Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Android Cellphones Google Handhelds Technology

Google Boots Transdroid From Android Market 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Boots Transdroid From Android Market

Comments Filter:
  • by cynyr ( 703126 ) on Sunday June 26, 2011 @07:28PM (#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.

  • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Sunday June 26, 2011 @08:30PM (#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.

  • by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Monday June 27, 2011 @02:11AM (#36581026)

    - Because something isn't 100% original doesn't mean it isn't an original creative work. Duplication != Recreation.

    You're correct. However, the law doesn't distinguish between duplication and recreation. Intellectual property means that you cannot use whatever is covered by copyright. If a one-click purchase or upgrade button is patented, you can't use it without paying the owner of the patent. If someone owns the copyright on a work, you cannot use it without their permission - even if that work is a silence of time N.

    Advocating protection of specific categories of work for a limited period doesn't mean it has to be applied to "All instances" for "all time". The OP was arguing for the abolishment of all intellectual property.

    Great. Now we're getting into the details of copyright law. Define limited. Is life of the author + 120 years limited? Is 10000 years limited? Is 30 minutes limited? Why? Why not? Note the Supreme Court decision that holds current copyright duration is "limited". Is that fair? Why/Why not? Be detailed.

    Intellectual protection of people's creativity doesn't preclude people from collaborating on public works e.g. C++, HTML, OpenGL etc... as proven by the fact that with IP law we've managed to create all these things just fine thank you very much.

    Copyright is a construct of law. Putting an intellectual work into the public work is only possible because the current law allows for it. Why should it? After all, people who put their sweat and blood into creating something abstract should be rewarded. Right? Alternatively, if they can put their work into the public domain for the greater good, why don't you? You wouldn't want to be caught mooching off of the hard work of others?

    Obviously IP law doesn't cause an apocalypse of creativity considering the fact that it seems to be carrying on just fine. I'm not hearing a lot of complaining from artists that they can't work anymore.

    Then you aren't paying attention. Do you know what the advice is that is given to first-year art students? Create a movie in a white room with one chair and 2 of your closest friends. With no music. Otherwise, you open yourself up to litigation. Have you seen the hullaballoo around the upgrade button?
    The current system only barely works because it is enforced only when people feel like enforcing it. It'd come crashing down like a house cards if people would go after every copyright infringement.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?