Posting Publicly Available URL Claimed a "Hack"

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

I wonder how much their lawyer bills each time he has to send out a C&D for posting a link to qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd.

Sekrit Government Haxx0ring

Lookit me! I'm hacking the pentagon! [osd.mil] And the CIA! [cia.gov] And the FBI! [fbi.gov]

Hold on, one moment--someone's knocking.

Re:Sekrit Government Haxx0ring

I would say I'll visit you in prison, but I'm not allowed to travel to Cuba.

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!

Just FYI

The URLs obtained with this "hack" play just fine in Quicktime as well.

Time to change your sig

So I guess this means /.ers will now change their sig from 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 to qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd....

DMCA notice to Canada?

Did anyone ready the PDF of the letter they sent [207.210.82.134] to Howard . . . in Canada . . . citing the DMCA (a US law?) I don't know where HoFo's servers are, or if Canada has a DMCA-like law yet, but that seems pretty silly and maybe Howard should prep a backup server not in the US just in case. Then write the idiots at MobiTV a funny reply like the guys at the pirate bay [thepiratebay.org] do.

Silly MobiTV -- you can't copyright an URL!

Re:Well, what did you expect?

Is it stupid to make your stream available unencrypted from a publicly available URLYes

Freeloading

"There are too many people freeloading nowadays. The internet makes it so much easier to freeload"

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?

Is it wrong? Yes

No. There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

No. There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.

Various child pornography laws probably wish to differ with the above statement.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.

I guess you never stumbled upon a goatse or tubgirl publicly available link, then :P

Re:Well, what did you expect?

How am I to know that membership is required if they do not ID? If I walk into a Gym and no one IDs me, I think "hey, cool. public gym. didn't know they still existed". If I stumble across a link to a TV stream, I think "hey, cool. free video. I wish they had stripped the ads." I feel it is unreasonable to expect the end user to determine if he or she should be paying for a service. If the service is pay only, it should have some method of access control. A lack of access control implies free (as in beer).

Re:Well, what did you expect?

"I feel it is unreasonable to expect the end user to determine if he or she should be paying for a service."

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:Well, what did you expect?

Is it wrong to walk into a gym

FAIL. This is slashdot, you're supposed to make car analogies.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

well they're within their rights in asking you to stop.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

Browsing the stacks, in this case.

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.

what about google?

As always, that kind of position is missing the fact that google is technically doing the same thing.

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:Well, what did you expect?

Is it against the law to print the address of a person and that person doesn't lock his garage? No

What makes you think this is any different? Immoral != Illegal.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

likewise: Illegal != wrong.

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:Well, what did you expect?

Does MobiTV and Verizon have the right to send a cease and desist letter? Sure

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?

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:Well, what did you expect?

I concur, just because the door to my house is unlocked, that doesn't mean anyone is legally allowed to enter. IANAL, but this could be a similar precedent.

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?

Your house is private property, which is why people are not allowed to enter. It has nothing to do with whether the door is locked or not.

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:Shame shame

Let's go with something that fits the bill a little better. On a hot summer day you run a long garden hose out from your yard on the sidewalk turn it on and leave it running. Then you run an ad in the paper telling people that if they mail you five bucks they can use your hose to get a drink. But one day you notice a neighbor has been telling friends about your hose and they start coming by and getting a drink without mailing in the money.
 
You've put your resource out in a public place with no restrictions - and they should be accountable?

Re:Shame shame

In most places, it is illegal to leave a running car unattended, but it is not illegal to borrow something with permission. A sign saying "take one" is an invitation to take one item that doesn't belong to you. They have them at supermaket checkouts. If you are told you can take something, you may take it and it isn't illegal. In the example, the car was running, open, and with a sign indicating that the person should take a free joyride. If the sign can be reasonably assumed to be placed there by the owner (which would be reasonable, since in the example it was placed there by him) then it is perfectly legal to take the car. The only one that broke any laws was the owner, leaving the car running and unattended.