Posting Publicly Available URL Claimed a "Hack" 555
Urban Strata writes "Popular mobile phone community HowardForums.com is being hit with take-down notices from MobiTV. At issue is the fact that a HowardForums community member uncovered a publicly accessible URL for MobiTV's television stream. This URL is not encrypted or authenticated in any way, and yet MobiTV sent site owner Howard Chui a cease-and-desist letter for hosting a forum with the public URL, claiming that doing so is equivalent to hacking their service."
Lawyer fees (Score:5, Funny)
Sekrit Government Haxx0ring (Score:5, Funny)
Hold on, one moment--someone's knocking.
Re:Sekrit Government Haxx0ring (Score:5, Funny)
On the bright side, I hear the conditions there aren't so bad. Rumor has it that they'll give you all the water you can drink, even if you're not thirsty!
Other things MobiTV is doing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, this is probably something to draw attention to a service that few people knew about. Any publicity is good publicity, after all.
Just FYI (Score:5, Informative)
It's just good business (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I know, secure connections are not rocket science. But it's business; the path perceived most profitable is the path chosen.
Security through obscurity (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly is MobiTV trying to claim is their IP? The URL? I didn't think such short addresses were copyrightable. I don't think they realize how the internet works. If I type in a URL in a browser, I'm sending a request for data back. It's up to mobitv what to return. If they don't want us to have access to the data, don't return it. Simple.
Time to change your sig (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time to change your sig (Score:5, Funny)
Same thing happened in Bragg v. Linden Labs (Score:3, Informative)
http://secondlife.typepad.com/ [typepad.com]
Some interesting background reading. They settled, but the "hack" question was never answered by the court .
DMCA notice to Canada? (Score:5, Interesting)
Silly MobiTV -- you can't copyright an URL!
Anonymous Karma Whore (Score:5, Informative)
channel name="FOX News" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/8-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Discovery" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/3-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="TLC" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Animal Planet" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/63-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="NBC Comedy" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1500-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="ESPN Mobile TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4103-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="NBC Sports Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1513-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Lipstick Jungle" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1508-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Maxx Look" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/48-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Toon World TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/28-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Access Hollywood" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1515-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Love Laffs" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4104-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Bloomberg" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/52-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Tim Gunns Guide to Style" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1519-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="The Mic Hip Hop" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/910-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="V40 Hot Hits" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/911-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Totally 80s 90s" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/96-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Double Z Country" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/72-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="RandB Jamz" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/425-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Ritmo Caliente" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/97-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Chaos Extreme" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/913-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Shift Alternative" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/912-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="USA Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1503-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Bravo To Go" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1502-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="SCI FI Pulse Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1501-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Oxygen" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/58-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Discovery Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/53-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="A and E Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/17-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="The History Channel Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/19-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="NBC News Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/2-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Fashion TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/22-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Comedy Time" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/21-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="MAXX SPORTS" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com/50-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="IGN" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/59-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Bombones" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/74-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="CNET" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/23-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="CSPAN" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/30-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="CSPAN2" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/31-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Soulja Boy Tell Em TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4100-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Ataku" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/83-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="D40 Digital Camera" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1346-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
channel name="Bank of America" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4101-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Give me a break! (Score:5, Funny)
123 and counting . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
It's going to be fun watching this proliferate.
We Are Missing the Bigger Picture (Score:4, Informative)
As for the website itself, their complaint is rather like a bank putting all of their customers' account balances on a webserver, and then complaining when someone looks at someone else's account. Yes, the action is dickish at best, but the fact that it can be carried out is dickisher.
And now the URL is posted all over the internet (Score:3, Informative)
From TDWTF... (Score:3, Informative)
I think someone should trademark the term "Hacking," as people take it to mean both "trespassing online" and "breaching our illusion of security."
So, am I hacking mobitv too? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this reminds me of this story [slashdot.org] where reuters was accused of hacking for posting a publically-available but secret URL. Everyone thought it was a complete joke and reuters lined up its battalion of lawyers and pumped the plaintiff full of hot lead. How is this any different?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The information, or Verizon's copy thereof, or their legal suscribers' access thereto -- those things are not destroyed.
The legally assigned rights related to profit for distribution are damaged.
Yes, Verizon can and should take steps to protect that value; but that doesn't make ir "right" or "ok" to take part in destroying it just because it's easy to do so.
The law probably should state that making information publically visible by posting it on the web without protection constitutes an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To make it clearer, if somebody were to put a TV in their shop window with new movies playing and say that only people who paid for it may watch and all others must leave a public sidewalk, it would be ri
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you've opened up the line for yet another debate on the true meaning of "steal".
A lot of people don't accept that the legally-assigned right to profit from (propagation of) information (1) is a distinct thing from the information itself, and (2) can be and is destroyed / taken from the right-holder when unauthorized propagation of the information occurs.
I don't agree, and for that reason I don't have a big problem with the shorthand of calling it theft in casual contexts even though the analogy is imperfect.
Or rather, I wouldn't have a problem about it, except the reality today is it pushes the debate away from the issues as people wrangle about the semantics.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, if I leave a sofa on the curb in San Francisco, and don't look like I am moving, it will disafsckingppear in less than an hour. The internet is no different; you make a stream avail without any protection, I tap into the stream, you don't want me to, you block it. You don't block, you are ok with it. Like leaving the sofa out, implied consent to access unprotected content/stuff.
Your argument essentially distills into having a house with glass walls in the middle of a crowded city and then complaining when people look in. Don't want observers, don't use glass walls.
andy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You are the CEO of a multinational corporation. You manage the company into the ground. You are fired, but the golden handshake provision of your contract entitles you to 150M$. Money you didn't, in the strictest sense of the word, earn. Are you stealing?"
The CEO indeed did not steal, but the reason isn't that the company from whom he takes the money left it unprotected; it's that they gave explicit consent that in those circumstances, he would be allowed to take t
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll grant that this is a gray area and I don't happen to think it's "morally right" to view the service, but that's not the same thing as stealing. I've had cable internet, specifically just internet, and also received television service. I informed the provider that I received tv though I wasn't paying for it and nothing was ever done to remedy the situation. After one notification, I no longer felt any need to justify my use of the television service I didn't order, but wasn't paying for either. Was I stealing?
Obviously the company in the article doesn't want people using the service, but to say those who are using it are stealing is not legally accurate, even if the moral ground is less clear.
That said, the site manager that listed the URL is under no obligation I know of (it is a public URL after all that is listed on multiple locations) to remove the link but he'd probably be wise to do so, if for no other reason than to limit time he'll have to spend in court, "guilty" or not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BZZZT, wrong. Only the owner of the sofa can file charges of theft on on the 'thief'. I cannot file charges on you for stealing my friends car, for example.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyay, whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't' have something isn't so easy to define. Just because someone is making money off of something, that doesn't mean that obtaining that something for free is wrong. Pepsi and Coke make money by putting water into bottles and selling it, yet I can get water almost anywhere for free.
The semantics in this are critical (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't steal, it's copyright infringement. There are two different terms for very good reasons. Copyright issues are very 'hot' right now so diluting and / or confusing the issue doesn't help.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Incredibly stupid business decisions should not be protected with a C&D to remove an entire forum thread. Free societies have already established that tel
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, even better; there used to be a hill you could sit on in this town that let you watch over the fence into a drive-in movie screen. Is that theft? No; it's just spillover, a consequence of where the theater was located. They are broadcasting into the public space. They could have raised the fence another twenty feet to fix the problem, but they didn't care enough to.
This site could have restricted the accessibility of the URL, but didn't care enough to.
Plus, as a practical matter, they are now the latest idiot of the week on the internet. There is no way this will work out in their favor.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really don't get the point of a public URL. It's like a phone number. There's no law against calling a phone number, even if the answering machine is playing copyright songs.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. I stayed up and fixed it. There'd be no one to blame but myself if I hadn't.
Freeloading (Score:5, Insightful)
Jee, I wonder if you'd apply the same concept to OTA radio and Local TV with regards to magnetic recording media back in the 80s and 90s.
The fact of the matter is that they're claiming it is a hack, when it's their own stupidity and ignorance that allowed this to happen. Calling this a hack is just an attempt upon the person's character. People will begin to think the person that stumbled across this is a hacker, then they'll get that reputation, which in turn tarnishes the reputation of the non-hacker. It's character assassination and MobiTV should be nailed to the fucking wall while someone calls for their waaaaaahmbulance.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it wrong to walk into a gym where you dont have a membership and start exercising just because they dont bother to check ID's at the door? Yes
This is the same thing. It is not wrong to visit a URL. It is wrong to use a pay-service that you are not paying for.
Lets try to get this into your head: You are not entitled to everything you have "access" to. If you continue to live with this mentality, DRM will be shoved at you for every kind of content imaginable.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it more like walking into a library w/o a card and browsing the stacks and reading in the library, or like talking a book home?
You can't use your metaphor without answering which, and the answer explaining which is the more correct metaphor is probably more work that arguing the case itself.
That said this "everything that's not nailed down is ok for me to walk off with" mentality probably IS keeping the DRM race ratcheted up.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not preventing anyone else from browsing or checking out the books, and at worst you're taking up a little bit of space in the hall. The resources that you've accessed are still there for all the other patrons.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
You go to visit your local zoo because they have a rare tasmanian devil on display. Entrance fee is $5. You notice on arriving that the back of the cage for this animal is clearly open to the street at the rear of the zoo. Instead of paying your admission you walk around back and look at the rare animal without paying, from the street. The zoo then has you arrested for theft.
That's about as good as I can do.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
A private, authenticated access system would be like having a dog show in a private venue. An open, public URL is like taking your dogs for a walk in Balboa Park. Everyone has the right to go there, and no one can stop you from looking at the other people and stuff there, too.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes an unhealthy dose of willful ignorance to fail to make that determination on your own.
And yet you're puzzled by why digital content producers try so hard to prevent their works from being 'mistakenly' acquired by people who (according to you) can't determine if they are entitled to said works for free.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I signed-up for a morning exercise program with the park district was was held inthe high school. It was a weights and stationary cycles type of thing. The first day that I got there I went in the 'other' door into the gym and saw an exercise room with a lot of people my age working-out in there so I went in and got into it. Later the burly high sc
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know if your neighbor minds? Hell, I could be your neighbor.
If I put an old computer on the curb, it's free for the taking. It would be quite stupid to assume otherwise. And the law says your trash is public property once it's set out on the curb.
I see your argument running out of propellant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I walk into a Gym and no one IDs me, I think "hey, cool. public gym. didn't know they still existed".
I've got to call BS on that one. You may think, "Hey - They failed to put up a members only sign or check ID. I can work out and, if they stop me, pretend that this is my first day in the modern world and didn't know that they expect payment." But you'd have to be really disconnected from society if you honestly thought that you just found a free gym...
Now, if you click a link to a site that was showing video and stuck around to see what they had, pleading ignorance may be a little more realistic. But,
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
So that gym I go to every Saturday to take martial arts has been charging all these years? Seriously, I go to a free gym every Saturday to train; the name is the Black and Williams Neighborhood Center just in case you think I'm bullshitting. These aren't unheard of in most civilized countries so one has to wonder who is really disconnected from society as per your statement above.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you left your front door unlocked, would that entitle me to go inside, watch your TV, and raid the fridge? I think we'd all agree that in that case, a lack of access control does not imply free (as in the beer I found in your fridge).
The key question is "Did the user know he was not entitled to use this service?" Also, "Would an average person with no prior knowledge of the service assume that it is 'open to the public'?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And therein lies the fault of your reasoning. THERE IS NO DOOR!
The Net is open. Period. If an engineer makes the decision (or in this case a business decision) to not put up a gate with a guard then MobiTV can expect anyone to enter.
Let's step back from the "home invasion" mentality. This is a business. Most businesses allow people to enter without ID. Take a SAMS Club or COSTCO, for instance, though. The doors are open but you need a membership to buy merchandise. Yo
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
FAIL. This is slashdot, you're supposed to make car analogies.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
tollbooth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but public buildings and private gyms have clear demarcations as to what is public and what is not. If the gym has a dozen rooms and the first one I happen upon has no lock, no ID check, and no sign stating the requirement that you be a member, I cannot know to stay out; it could be demo equipment put there to entice me to become a member.
Similarly, if a URL doesn't have an authentication lock and doesn't say you must be a paying member to access, how can I distinguish pay content from a free giveawa
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Funny)
... say someone took a bad analogy and stretched it even further, charging an arbitrary fee to read it ... would you be opposed to gay marriage?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Me: Hey, I have this URL. Can I get any content from it?
Them: Sure, here's a video for you!
So, the gym analogy would be more like this:
Me: Hey, I saw this gym here. Can I work out?
Them: Sure, come on in!
If they don't want me to come in, they just have to say no. If MobiTv couldn't be bothered to say no or check IDs at the door, they have effectively allowed me in.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm surfing the dregs of the internet looking for coveted pics of Natalie Portman petrified and covered in hot grits, and some javascript redirects me to a child porn page am I:
1. A criminal?
2. A criminal if I don't close the browser within 5 seconds?
3. Innocent?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...some javascript redirects me to a child porn page am I:
1. A criminal.
IANAL but, under current law as I understand it, you're now guilty of possession of child pornography. If you choose to self-report or are caught through other means, the best you can do is hope that you're not prosecuted because it was an accident. The same goes (I believe) for possession of stolen goods ("But I paid $$ for it in a pawn shop and had no idea it was stolen!") or possession of narcotics ("He said they were just OTC pills to help keep me from dozing off!")
Awkward laws... Any
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's also not a crime to be in possession of CP if you did not willfully acquire it and did not discover its presence. You may, however, have some significant legal wrangling ahead of you before that defense is accepted. (For example, one individual was found with an external hard drive containing CP on top of his computer. He claimed that he had purchased it from a neighbor and never used it. Forensic evidence corroborated this story, and so he was in the clear. His neighbor, not so much.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Visiting a public URL in itself is never wrong. What you do there may or may not be. We aren't talking about just 'visiting a public URL.' We are talking about taking a service you don't pay for.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're talking about leaving a cardboard box full of merchandise in a public park with a signs saying "take one, leave a dollar" and a cease and desist to a person who posts a sign saying "hey there's stuff in the park".
In short, we're talking about incredible stupidity [uncyclopedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The URL was not intended to be public and everyone involved knows this. It's like you're saying it's not wrong to burgle someone's house and steal things you don't own because they failed to lock their doors.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The web is a public network -- everything is assumed to be open to the public unless it's protected, at the very least, by a login. The fact that a someone intends for a page to be private doesn't make it so unless he does something about it. MobiTV is at fault for hiring an incompetent web designer. Period.
what about google? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not that far fetch: imagine you are googling for your favorite show, and find some url with a video stream; and it's form a respectable "nbc.com" or the like website. How do you guess it's supposed to be a paying service?
Want a real life example? The other day I was looking for some bash command help, and the third google result was from http://www.experts-exchange.com./ [www.experts-exchange.com] If you access it directly, it hides the answers and asks you to pay. But from google, you get to the answers directly because of some glitch.
What I'm saying is you can't blame the user (or here, the website) if they never went through a dsiclaimer page that made them realise: "well, if I click this link, I will have done something illegal". Free equivalent services exist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Do it up like Julius Baer and Wikileaks! (Score:3, Funny)
* 1 link to "private" content
* 1 cup TinyURL(c) brand address shortening
* 2 lbs. unauthorized access
* 1 content owner
* An army of lawyers
Preheat oven to "Litigation". Route link through address shortening. Mix with unauthorized access, and let rise until content owner exclaims "IT IS TEH HAXORZ!1". Apply army of lawyers liberally to TinyURL for providing access to content. Place in preheated oven and bake until lawsuit reaches a golden brown. Cool before serving.
(Note: Recipe not t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what about google? (Score:4, Informative)
Experts-exchange (and many many other forums) filter by user agent... and the GoogleBot gets a free pass.
Otherwise, their content would never show up in the search engine.
Install the user agent switcher in Fire Fox & created a Googlebot entry for your own free pass.
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)
Am I stealing service by doing this?
Is it "hacking"?
Re:what about google? (Score:5, Informative)
They want to show up in google search results, but they want people to pay for the answers. However, for the relevant text to be included in google's index, they have to make it available on the page for everyone -- they're not allowed to show google different content from what you get when you click on the link. That's called "cloaking", and google has cracked down on it hard for a few years.
So, experts exchange formats their page like this:
The original question
"Pay to see the first answer"
"Pay to see the second answer"
"Pay to see the third answer"
What looks like a giant page footer footer
more footer
more footer
more footer
more footer
more footer
The original question
The actual content of the first answer
The actual content of the second answer
The actual content of the third answer
Here's an example [experts-exchange.com] Note the "premium members only" crap at the top, the giant "footer", and the *real* answers at the bottom.
This way, google indexes the real content at the bottom of the page, but most people see the fake content at the top of the page, and the "footer", and give up before scrolling down to the real content at the bottom.
It's kinda scummy.
Re:what about google? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think this is any different? Immoral != Illegal.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The OP merely said that it was wrong, he did not say that it was illegal. Wrong is clearly a statement of whether something violates ones morals (in this context).
Just sayin...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's ridiculous for them to then complain that someone dared advertise what the company itself was doing. If they don't want people to take the product for free, stop giving it away.
This comment worth 5 dollars. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Do they have the right to send a letter asking them to stop? Sure. But this cease and desist letter [207.210.82.134] goes far beyond that, it claims that they are infringing copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets and it claims so under penalty of perjury. Furthermore, they state they have also sent such claims to the ISP, a third-party. I think that is unsupportable and illegal, and I don't believe they have the right to do that. It's libellous and if they take it any further, it's barratry.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it a hack? No. It's an url.
Does it allow people to watch TV that they didn't pay for? Yes. The TV is offered for free. People who accept the offer can watch it for free.
Does it prevent Verizon and MobiTV from receiving revenue that they should from the streams? No. Verizon and MobiTV could just withdraw the free offer, and implement a different access-controlled method for the same video.
Is it wrong? No. Someone offers free goods. You accept the offer. You have not done anything wrong.
Does MobiTV and Verizon have the right to send a cease and desist letter? Yes. Anyone can write a letter. It means nothing.
Were MobiTV and Verizon stupid to offer this data online for free? Maybe -- It could have been done intentionally. Lots of people put video online, for free.
Were MobiTV and Verizon stupid to continue offering this data online for free, after they decided that they didn't want to? Yes.
Re:Is this what you want? (Score:4, Interesting)
WRONG. Based on your scenario we need to get permission from the site owner to visit any web site.
Any web site which is publicly available is de-facto a public web site. This is precedent since the inception of the www. Even if you had a button that said "Do not click unless you are a paid member of this site" you would have no legal leg to stand on if anyone else clicked it.
Everyone is making real property analogies to this. A web site is not a house, it is not a building, it is not a car. If it were, it would be taxed as such and we would all need written permission to visit each site.
Preventing receiving revenue ? wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know what you'll find? Millions and millions of books, including current bestsellers like Stephen King's Duma Key. Yep, you can just take it right off the shelf, sit down, and read it right there. Instead of paying $17 to $28 dollars, you can read it for free!
In fact, with a Massachusetts driver's license and a little sweet-talk it's not at all hard to do social engineering on the guy at the security desk and talk him into giving you an access card that will let you take that book right through security, right out of the building! For three weeks or more.
Is it a hack? Not really.
Does it allow people to read books that they didn't pay for? Yes
Does it prevent Scribners from receiving revenue that it would otherwise have received? Yes.
Is it wrong? No.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How are books any different from recordings or video streams or what have you? The simple answer is, they aren't. The only difference is that the shock and impact of book technology occurred centuries ago, and the l
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
WRONG! YAdefinitelyNAL!
Entering a house or other property without permission is trespass. Visiting a website is not trespass.
If this were a precedent, people could start suing you just for surfing the web. Visit my website without paying? That's a default judgement for $2500.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
This situation is similar to putting up a big sign in your yard that is visible from public property, and then complaining about people who look at it. If you want it to be private, then don't make it visible from public property. Same thing with a URL. If you want the content to be private, then don't make the link publicly accessible. If you do make it public, you can't complain when people look.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Funny)
"Originally Posted by mobitv
The url "qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd" is not publicly available, nor is it posted anywhere on our website for viewers to access. The only way to access the links is through this url, and the only way to obtain this url is through hacking/debugging."
mobitv posted their "secret" URL in a message on the forum. So much for the trade secret claim.
Re:Cease! Desist! Grow Up! (Score:5, Insightful)
When you go to a url, one of two things happens:
1. The content is served regardless of who you are.
or
2. The server asks for some form of authentication and if the proper response is received, the server responds with the content.
It is hacking if you find a way to circumvent #2 but it is not hacking if #1 happens. When you go to the MobiTV urls, #2 is expected to happen but #1 is happening instead with no additional action on your part. There is nothing illegal about your actions when that happens, only stupidity on the part of MobiTV.
Re:Shame shame (Score:5, Interesting)
You've put your resource out in a public place with no restrictions - and they should be accountable?
Re:Shame shame (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)