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."
The grey line of theft (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Why do you say that? I'm not trolling here; I'm legitimately interested in the particular reasons why you see this as unconditionally unethical and immoral.
And by way of playing the devil's advocate, let me ask you this: If you could scan the barcode, pay a nominal fee and begin downloading immediately, directly from the author - instead of buying it at a significant markup in the store from the distributor, would that still be wrong by any objective standard?
Again, I'm not trolling here. I really am trying
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Free healthcare is a good thing, but isn't this a bit off topic with the rest of your post?
Re: (Score:2)
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 admiss
Re: (Score:3)
I know apple is "the enemy" but to me they are convenient enough. For movies, for example, i have a few choices. I torrent it, watch it once, and store it on my hard drive for years taking up space just in case i want to watch it again and cbf finding a decent torrent. I get in my car, go to the local video
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 infringem
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 eac
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 sayin
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright itse
decency and morality has to be two-way (Score:2)
That "moral Geiger counter" seems to be broken at the other end, however, when content creators use political muscle to extend copyright terms again and again; when they prevent content from getting into the public domain through legal tricks; when they force consumers to buy the same content again and again through technological obsolescence; when TV and movie studios raid the literary classics for ideas and then try to claim cop
Re: (Score:2)
And we all know that two wrongs make a right. Right?
Re: (Score:3)
Nonetheless, I think almost everybody understands on a gut level that this sort of thing is ethically wrong.
Maybe for the first, say, 10 years. After that, no.
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.
Depends. I can't afford to buy lots of random albums on the off chance they are good, I need to listen to them first. Record shops have listening stations for that, Amazon has clips and free tracks. There is also the radio and TV of course. The biggest problem for bands is not copyright infringement, it is being herd in the first place. If no-one hears your music no-one is going to buy it on a whim either. Even more troublesome is the fact that the big labe
Re: (Score:3)
Nonetheless, I think almost everybody understands on a gut level that this sort of thing is ethically wrong.
I think that's only because modern copyright law has conditioned you to think that way.
If copyright was a grand total of, say, 15 years, and you were conditioned to know that from a young age, would you feel bad downloading that Nirvana album? Of course not!!! It would be legal, and since it would be accepted by society as THE NORM, no one would think it's wrong.
Gut level = conditioned by culture.
Re: (Score:3)
People have scruples but corporations do not. As technology progresses, things are supposed to get cheaper because of automation but corporations don't spread the wealth, they keep everything for themselves in a very selfish manner. Their only goal is to maximize profits and they will rip us off every chance they get. Corporations have no interest in sharing their wealth whatsoever that is why we have this kind of problem. A song shouldn't cost more than a few pennies to download but we're being charged 50
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternate scenario:
Creator Creates Product.
Creator sells 100x products each to VendorA and VendorB for 1Currency per item
VendorA marks product to 1.5C. VendorB sets up shop next door and marks product to 1.25C
100 buyer purchase products from VendorB
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.
Again, not theft. Devaluing something isn't stealing. It's devaluing. Use the right word for the right thing. Just the same as splashing a bucket of paint on a picture isn't stealing - it's destruction of property. And yes, graffiti is damage. No it's not theft. I never said the copyright infringement didn't do any damage, I said it wasn't theft.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That argument sounds nice but doesn't work in this case, because smartphones are vastly more useful than DVDs or whatever. I - and many other younger people I know - feel fully justified in paying for a smartphone because of everything it can do for us, even though it's exorbitantly expensive unless you're really careful. Yet we would balk at paying full price for a DVD or a CD (even Amazon's prices) because though we may feel the entertainment value is high, we realize that as a practical matter it is esse
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Cost of handset to me : FREE BIRTHDAY GIFT
I do not and will not purchase online, so your crack about 80 "cents" for a song is irrelevant.
I have over 150+ cd's and 40+ DVD's which were purchased at retail in my personal collection. I add one or two each quarter sometimes more if the bargain bin has something interesting.
Like I want to spend a weekend or two ripping that lot myself ?
Again it is NOT the t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you do buy your music? Because back when you first started attacking me, it was because I dared to suggest that those too poor to buy music shouldn't be spending money on a phone. So you're not in that set of people. You're just moving the goalposts and inventing some fictional minority of people to "disprove" my argument. Find me a substantial number of people who are:
A) Too poor to afford to buy music
B) Own a smart phone
C) Use that smart phone to pirate music, because there's no other way for t
Re: (Score:2)
Your view that since there are illegal uses that the technologies should be banned.
BUT with lock picks, where there are significant illegal uses, we still acknowledge the individuals right to own and use them responsibly.
There in lies the key if you will pardon the pun.
Individual responsibility.
You advocate for a course of repressive action that is completely unwarranted as has alrea
Re: (Score:2)
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 you
Re: (Score:2)
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 li
Re: (Score:2)
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.
how is that theft? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
lot of libertarians here that would like to see the whole system burn
Libertarianism and anarchism aren't the same thing. Especially when it comes to property rights.
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:4, Insightful)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The former I can use and the later I can't?
Re: (Score:2)
I will take the time at this moment to say that Bitcoins are imaginary property. Should we just void all Bitcoins because they "don't really exist?"
Uhm... yes? Was that meant to be a rhetorical question?
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
(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, trainin
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people get paid to create without intellectual property protection. I'm not just talking open source developers and academics, but also really big industries like fashion:
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html [ted.com]
The movie and TV industries are insignificant in comparison, both in the degree of creativity (barely existent) and in their economic significance (small).
Maybe we'd get some decent content again instead of that low-quality, derivative commercial crap. Maybe people would enter the industry again who do it because they care about the product instead of fame and fortune. Maybe live theater would start doing better again. Altogether, there's a good chance that performing arts would greatly improve if we got rid of the legal basis under which Hollywood and the TV studios have gotten big and usurped our culture.
Nobody is forcing you to be an author now, and nobody would be forcing you to be an author if we curtail or abolish copyright.
What morality? Copyrights and patents are a utilitarian deal: we give you this opportunity for profit in order to encourage you to create something. And as a society, we can change the deal, and if you don't like it, just don't create anything and become a plumber instead. The world doesn't owe you a job as a writer or movie maker.
Wow, are you really that dim that you don't understand the difference between something physical and something non-physical?
Furthermore, copyrights and patents are temporary, artificial grants of monopolies, something that is legally and practically quite distinct from property.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If there was no protection for intellectual property then there would be no employer to provide them a salary.
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.
First, this is so misguided it made me laugh 'til my sides hurt. The companies who make software aren't going under or shutting down as a result of piracy or torrenting. If you need a perfect example, check out Adobe. They have some of the most pirated software on the Internet, and they're still raking in huge profits. Without these BS IP laws, you would likely see about the exact same percent of purchases vs pirate copies. As a heavy torrenter, I can say without a doubt that I could give less of a shit abo
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
They are until they: 1. start earning real money. 2. create something themselves, and the "shoe is on the other foot", and they'd like to try and protect their own IP.
The problem is, that many geeks are young, not yet making a real living for themselves and also fairly naive with regards to the way the real world works.
Those who move into gainful employment actually making money from their
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Fair enough. Let's make one assumption clear though: you think you create something from nothing. Not true. You create something by taking what you have learned so far, and apply it to a problem and (hopefully) generate something new.
Let's take software, for example. A very, very large number of technologies that go into creating software are available for free. HTML is just one example. C/C++ is another. Furthermore, every single piece of software out there builds on the software that came before it.
This line of thinking works for every type of intellectual work. From books to movies, everything has been done before. You're just adding a small twist to it. Disney is the single biggest example of it: nearly their entire catalog of classics is a near-exact rip-off of existing stories. If you think you're creating something from scratch, you're deluding yourself. You're taking advantage of a whole set of knowledge that you are free to use as you wish. If you couldn't, your creative endeavors would amount to nothing, as you'd have to pay so much to other creators that there wouldn't be anything left for you.
I work in the software industry. I know exactly how much I profit from the fact that I can leverage what I know without having to pay everyone every time I use that knowledge that they gave me.As a matter of fact, I know that I basically would not be able to make a living if I would have to pay everyone.
That is the problem with the concept of intellectual property: if applied consequently in all instances, innovation would basically stop.
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:4, Interesting)
- 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.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't weld things together. We don't tend to work in assembly lines. We don't forge steel or mine for ore.
I weld, solder, smelt, and forge routinely for my geeky projects. Does being good with a computer somehow preclude me from labor-intensive tasks? Metallurgy is seriously fun. Of course I do it.
I give away all of my code for free. Part of that is I don't see any inherent value in some snippets I have made, but if someone wants to steal my code when I make a game or utility or something useful, go right ahead. I'm not going to be out the 1's and 0's of that file. I still have a copy. Nothing was stolen. The t
Re: (Score:2)
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 product
Re:The grey line of theft (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The issue ends at production (Score:2)
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 hon
Cue rant about the tool and its uses (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Pressure from the Telcos (Score:2)
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 pro
Re:Pressure from the Telcos (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
I see now. I understood "torrent download manager" to mean a program that manages your torrent downloads on the phone. Honest mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to void your warranty to side-load an app. And you can install alternative marketplaces. The 'tyranny' of the Apple store is that it's the only legitimate way to get applications onto the device.
Re: (Score:2)
And they let you use alternative marketplaces, or simply sideload apps. That's sort of a big deal, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
A ban from the Apple store means that you cannot install the application on your phone. Period, end of story. (Unless you choose to root your phone)
A ban from the Google store means that you must download the application elsewhere.
ban hammers from one hardware store (Score:2)
If I owned a hardware store and advertised hammers by displaying the use of the hammer in breaking into a house/safe whatever, then maybe there would be some not unexpected bad blood from people who experienced some damage from hammer wielding thieves, or were even just worried about the possibility.
Whether the recipient seemed like they deserved such treatment because they did bad things to kittens is moot, being seen to promote illegal activities as a positive use of your product is just a bit silly, even
Try again.. (Score:5, Informative)
It was removed from the MARKET, not your device.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.. (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
will force you to use their market
It took me about 3 minutes to root my Droid...no more proprietary shit. Free wifi/wired tethers. Remove 'system' apps I didn't want. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing. We've gone from general purpose computing with hundreds of thousands of stores all providing software to if it's not in one location, it doesn't exist. All within a generation.
I suspect those who know what a torrent is and how to use it will have no problem changing a setting and checking a bookmark.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Troll)
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 ov
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
You don't have to root an Android phone in order to sideload applications (unless you bought it from AT&T, but that's your carrier's fault, not 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.
If you're having those kinds of problems, you've either done something really stupid to the hardware or OS, or it is just your bad luck to get a defective piece of hardware. Those kinds of issues are not common. I suspect USER ERROR.
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.
My Android phone (also HTC) is my only phone. I've had no issues, it works for me every time, night and day, home or away.
Re: (Score:2)
You're full of shit. You're going to go back to the iPhone because you're having issues with tethering? Really? Your other examples are pretty generic. Please tell me what you did on iPhone that worked fine that cause network stack crashes and 'general failures all over the place' on Android. Geez fanboi..
Pot calling the kettle black....
Re: (Score:3)
Won't people still be able to sideload it? They just removed it from the Market.
Re: (Score:3)
If it bothers you
Re: (Score:2)
Well that makes it OK then.
OK.
Re: (Score:3)
A tax on media is a terrible idea...
It punishes anyone who needs blank media, regardless of what they use that media for... Even if those people never consume any copyrighted content at all, or purchase if legitimately.
Also with a guaranteed income from tax, what incentive do content producers have to actually produce decent content? They can instead pump out endless streams of complete crap and still collect their cash, and doing so would be far more profitable.
It's akin to taxing motor vehicles in order t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
In Soviet... Wait, those guys are looking better and better these days...
- Dan.
Re: (Score:3)
Until the next OS upgrade perhaps?
Most of the major Android manufacturers have committed themselves to selling devices with unlocked bootloaders. This means it's not terribly difficult for you to install the OS upgrade yourself, and there's also nothing stopping you from downloading the latest source, compiling that, and installing it.
So there's also nothing stopping you from installing a version which doesn't wipe software without your permission.
All of this also means it's fairly unlikely Google will start trying to wipe software without
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you're butthurt that your iPhone lets them remove stuff or brick your phone remotely. My droid doesn't have that issue.
I'm sorry you can't actually own your software or have a choice of app stores. My droid doesn't have that issue.
I'm sorry your iPhone has to install software from an app store, and there's no real package format for manual installation. My droid doesn't have that issue.
I'm sorry they took this particular torrent client off the market, though I don't see how it affects your iPhone.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)