Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds Media Movies Hardware

Android Scans DVD Bar Codes, Downloads Movies 181

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the unifying-theory-of-gadgetry dept.
cars writes "Remember how you can scan any bar code with an android phone and it will tell you where to find that product for cheaper? A new Android application called BarTor (formerly ScanTorrent) can scan any DVD bar code and then signals either uTorrent or Vuze on your PC to download the movie from BitTorrent. How long do you think this will last?" Other features include purchase opportunities on barcode lookup, Google base product lookup, and site-level filtering.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Android Scans DVD Bar Codes, Downloads Movies

Comments Filter:
  • by rouge86 (608370) on Friday March 27, 2009 @03:48PM (#27362425)
    It will suffer the same quick death like the program that directed you to torrents from Amazon.
  • Charging 2.99 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Friday March 27, 2009 @03:48PM (#27362429) Homepage Journal

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

    • by eln (21727) on Friday March 27, 2009 @03:54PM (#27362475) Homepage

      I assume there will be a cracked version out shortly.

    • Re:Charging 2.99 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by castorvx (1424163) on Friday March 27, 2009 @03:57PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eln (21727) on Friday March 27, 2009 @04:02PM (#27362595) Homepage

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27, 2009 @04:16PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CannonballHead (842625) on Friday March 27, 2009 @04:18PM (#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.

          • Oh.. ohh.. let me solve:

            Coffe is a addictive drug?

            Did I win the jackpot?

          • by RMingin (985478)

            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: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Chosen Reject (842143)

            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 ab

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              The point is spending money on something not necessary (coffee, especially Starbucks branded, is not necessary), not money -> hours necessarily. Point with the Starbucks thing was actually that people are willing to pay more money than its worth (IMO, of course) AND wait in line for X amount of time.

              I was not attempting to say that everyone who pirates movies also drinks coffee. However, I'm pretty sure some of the poeple that drink Starbucks coffee, epsecially with all the techies that go there, also

            • by Ashriel (1457949)

              I fill up my car with gas about every two weeks for about $30 after about 5 hours worth of driving. At those rates, 2 hour movies ought to cost $12, and a 1.5 hour movie ought to cost $9. A flight from Seattle to New York (about 6 hours) ought to cost $35, but more if it's non-stop. Since all forms of entertainment are the same, a 3 minute song on iTunes should now cost $0.30.

              I know you were being sarcastic, but except for the airline ticket, all the prices you quoted seem to be right on, IMO. I'd pay $150 for a 6 hour flight.

          • by el_womble (779715)
            If could download coffee, I would.
          • by Aladrin (926209)

            If you pay $30 for a movie and watch it only once, you are an -idiot-.

            For your $30, you get more than 3 hours... You get 3 hours times however many times you watch it. For a good movie, I expect to want to watch it 5 or more times over the next 5 years.

            So if you look at it like that, then renting it for $2 a pop is a good deal, and you don't have to worry about losing it in the mean time... Or floods... Or fires... Or...

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Abreu (173023)

            I go to starbucks for the "buy a small coffee, stay in a comfy chair with free electricity and wifi for hours" promotion

          • by Ihmhi (1206036)

            If the meal is godawful, often they'll compensate you at a restaurant. Ditto on a bug in it or something like that.

        • by ArsonSmith (13997)

          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.

          • 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.

            • by ArsonSmith (13997)

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

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

              • by hurfy (735314)

                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: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by amiga3D (567632)
          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.
        • 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.

        • by sricetx (806767)
          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.
        • by rolfwind (528248)

          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).

          • by eln (21727)

            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.

        • by Dan541 (1032000)

          If $30 for a movie is unreasonable to you, there are plenty of other ways to see the movie without violating the law. You could go rent it at Blockbuster. Or you could get a Netflix account and get it there.

          Or you can go to ThePirateBay which is certainly the best option.

        • by hachete (473378)

          the subtitles. Lot of people out there want to see movies but the ones they want to see haven't sub-titles for the country where they live.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LandDolphin (1202876)

        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.

        • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by LandDolphin (1202876)
            Short answer: Don't watch it

            It is the property of whoever owns the copy right. IF they choose not to share it, you don't get to. It is theirs, not yours. You do not have a right to something they created, and/or purchased the rights to.

            Bad analogy time:

            I do not have a "right" to watch your home movies. Just because you refuse to let me, does not give me the right to break into your house and watch them.
            • Really bad analogy: in that case, he would have been breaking in the guy's home (violating private property) and watching private footage (violating privacy), no of which applies in this case, as AFAIK P2P sharing doesn't require house breaking, and a movie displayed in cinemas all over the US is hardly private, so who is he hurting?

              Remember, we are not law-abiding robots. Humans made the laws, and they are subject to changes. Law breaking is not an ethical argument, as the laws follow the people's ethic co

              • "so who is he hurting?"

                Does it matter? Why does someone have to be hurt?

                "violating private property" & "violating privacy"

                Isn't violating a copyright the same as violating someone property and their privacy? Isnt what they own their private property that they can choose to share with you or not? removing the breaking into your home part, what makes your home videos any more private then someone else's movie or music?
                • by tepples (727027)

                  Isn't violating a copyright the same as violating someone property and their privacy?

                  The constitution of the country where Disney is headquartered states that copyright exists "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". If a film has already been widely exhibited to the general public, how does withholding the sale of copies in the same manner as other films that have been similarly exhibited "promote [] Progress"?

                  Isnt what they own their private property that they can choose to share with you or not?

                  Disney made that choice decades ago when it released Song of the South in theaters.

                  • How does you watching it for free "promote Progress"?

                    Sure, you can give rare cases where it could, but in raelity, it's just you wanting to watch stuff for free.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geekoid (135745)

        If you can't afford something, then you don't get it. If you don't think it's a good value, then don't buy it.

        You are not owed a movie.

        and what movie costs 30 bucks?

      • How about using sensible figures? It's hard to respect an opinion when they are backed up with the sloppy use of facts, or exaggeration.

        For one, if a movie really sucks, why even download it? It's a paper-thin excuse to justify the activity. It's not hard to look at the rotten tomato score or a couple reviews to see that it's not worth the money or the bandwidth.

        Most movies that I've seen for sale don't cost $30 at a typical store unless you're buying a special edition (fancy package, extra discs, bonus

      • Yeah, but if they don't want it, or they can't afford it, what makes you think they deserve it?

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      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).

      • 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...

        • by MBGMorden (803437)

          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

        • 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?

    • by Gat0r30y (957941)
      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 t
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Sorry but if its about something for nothing. Its about PIRATES which is ANYONE who steals anothers work without paying for it and this is exactly what torrents are doing. Now im no fan of the MPAA/RIAA but if Andriod as a community continues to abuse things in this manner they WILL NEVER be taken seriously as a phone platform. Seriously, you want to be take seriously you have to learn you cant enable stealing from others. And that is what this app does...plain and simple. Further more if it is about co
        • by torkus (1133985)

          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

  • Android... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Friday March 27, 2009 @03:54PM (#27362485) Homepage

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

  • by GweeDo (127172) on Friday March 27, 2009 @03:55PM (#27362491) Homepage

    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?

    • This app might not stay on the store, but it sure won't go away.

      Cydia ftw ;)

    • 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.

  • by d474 (695126) on Friday March 27, 2009 @03:58PM (#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.
  • "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?

  • Quality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday March 27, 2009 @04:01PM (#27362581) Journal
    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.
    • 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.

    • You may be interested in Handbrake. It transcodes DVDs for various formats.

      Can target various mobile formats. Now available on Ubuntu (now with a GUI), Windows, and OS X.

  • ... 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 p

    • by dbcad7 (771464)
      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.
  • Seems terribly convenient. The RIAA can use their special civil rights ignoring superpowers to monitor the channel and bill your cell phone account automatically.
    • by damburger (981828)

      A bit paranoid, but then again a small amount of paranoia is healthy in this day and age.

      I wouldn't have thought they would be able to do a blanket search and start adding money to peoples phone bills though. The phone companies would fight it for a start; they would be the ones pissing off their customers. Generally, communication providers have been resistant to freedom-infringing moves from content providers unless the communication provider is also in the business of content providing (i.e. Virgin).

  • Well, probably only about...5...4...3...2...

  • now all I have to do is draw the bar code and scan!

  • More IT Pros Could Turn To E-Crime In Poor Economy?

  • 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?

  • Wasn't this article up like a week ago?

    Or maybe someone commented that someone should make an app like this.
  • the CueCat people are howling.
  • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Friday March 27, 2009 @05:57PM (#27364161) Homepage

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

  • Contrary to what economists might think - money, property, business, commerce and all these things have no physical basis in reality. They are just sets of rules we collectively (for the most part) abide by. If these rules become useless to us, we can simply discard them and make new ones.

    But they become so familiar some people do take them as physically real, and worth something in of themselves. They consider the free exchange of data between citizens as an attack on something, and would do so even if it

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.

Working...