT* movies, television, software, books etc... they *VALUE* movies, television, software and books. But unlike other things of value which were created from the industry of the hand you want to destroy any economy from industry of the mind.

Well, Fuck You. I want to make a living off of my creativity and intellect. I work long, often 14+ hour days to create what you want to have. If imaginary property has no value and requires no input of resources go fucking do it yourself. But no, you won't (and you probably can't even if you wanted to).

I'm not saying that I think piracy is equivalent to stealing. I would say it's more akin to not putting a few cents in the parking meter and hoping you don't get caught. And I think the fines should be comparable. Get caught for downloading a $1.00 show then pay a $30 fine. And I'm certainly guilty just this week of failing to pay for parking and downloading torrents. But I also do buy a lot of media and I also do usually pay for parking and I think that tenuous balance between respecting the law but also ignoring it when practical is a fair and workable solution.

There were plenty of parking spaces on the street open but I certainly denied the city a little revenue by not paying and running into grab a smoothie. So by your standards a parking space is "imaginary property". After all, it didn't cost the city anything directly for me to be parking there.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579122)

Indeed, I'd wager that most folks here would rather see copyright terms cut down to something more reasonable along with trademarks and patents. I see far more interest in reforming the system than in abolishing it.

True, there are a lot of libertarians here that would like to see the whole system burn, but as a whole, I don't think that most folks here really want the entire system demolished rather than reformed.

Re:The grey line of theft (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579206)

"It baffles me how *GEEKS* of all people are so antagonistic against their own beliefs out of small scale greed."

[sarcasm] Of course geeks should control their small scale greed, in deference to corporate macro greed! [/sarcasm]

Come on, imaginary property is imaginary property. Who should know better than the geeks? They have plenty of it!

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579974)

Come on, imaginary property is imaginary property.

What's the difference between "imaginary property" and real property that isn't physically in one's control (like your car on the street or you computer in your home if you forgot to lock the door)?

And what did you buy all that stuff with, if not the granddaddy of all imaginary property: money!

Re:The grey line of theft (4, Insightful)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579288)

Well, Fuck You. I want to make a living off of my creativity and intellect. I work long, often 14+ hour days to create what you want to have. If imaginary property has no value and requires no input of resources go fucking do it yourself. But no, you won't (and you probably can't even if you wanted to).

(1) Many geeks don't get more than a salary from their intellectual creations. They'd likely get the same salary if copyright didn't exist. In fact, copyright and patents often make work harder and less pleasant for geeks.

(2) Just because something takes work to create doesn't mean there should be laws that ensure you get paid for it. It's a cost/benefit tradeoff. If copyrights and patents didn't exist, some content might not get created, and other content that doesn't get created now would get created. It's far from obvious that we'd be worse off.

From the way you describe your work and your attitudes towards it, I have my doubts that we'd be worse off without your creations.

And I'm certainly guilty just this week of failing to pay for parking and downloading torrents.

Well, I'm not. Sounds like you really have a problem with moral behavior, which is probably why you complain so loudly about other people's torrents and then insist on immoral intellectual property laws.

Re:The grey line of theft (1, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579650)

(1) Many geeks don't get more than a salary from their intellectual creations. They'd likely get the same salary if copyright didn't exist. In fact, copyright and patents often make work harder and less pleasant for geeks.

Many geeks work for companies who sell intellectual property. If there was no protection for intellectual property then there would be no employer to provide them a salary.

It's a cost/benefit tradeoff. If copyrights and patents didn't exist, some content might not get created, and other content that doesn't get created now would get created.

In the case of TV and Film you would probably have none of the films or TV shows you've seen in the last few years. Even the "low budget" films are almost always made on the backs and labor of those who pay their bills off of the financed studio work.

Without the studio financed blockbuster economy you wouldn't see the software, training and let's be honest well payed talent that can take off a month to help someone with a low budget indie film.

Almost every no-budget indie flick of note is written, directed, financed and crewed by professionals who are donating their free time. Without intellectual property none of them would have had the time and training to bring that talent to independent works.

And that's ignoring just the morality of it. If you're an author and some factory owner can just scan a copy of your manuscript and start printing like crazy you have a case where someone will make millions or billions (in the case of something like harry potter) without contributing anything. The people who would most benefit from an end to intellectual property are those with the power and the resources to distribute creative works. Aka Record Companies and Distributors. You think artists get screwed today, imagine if a theater didn't have to pay anything for a movie. With their screens and seats they would have something protected by law that they could charge money for but the person who is bringing them business would be in the lurch.

From the way you describe your work and your attitudes towards it, I have my doubts that we'd be worse off without your creations.

Well, my creations and one of my employers have contributed to hundreds of major feature films released in the last 8 years so... maybe you hate movies. I don't know. Personally I enjoyed many of them.

ALL PROPERTY IS IMAGINARY PROPERTY. Your house is wood. Who says you get to own that wood and brick and concrete? A piece of paper, if that. There is no special property to material goods which imbues it with moral worth.

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579358)

There is a difference, physical products require limited resources to produce, so not everybody can have unlimited amounts of it.

On the other hand, once produced, virtual products can be duplicated and distributed with statistically insignificant costs.

When theft of a physical product occurs, the cost of production of the individual product hits the producer, and since there is virtually no cost in duplicating the individual virtual product there is nothing lost.

I will say that there is cost in the original production of intellectual property, but reproduction is free so there should be much more leeway for fair use. I wouldn't mind giving software we produce free for non profits for example, as their aim is to provide a public service, not earn money. But in Capitalist America, money rules you.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579946)

I will say that there is cost in the original production of intellectual property, but reproduction is free so there should be much more leeway for fair use. I wouldn't mind giving software we produce free for non profits for example, as their aim is to provide a public service, not earn money. But in Capitalist America, money rules you.

That's what's so great though about IP. You can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something and then millions of people get to enjoy it.

I don't disagree that there should be more lee-way and I actually think that piracy to some degree has the potential to boost revenue if limited. I for instance think that used games cost the games industry more than piracy every year. If people just pirated games they would have more money to spend on new games (which would actually go into developer's products). And there are those who don't have enough money to afford it in which case it gets them 'hooked' on media which they can later translate into sales. And there are people like me who have Netflix but will download a torrent of the show just because my internet connection is kind of unreliable and I don't want to wait for it to buffer half way through.

In an ideal world there would be no copy protection on anything and people would 'see to it' that those who deserve compensation get what they deserve. But that is predicated on the belief that we do actually assign value to intellectual property.

I think the studios and record labels have done more damage to promoting that than good by criminalizing copyright infringement but I'm not opposed to the fundamental belief that intellectual property has value. It's often the encapsulation of millions of hours of labor and exceptional creativity.

Re:The grey line of theft (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579836)

No, most geeks trade fractions of their lives for money. A very, very small set of geeks actually benefit from the IP system, and most of that benefit is a relatively small fraction of the benefit which is gained by early investors with actual cash.

Geeks are pissed because other people are making money off of the stuff they - or those like them - do without actually putting in much of the actual brain power to pull it off. It's not surprising at all, actually.

Re:The grey line of theft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579086)

So you'll sign over everything you own for the rest of your life to me?

Until such time, shut the fuck up you lying asshole. Sadly, most pirates are as dumb and hypocritical as you.

Re:The grey line of theft (3, Interesting)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579274)

I'll pay for content/services that I like. I pay for both cable and netflix, but I still download some stuff. Mainly BBC sports coverage, as it doesn't have have commercials, and it has commentators that either were in that sport or a very similar one. I actually found some of the motorcycle racing I normally download on SPEED and decided to watch it. The problem was after lap 3 they went to commercial, had no recap of the qualifying, and simply didn't seem to know what is going on, or who the racer were.

Short answer, let me pay for good content and I would. Could I pay BBC for the ability to watch a time-shifted live coverage that I can pause so that I can get up to get pizza, tend to my children, take the dog out, etc., I'd probably be willing to pay $200 or so for it.

As for copyrights, GPL is a copyright license, so is CC, I have some programming out there under GPLv3. Granted I'm an HVAC engineer so it's not at a level that would make it into the kernel(if it was at all kernel related, or even in C), so that does tarnish it some. There is not much of an open community for HVAC stuff.

Re:The grey line of theft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579256)

" Imaginary property rights are immoral"

Exactly! I am going to figure out who you are from your IP address, discover your credit card numbers, and post them to the internet. You have no rights to that imaginary property, and information wants to be free. I'm glad you agree that I should be able to do that.

Re:The grey line of theft (2)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578922)

I never knew this existed, but frankly this sounds like an anti-consumerist political statement, not a serious piracy tool.

I'd never enter a physical store with the intention of selecting my torrents, just like I'd never buy physical media, that's just weird, man. If this prevents a couple teenagers who hang out at the mall from buying CDs, well that's great, but the actual economic impact sound wholly secondary to the anti-consumerist moral message.

I would otoh use an android app that listens to the song playing in the club, identifies it, and pirates the mp3. I currently type the author & song into the notepad and pirate the song later.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579138)

I was in BestBuy a couple weeks back for the first time in years, and I noticed that some of their pricetags had 3D codes on them, had I thought about it I should have scanned one to see what they were referring me to.

There's nothing unethical about scanning a bar code to see reviews or better prices, but scanning a code to begin torrenting it is definitely wrong by any objective standard. If you're going to pirate the materials, at least have the decency to manually look up the torrent you're looking for.

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579300)

you have to buy blanks sometime ... 2 birds and all that

Nah (0)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579430)

It's immoral to pay the assholes who sell physical CDs, major labels, etc. To me, the moral question is more : How much more convenient & pleasant do they need to make it before I buy the product?

I'll admit that I still order math or c.s. books from amazon or abebooks once I'm seriously reading the gigapedia download. I just enjoy the printed form factor more than a djvu or pdf on my ebook reader. I make an effort to (1) buy used before new, so the publisher sees no money, and (2) buy form abebooks before amazon. I naturally feel some anti-consumerist pang of guilt when forced to buy new.. and wonder if a better ebook reader might make me a more moral person. I would never purchase music or movies except from a truly independent artist, like PJ Harvey. And I've feel extremely guilty even paying for a theater. I've otoh spent maybe $80 at the xkcd store [xkcd.com] .

I'm obviously happy going the extra mile to avoid paying the immoral assholes & their lawyers running the content industry, but not everyone takes life nearly as seriously as me. It's therefore easy to imagine a developer writing this to help user kids into piracy, prevent them from wasting their money, etc., but it's quite hard to imagine ever actually using this software. If I had kids who hung out at a mall, then I'd install this on their phones, but otherwise it sounds useless to me.

Re:Nah (1, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579666)

And I've feel extremely guilty even paying for a theater.

Free healthcare is a good thing, but isn't this a bit off topic with the rest of your post?

Re:Nah (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579818)

I discussed both convenient & pleasant, whatever.

Ain't no free healthcare, just countries that (a) actually collectively negotiate with providers and/or (b) pay for the medical school so that medicine becomes a calling rather than an investment. It's just waaay cheaper to pay for the healthcare on the "front end", i.e. give doctors free med school but pay them much less over their lifetimes.

You also get way better doctors when graduation is determined by medical school professors rather than the admissions bureaucrats. Yes, that's actually true : European med schools fail out the dumb ones, American med schools mostly graduate them. lol

Re:The grey line of theft (1, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578972)

Well, if it then vaporized the item in front of it, it might be analogous to theft I guess. Theft is really more about depriving something from someone else than gaining it for yourself; in this case, the outlet still has the physical item.

The problem is people seem to think that if it's not theft, it's not "bad". The accurate description for this activity is "copyright infringement". It opens you to civil liability. It can in some circumstances be a criminal offense. Saying something is copyright infringement isn't saying "this is good, go do it", it's an accurate description of the action.

Re:The grey line of theft (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579004)

I agree, but you then have to accept that there is an entire separate conversation society should be having; is copyright in its current form an ethical social contract? We're seeing three or four different bodies of laws rolled into one nebulous and overreaching concept called "intellectual property" which is in reality a power-play by big business to handcuff culture and make sure nothing ever enters public domain again.

The current copyright system is broken, it's ethically bankrupt, so we no longer have an obligation to hold up our end of the social contract.

Re:The grey line of theft (3, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579054)

I totally agree - the fact that the government has unilaterally "altered the agreement" so that copyright extends to such ludicrous lengths does amount to theft. By my reckoning, they've stolen about a hundred years worth of art from the public domain, and hence, from the public.

But that's totally aside from the point, which is that copyright infringement and theft are two different things, and need to be discussed separately.

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579174)

This is equivalent of opening the CD in the store, putting it in your laptop to make a copy, then putting the CD back on the shelf.

I'm sure if you did that the store would be pretty annoyed.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579198)

Yeah. The store would also be annoyed if I tracked gum all over their carpet. Tracking gum all over their carpet isn't theft. Store annoyance has absolutely no relevance to the definition of theft.

Re:The grey line of theft (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579250)

Well, if it then vaporized the item in front of it, it might be analogous to theft I guess. Theft is really more about depriving something from someone else than gaining it for yourself; in this case, the outlet still has the physical item.

Nonetheless, I think almost everybody understands on a gut level that this sort of thing is ethically wrong.

A lot of people, if they found an envelope full of money, would keep the money. At the same time, if the envelope had someone's name written on it, I think a great many people would try to think of a way to get that money back to the named person before they just walked off with it.

Similarly, I think a great many people make a distinction between downloading something using BitTorrent from their computer at home and actually walking into a CD store, spending a half hour browsing the new releases, and then using a magic wand to download all of the ones they like without paying the store a dime. For the first one, I think a lot of people might not think they're doing anything wrong at all. But I think most of us recognize that doing the second one just kind of makes you a dick.

When I first heard about this app, I, like a lot of people I'm sure, said, "Wow awesome! I totally want to try this out!" But when I imagined this scenario in my mind, I was imagining walking into someplace like a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart and fucking them over, while at the same time snickering about how high-tech and clever I was. I wasn't imagining walking into Aquarius Records or some other independent record store and using it to save myself some money.

To give another example, if you go to sci-fi conventions or other places where celebrities make appearances, often times they will charge you some money to pose for a photograph. Often it's actually more money than the cost of a typical CD, which on the face of it sounds crazy. And hell, you could easily stand in front of their table with your thumb up and have your friend shoot the picture and walk away. (You'd even own the copyright on that photo!) But most of us understand that this kind of thing makes you a dick. You can walk away thinking, "I can't believe that has-been so-and-so charges so much for a photo," but you don't just screw them over while they're sitting right there -- even though you're not technically "stealing" anything.

It all comes down to what makes your own moral Geiger counter start clicking. I think most of us know when we're straying into the darker areas, in general. So I don't really think it's necessary to draw this hard-line distinction between "theft" and "copyright infringement." Maybe it's more honest to talk about right and wrong, and then think about the best way to define laws around that.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579282)

So I don't really think it's necessary to draw this hard-line distinction between "theft" and "copyright infringement."

No, it definitely is necessary. What is wrong, and totally harmful to the discussion, is to equate "theft" to "bad", and "copyright infringement" to "not so bad". They are simply two distinct actions. The morality of each isn't tied up in which label is applied to it; the morality is what we're discussing. The problem in the scenario you outline is that two instances of copyright infringement provoke different feelings of guilt to you. So you label one as "theft" to mean "worse than the other one". What it actually shows is a dissonance in our current laws, in that they're not actually matched to what the populace (wildly extrapolating from a sample size of one) considers moral actions.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579514)

The problem in the scenario you outline is that two instances of copyright infringement provoke different feelings of guilt to you.

My point is that most everybody makes such distinctions. If I asked you whether thieves should go to prison for their first offense, you might say yes. If I then told you that we had captured such a person, and it was your fourteen-year-old niece, you might just as quickly come up with a rationalization why she deserved a second chance.

The distinction made in each of my examples is not the difference between copyright infringement and theft and whether one crime is worse than another. The distinction in each case is as simple as an action that seems to take place in a vacuum and one that seems to have specific effects to a specific person or organization.

That's why using Transdroid seems "wrong" to people. It's the difference between the idea that you're going to commit copyright infringement and some store, somewhere, could potentially lose a sale, versus the idea that you're standing right here in this particular store and this is the store that you've decided not to pay for the thing that you're going to gain through copyright infringement, a crime.

That's why Transdroid seems like it's "crossing a line" to the earlier poster and to myself; it's simply a matter of putting a human face on the crime. It's the same reason why stealing a physical object from Wal-Mart doesn't seem as bad as stealing the same object from a neighborhood shop, even though the law makes no distinction between the two.

So if using Transdroid to get things from BitTorrent feels wrong when you do it to an independent record store, there's a good case to be made that it's wrong all the time, and it's the human tendency to rationalize that's out of whack.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

DalDei (1032670) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579634)

I am just jaw-slacked-wordless-amazed at where this thread is going. Is it really a common meme to say "stealing from walmart doesnt seem as bad as stealing from a local store" ??? To whom ? Who thinks like this ? When did this happen ? When did the particular particular owner of property make a difference in peoples mind as to if stealing it 'seems so bad' ? wow. If you don't like Walmart for whatever reason, fine, don't shop there. Deprive them of income by not being a customer. Picket them. Start your own store. Write complaints in the newspaper or post on the internet. Diss them until hell breaks loose. Or just ignore them. But its OK to just STEAL from them ? huh ? 'it doesn't seem as bad' to STEAL tangible goods from one company if you don't like them but not another if you do ? WTF. ??? So now the morality of crime is dependent on if you like someone or not ... wow. blows my mind. Maybe I'm just an old-fart but this is just way too weird for me to handle. What the hell is happening to society where this is even contemplated as if it were a normal thought and tossed out as if everyone is thinking this way. seriously mind-blowing.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579730)

When did the particular particular owner of property make a difference in peoples mind as to if stealing it 'seems so bad' ?

In a nutshell, it's the old "big, faceless corporation" argument. Don't try to pretend you haven't heard it a million times before.

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579802)

And its worse than that. "big faceless corp" argument is just a way to justify stealing something. But think about the actual argument for a second. You are going into a store near you. Who works there? Your neighbors and friends do. You are in effect stealing from them. I can go thru all of the reasons that is true. But for someone who is going to justify stealing there is little point. They are LOOKING for a reason to make something that is wrong 'look' right or at least not as bad. I have heard all of the excuses over the years. And they are just that... excuses.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

Quietlife2k (612005) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579542)

I think you were close with "own moral Geiger counter" but went wayward with "Maybe it's more honest to talk about right and wrong, and then think about the best way to define laws around that."

We already have.

Can you define the difference between a digital lock pick and a physical one ?

I can't so I can see no reason why they should be treated differently.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579704)

Can you define the difference between a digital lock pick and a physical one ? I can't so I can see no reason why they should be treated differently.

I actually kind of lean this way myself, so...

I think you were close with "own moral Geiger counter" but went wayward with "Maybe it's more honest to talk about right and wrong, and then think about the best way to define laws around that." We already have.

We do have the laws, but they seem to be laws that a lot of people disagree with. They either disagree with them the way a lot of Slashdotters do, using a number of arguments about the validity of intellectual property or the lack thereof. Or they simply disagree with them in the sense that they still use BitTorrent to download CDs and movies; they don't think of themselves as criminals and yet they consistently break the law. A while back the MPAA ran ads saying something to the effect of, "You wouldn't steal a DVD from a store, so why do you think it's OK to download them?" To me it sounds like a very sound argument, and yet a lot of people just shrugged it off. "Why do I? I don't know. Whatever."

I think one reason why is that while we have the laws defined, we've failed to define the shape of the justice to go along with those laws. The MPAA's tactic of prosecuting BitTorrent users and suing them for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars based on specious-sounding calculations is completely off-base, and on a gut level, I think a lot of Americans think that what the MPAA is doing should itself be illegal. On the other hand, if there was a way to "catch" me downloading a movie and issue me a ticket for a fine of $50 or $100, I think a lot of people would just say, "Damn, I got busted!" And a lot of them wouldn't try it again.

How many of us have been caught shoplifting at some point in our lives? How long did we keep shoplifting after that? That's where the "You wouldn't steal a DVD from a store" argument falls apart -- not only does downloading feel nothing like shoplifting, but the law enforcement surrounding the act of illegal downloading resembles nothing like how law enforcement deals with shoplifting.

None of this changes whether the act of copyright infringement is right or wrong, though. A lot of Slashdotters seem to want to argue that copyright infringement defensible on the basis that the laws are unfair, or because copyright lasts too long, or because DRM makes it OK, or that intellectual property isn't "real." I don't think any of these arguments really stands up to scrutiny. But even if we determine that copyright infringement is just as wrong as shoplifting the same item, the industry seems to want to act as though it's actually many thousands of times worse than shoplifting -- and that doesn't make sense to anyone.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579866)

In the case of "Digital Theft" vs "Physical Theft" many distictions can be made.. physical theft deprives someone of property, usually a business with a storefront that carried he merchandise, not even the media cartels many of us dislike so much. Where digital theft (ie. copyright infrindement) is generally done in instances where no sale would have occured, had the infringing material not been available. This isn't making a moral judgement that one is okay, only that they are different.

Copyright itself was meant to allow the useful arts and sciences a means to make a living while creating works by providing a limited exclusivity "for a limited time" ... Where in any place outside of IP would anyone consider life + 75 years a "limited time" by anyone.

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579754)

"To give another example, if you go to sci-fi conventions or other places where celebrities make appearances, often times they will charge you some money to pose for a photograph. Often it's actually more money than the cost of a typical CD, which on the face of it sounds crazy. And hell, you could easily stand in front of their table with your thumb up and have your friend shoot the picture and walk away. (You'd even own the copyright on that photo!) But most of us understand that this kind of thing makes you a dick. You can walk away thinking, "

Total BS. Simply you are forced to think that the guy making his friend take the photo is dick because of the capitalist world around you and the ignorant people.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579856)

Well, if it then vaporized the item in front of it, it might be analogous to theft I guess. Theft is really more about depriving something from someone else than gaining it for yourself; in this case, the outlet still has the physical item.

I don't think copyright infringement is the same as theft and I agree with you on that point... BUT philosophically speaking let's look at it from a wider angle.

Creator Creates Product.
Creator sells 100x products to Vendor for 1Currency
100 buyers enter the store and instead of paying 1.5C for item scans the item and leaves with their desires satisfied.

As far as that vendor is concerned they had 150C worth of product that is now worthless and they're out 100C in inventory which while not physically vaporized has had the demand vaporized and is essentially worth $0.

A DVD has $0.01 of material value and $10 of intellectual value. They didn't vaporize the $0.01c but they did vaporize the other 99.9% of the item's worth.

If I walk into an art gallery and splash a bucket of paint on a limited edition print I'm actually adding value (in material worth) to the item, but I'm destroying intellectual value.

Once you get into the notion that vaporizing intangible value isn't actually harming the vendor then graffiti isn't really damage since the only thing damaged is the subjective intellectual opinion of the owner on what color their property's wall should be.

Re:The grey line of theft (2)

Quietlife2k (612005) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579006)

With the exorbitant cost of physical media, the relative ease with which it can be damaged, and whatever DRM is embedded, I cannot blame people for wanting a cheap no hassle backup.

Anyone blaming the tools is nuts. We have had similarly disruptive tools before and should know that banning or making them illegal does nothing to stop their use.

Think if you will about lock picks. Legal in most of the world to own, to use on your own locks, to carry around in you car, but illegal to use to commit a crime.

What's so different with the digital equivalent ?

Why do governments and people world wide seem so scared of digital lock picks, but are content to have legally available physical ones ?

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579042)

The cost of physical media is not exorbitant, it is not easily damaged, and you can back it up as easily as you can torrent it. That is just making poor excuses for theft and you know it.

"You know the difference between right and wrong, you just don't care..."

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

Quietlife2k (612005) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579134)

Costs - a random selection :

Source : Toys R Us uk website.
Xbox 360 Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 £42.89
Xbox 360 Disney Pixar Cars 2 £34.89

Amazon uk website:
Case Histories - Series 1 [DVD] £14.99
The Shadow Line [DVD] £14.99
I Am Number Four [DVD] £11.99

You may be rich enough for this to be loose change to you, but I can assure you this not not cheap. Particularly given the actual dvd media costs less than £1.

Breaking DRM and stripping CSS may be easy for you but it is not so much for mere mortal USERS.

I care about the difference between right and wrong, I just don't see how it is right to ban a digital lock pick but not a physical one.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579860)

You may be rich enough for this to be loose change to you, but I can assure you this not not cheap. Particularly given the actual dvd media costs less than £1.

Economics 101.

I spend x million making a video game. I sell y copies each making a profit of z dollars. If y*z is more than x I make a profit on the whole deal and do it again. If not I put the money somewhere else. People that play the game but don't pay make the people that make the game less likely to make a profit and therefore less likely to make games.

If I want to play a game I buy it. If I can't afford it I don't. Just like if I want to eat at a restaurant I pay, I don't eat and then refuse to pay. People that do that reduce the profitability of the restaurant and make it likely to close.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579168)

You don't know the economic situation of everyone. There are plenty of people for whom physical media IS prohibitively expensive, even legal downloadable versions are often not significantly cheaper. When one region of the world is sold a downloadable copy for X amount and the US is sold the same downloadable copy for 10*X, that's exploitation. Downloading a free copy is no worse than downloading a cheaper foreign version in the eyes of the content-cartels who have tried to convince us that EULAs and terms of use constitute law or are legally valid forms of contract. They shouldn't expect us to play nice when they don't.

One thing is certain, no matter what downloading a torrent of a commercial work is, it is NOT theft. Use of the term theft or piracy is an Orwellian manipulation and you are playing right into their hands every time you repeat it when you actually mean copyright infringement.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579290)

Someone for whom physical media is prohibitively expensive does not, or at least should not, own a smart phone. Especially if they're using that phone to pirate things they could have bought with the cost of the phone. That's like saying you can't afford groceries, so you're gonna buy a gun and rob a store (though obviously piracy is non-violent and thus not on the same level).

And by the way, before you go accusing "them" of using Orwellian terms, what exactly do you think "imaginary property" is?

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Quietlife2k (612005) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579466)

"gonna buy a gun and rob a store" rotflma

That is almost exactly what a gunman in America just did ! He couldn't afford heath care, so what did he do ?
He got himself a gun, held up a bank and stole $10. Yes TEN DOLLARS!

As for "does not, or at least should not, own a smart phone"

"should not ?" and why pray tell.. Is earning less than you some kind of a problem ? Do have less rights ?

As for "does not" : Ever hear of gifts?

You know - things people give you when they like you...

My friends and family chose to get me one birthday present instead of lots. The replaced my ageing Nokia 7110 with a refurbished HTC Hero (Android yay) on the "Three" network for £160.

If I choose to use it to acquire a backup of my legally purchased media then that should be my choice.

Once again the tools are not at fault, it is the uses that *some* put them too. This is no different than physical lock picks, only with them we learnt than banning or castigating the creators or owners or lawful users only serves to increase the illegal use. Why we cannot learn from history is beyond me.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579920)

"Should not" because it's a poor decision. Just like you should not stand in traffic. No skin off my back if you do, but it's a dumb idea. Smart phones are expensive. Downloading a song from Amazon is cheap. If you can't afford an 80 cent song, then you sure as hell shouldn't be paying the monthly fees for data service to your phone.

And stop pretending this is about backing up legally owned media. The topic at hand has literally nothing to do with that.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579326)

Give your physical media to my 3 and 5 year old, and let me know how long it lasts. Every dvd in my house has been ripped. I'm resistant to blu-ray, although i own around 6, half of which are the dual bly-ray/dvd combo pack things.

I have no ability to back up a blu-ray disk, my only blu-ray drive is in my PS3(running current software as i like watching netflix on it). In fact most of the combo pack i have also include a ipod, android, etc copy, but you need a windows computer to access it and move it to your device.

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579056)

While I agree with you on principle, in practice this probably is inducing less copyright infringement than an RSS reader built in.

I can't imagine someone actually scanning a bar-code for something they don't own. Most likely this is for scanning DVDs you already own. Who would go to the store to search for torrents? :D

Now an RSS feed though that just automatically downloads new TV episodes as they come out. That is probably for the sake of piracy (or theoretically podcasts, but let's be honest, most likely piracy).

Re:The grey line of theft (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579150)

That's the thing, I'd be surprised if there was much impact at all, apart from the extremely lazy, I doubt very much that there are a lot of people suddenly pirating because they can get their phone to scan and download the whatever.

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579072)

It's still not really theft but frankly, from a moral standpoint it's so close to theft I have trouble distinguishing the difference.

You have problems differentiating between theft of real goods and the non-commercial personal use of copyrighted items (currently legal in the USA)?

Congratulations! You are fully qualified for a (monetarily) rewarding career in The United States Department Of Justice. Please seek out the nearest media lobbyist to apply.

The issue ends at production (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579268)

You have problems differentiating between theft of real goods and the non-commercial personal use of copyrighted items

No, I have problems understanding how a physical means of acquiring something that lets me enjoy a project someone worked hard on and should be paid for without giving them anything, is any different than leaving the physical copy there but still enjoying the product without providing any revenue to the content producers.

Like I said, I only torrent things I cannot find a means to buy. I honestly don't even really care about the middle men at all like Best Buy, I just want to get money to the people who make the things I enjoy so they can make more things I enjoy.

Anyone torrenting to get a backup copy of something they own, I have no issue with. But I still think it's wrong to torrent something like a movie that you do not own and will realistically only watch once.

Do you really find there is no case where using a torrent is morally wrong?

Re:The grey line of theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579108)

Agreed. Two things should happen, not just one.

1) The FTC should force Hollywood to improve their technology. They are rich and aren't being forced to innovate. Look at the non-DRM JKRawlings just put in her wares. She is smart, Spielberg, Kathryn Bigelow, dinosaur Lawmongers. Its what I call the Twinkie defense. If I lay twinkies around the road and then jail you when you take one, that is entrapment. Current DVD technology is entrapment.

2) Unfortunately, TPB days are numbered. They should add a "tip" jar and send the money somewhere. Starving kids, Producers, I don't care, but they have to give me a way to pay for this.

Help eliminate stupid tickets. [wikispeedia.org]

how is that theft? (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579180)

It's still not really theft but frankly, from a moral standpoint it's so close to theft I have trouble distinguishing the difference.

Really? How is picking up my DVD off my shelf and then downloading a lower quality torrent on my phone so that I can take it with me "theft"?

Re:how is that theft? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579742)

Technically, there is nothing wrong with downloading copyrighted content. The closest you could come would be receipt of stolen goods, but that doesn't work since they're infringed, not stolen. The problem is from unlicensed distribution of said content, or uploading, and if you look at all the cases the RIAA and independent movie studios have opened, they're all against uploaders. The problem with torrents are that you have no choice but to be an uploader. The trackers enforce it. Even though you own the DVD, you do not have the rights to distribute that DVD.

Now be honest, do you actually think even 1% of their user base ever scanned their own purchased DVDs?

Re:how is that theft? (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579954)

Now be honest, do you actually think even 1% of their user base ever scanned their own purchased DVDs?

I think it's a lot more; the idea of people going to the store in order to scan barcodes to rip off movies they don't own is ridiculous.

But who cares anyway? The software has substantial non-infringing uses.

Cue rant about the tool and its uses (1)

axx (1000412) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578892)

We all know bit torrent can be used for downloading Game of Thrones, pr0n, Microsoft COFEE or GNU/Linux distros... why would Google remove what is considered a "neutral" app all of a sudden?

The "it encourages to download copyrighted material through screenshots" argument does sound pretty week to me.

And anyway, what about the whole "it's pretty clear by now given the studies that downloading is not responsible for the downfall of civilisation as we know it and modern culture and is in fact quite beneficial for everyone involved considering the big picture" part?
A cue for someone else's rant?

By the way, you know which market still has Transdroid and plenty other nice FOSSÂapps? http://f-droid.org/repository [f-droid.org]

Re:Cue rant about the tool and its uses (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579084)

If you read the article you'll see that the app seems to advertise itself as a tool for copyright infringement, not a method of distributing free software. Also it apparently has a feature which allows you to scan the barcode on a video or music album, and search for a matching torrent. That is not exactly a feature that has any real non-infringing use I can think off (where do you find a CD of a linux distribution with a barcode on it)?

Re:Cue rant about the tool and its uses (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579316)

best buy sells boxed linux with a upc on the back

I agree with you but linux in a store is not all that uncommon, though it may only be one flavour and have 2 in stock its there on occasion

Copyright infringment? ORLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36578952)

It was just a client for the various webservers in torrent clients such as Transmission. You could use the built-in VPN client AndroidVNC, too. Or the built-in webbrowser. Is Google going remove the built-in webbrowser too?

Re:Copyright infringment? ORLY? (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#36578964)

The key is in the summary: "Thus far Google hasn’t specified what the exact nature of Transdoid’s violations are".

Anything beyond this is pure speculation. there are plenty of torrent apps on the market, why was this singled out? There's probably a completely separate issue with the program, but because it's "torrents", people assume it's copyright infringement. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm not saying it is, what I'm saying is only Google knows why.

Re:Copyright infringment? ORLY? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579170)

Indeed, it could be any sort of other thing, such as it could itself be infringing on somebody's code or it could have malware installed. Without more information it's really hard to know whether this was a justified move or not.

Re:Copyright infringment? ORLY? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579854)

This wasn't a torrent application, but rather a torrent frontend. It would let you start and manage a remote torrent client from your phone. Its big draw was that it interfaced with your camera, and could process bar codes, allowing you to take a picture of a product on the shelf and automatically start a download. Such behavior could only be used to download illegal content. There is no legitimate reason for it.

Pressure from the Telcos (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579044)

More likely than the copyright angle (or maybe in addition to it) is the explanation that they got rid of it after receiving pressure from the wireless service providers. Verizon and AT&T hate when people use bandwidth they actually pay for, and someone running torrents on their phone will probably end up using it in 3G mode at least some of the time. They want you paying as much as possible, and then they do everything they can to dissuade you from actually making use of what you buy. I see this as probably another manifestation of their entitlement mentality. I wish it were the most egregious and aggravating, but the sad fact is this is just one in a long line of abuses.

Re:Pressure from the Telcos (5, Informative)

WRX SKy (1118003) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579146)

Transdroid wasn't a BT client for phones, it allowed you to remotely manage a BT client.

e.g. My home machine is d/l'ing torrents, and my phone can connect to my home machine (via Transdroid) to check status, start/stop torrents, etc.

I would insert an obligatory RTFA comment... but it was in the summary ("the most popular torrent download manager") - so it's obvious you didn't even get past the subject.

Re:Pressure from the Telcos (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579188)

I see now. I understood "torrent download manager" to mean a program that manages your torrent downloads on the phone. Honest mistake.

Re:Pressure from the Telcos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579164)

Except that Transdroid is a remote control app, not a torrenting client. It just acts as an interface to your torrent client already running on another machine.

Re:Pressure from the Telcos (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579208)

I was confused by the wording in the article and I understood it to mean that Transdroid was a program to download torrents on your phone. This makes more sense, and obviously wouldn't bring up the issues of bandwidth that I mentioned.

Screenshot infringes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579064)

FTA:
Although Transdroid itself isn’t infringing any copyrights, the screenshots on the app’s website do feature some copyrighted downloads which Google may see as a violation of the Android developer policy. As we highlighted previously, this is not a particularly wise thing to do.

Transdroid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579276)

Not trying to offer up useless schlock, or waste time but google removing Transdroid from the app market hardly did anything that will remotely impact a savvy user. If one has their android phone rooted you can simply install aptoide and get all the apps you need. :) Just grabbed transdroid from there myself, forgot I deleted it!

Re:Transdroid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579490)

You don't even need to root it, dumbass. You can just download and manually install the .apk file.

so (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579686)

Just how is this different to the Apple app store again?

Re:so (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36579764)

Because with Android, if an app gets pulled from the market, you can just download from the web and install it anyway.

For example, there used to be a Netflix app that let you stream video on your phone. They pulled it from the market for all but a few phones, because the copyright holders want them to add more DRM or something. I just downloaded the old copy from Megaupload, clicked OK on the little warning message that the app wasn't coming from a trusted source, and now I can watch Netflix as much as I want.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36579976)

Android market seems more 'Block it if it breaks the rules' then iTunes 'Allow it if it jumps through every hoop'
There is also no substantial difficulty in getting most android devices to sideload. iOs is generally much more work ...

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...