said by jgilm :

I think all of the analogies have gotten way out of hand. The concept is rather simple.

Try to prosecuting HoFo for free speech is the issue. HoFo did not steal or infringe copyright on anything. The unprotected URL is a fact, which cannot be copyrighted.

I cannot copyright the fact that I place a spare key to my house under the big rock by the door. Neither can I expect to win at law against a person if they place signs around my neighborhood that tells where I put a spare key.

Regardless of the type of protection, it is not illegal to tell people a fact about the protection

It is illegal to do with someone elses "property" that which they do not want to have happen. HoFo did not do anything with anyone's property, just as the person that tells others where I put my spare key. If a person uses my spare key to enter my house, then they would be violating the law, just as if someone used the link to view TV streams that were not free.

Going after HoFo is stupid just for this reason alone. They cannot possibly win at law.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

On another news story (the one about WikiLeaks) I started a thread titled "Web sites are not magic" or something like that.

The point is, just because it's a Web site, doesn't grant it magical invulnerability from the real world of business and law.

What you say is true from a practical point of view. They've depended on security through obscurity (deep link URL to a text file with more deep links to the content) and now they've been burned. They should not have done that.

My whole point here is, don't leap to the conclusion that therefore it's perfectly OK to use those deep links, that bypass their authentication and authorization system, just because they are now revealed. Or, worse, that they are only getting what they deserve.

mobiTV, whether you like it or not, has a valid case. Howard Forums will lose the DMCA appeal if they make one.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

I'd say your analogy could stand a little tweaking. What it's really like is if I had the big drapes closed, but around the side of the house, there was an unmarked button. If you tried pushing the button, you'd find it opened the drapes and you could see what was going on. Then I came out and yelled at you for opening the drapes. Your defense is, "But the button is right over there! All I have to do is push it! If you didn't want your drapes open, you should have protected your button!" And then you wrote a story for the local paper telling people where the button is and how to press it.

said by Karl Bode :

quote:

---

Your entire argument is flawed, even using your own analogy. As posted above, this isn't like Howard Forums took the stuff from the unlocked house. They simply let a user posted comment that "so and so left all of their stuff in the front yard" stand. Howard Forums has provided nothing but information, about a completely non-secured PUBLIC website. It's no different than me telling a friend that I observed a guy in a green shirt walking down the street.

---

We have a winner.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

Maybe on Planet Karl. On Earth, you're ignoring the fact that the steps involve:

1) figuring out a deep URL to a file
2) downloading and looking at that file (which is not obviously a text file)
3) pulling more deep URLs out of that file
4) firing those URLs at the web site

To say this is like you just happened to notice something on the Internet (like you just happened to notice someone walking in a green shirt) is deeply disingenuous. Someone deliberately walked down this path to find something that was non-obvious before they found it. And that someone knew, for sure, that they were bypassing (admittedly poorly secured) authentication/authorization steps that the website owners had in place.

Once it was found, it is now obvious, to those that are even moderately skilled at computers and the Internet. It's also obvious that their security is just a tad less than bulletproof. That doesn't change the fact that you can't blame the victim because they didn't resist the attack very well.

said by Camelot One :

I'm not arguing that they don't have a case against the person who posted it - which is what your arument is for. But the fact is, Howard Forums is being threatened under the DMCA for allowing a URL to a publicly available webpage. (yes, it's txt but still) Nothing more.

So to take my counter analogy to the proper level, it's like me saying "so and so left their stuff out in the PUBLIC street" There is absolutely no expectation of privacy when you publish something publicly to the web. The file isn't even in a password protected directory.

said by Noah Vail :

Does Canada subscribe and submit to the DCMA?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

[...blah blah blah...][random analogy about stealing property][...blah blah blah...]

said by rosco :

MobiTv will start by trying to get Gnax to take the site offline.

»www.howardforums.com/announcement.php?f=57

MobiTV, a company that streams television channels to mobile devices, has backed away from its threats to censor a mobile forum Web site and pull the plug on its domain name.

Lawyers for the Emeryville, Calif., company had threatened the owner of HowardForums.com on March 4, saying that users of the Web site had posted an illegal link that allows anyone to watch television channels such as MSNBC or the Discovery Channel over the Internet for free without registering.

But after a firestorm of protest arose online, with Internet users saying that MobiTV should add greater security rather than dispatching their lawyers, the company backed down on Friday afternoon.

...statement from MobiTV co-founder and president Paul Scanlan, which we left unedited:

quote:

---

Howard, great catching up today. Again, we're big fans of the sight and our intention was never to bring your entire sight down or to "censor the Internet" like we're being accused. The irony is that is quite the opposite type of company we are and as one of the leaders in new media, we couldn't be more supportive of the rights of sights like yours. Please know that our first priority is always to fix any security issues with our system and we're doing that. Additionally, we also have a responsibility to our content and carrier partners to reduce the impact of any breaches to the system once they occur and that was really the basis for the correspondence you had with our legal team.

---

said by Karl Bode :

quote:

---

Maybe on Planet Karl.

---

Is that an insult? Here on "Planet Karl" we don't much like lame analogies used as a justification to stifle reasonable Internet discussion. Because even if the actual act being discussed is Illegal, discussing it is not.

I know. We're crazy. We also drink Drain-O and smoke big cigars.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

It sounds like MoviTV is now in the process of redoing their (poor) security.

Sounds like this story is about over.