  elios
join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO 1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?
its more like he left all his stuff out in the front yard and thought it was safe there |
|
  Jairzinho
@amtrak.com
| said by elios :its more like he left all his stuff out in the front yard and thought it was safe there It's more like he left all his stuff out in the front yard and is now threatening anyone who dare just to say "The crazy guy on Main St left all his stuff out!". |
|
 MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to elios said by elios :its more like he left all his stuff out in the front yard and thought it was safe there You're just making my point for me. Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's legal.
It is no more legal to steal something off my front yard than it is to go in my open back window and steal something. |
|
  elios
join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO | yes but its your own fault you left it there
if you leave some thing out in the open like long enough some one is going to take it |
|
 MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by elios :yes but its your own fault you left it there if you leave some thing out in the open like long enough some one is going to take it What you say is completely true. It would be stupid for me to leave something out in my front yard that I didn't want to be taken.
However, that does NOT make it legal for someone to take it. If I catch the guy who took it and press charges, his defense of "it's your fault because you left it in your front yard" is not going to work. |
|
  bear73 Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies Premium join:2001-06-09 Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| true, but possession is 9/10ths of the law. if you leave it in the open, and someone walks off with it, you have no recourse. -- If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE! »www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
  tmh
@qwest.net
| reply to MyDogHsFleas said by elios :It is no more legal to steal something off my front yard than it is to go in my open back window and steal something. Who's stealing? All HoFo is saying is "this guy keeps all his stuff in his front yard. Look! I can see a TV, some underwear, and a blow up rubber dolly." |
|
 MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to bear73 said by bear73 :true, but possession is 9/10ths of the law. if you leave it in the open, and someone walks off with it, you have no recourse. Which planet are you living on? Of course I do. I call the police, I ID you as the guy who walked onto my front yard and took something that belonged to me, they arrest you. When you tell the judge "possession is 9/10 of the law" and "but he left it out where it was easy to take" he laughs in your face and doubles your sentence for being stupid. |
|
  Noah Vail Premium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Who Lives in a Web Site?
The whole house analogy is faulty.
In a house, everything is private and there is an expectation that the stuff you have at the beginning of the day, you'll still have at the end of the day.
MobiTV is a business. The purpose of a business is to get rid of their stuff. On the web, lots of sites give their stuff away. Most video traffic being streamed, is FREE content.
If you assume a video link is gratis, you'll be right more than not.
That having said, most everyone who is streaming MobiTV as a result of HF, probably knows MobiTV would rather they pay for it.
However, MobiTV is injecting a non-pay access to their content into a public highway system. When a user travels that link, there is no barrier, warning sign or request that they pay. It is an unmarked route of travel with nothing to differentiate it from any other route.
They attempted to hide it within a pay system, but someone found it posted it in a plain sight. So MobiTV wants to sue plain sight.
No one is forcing MobiTV to stream their content. They could shut it down anytime they chose. No one forced them publish a non-pay link. The attempt to hide it within another delivery system does not change the fact that it is an open access point of entry.
If MobiTV would rather people not availed themselves of a free link to their content, they should stop publishing a free link to their content.
NV -- Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
 MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Noah Vail :If MobiTV would rather people not availed themselves of a free link to their content, they should stop publishing a free link to their content. 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. |
|
  Noah Vail Premium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA | Didn't I read above that HF is officed in Canada?
Does Canada subscribe and submit to the DCMA?
NV -- Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
  rosco Premium join:2003-11-10 USA | I think the web host is in america. |
|
  Noah Vail Premium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA | Then you'd have to sue the hosting company.
NV |
|
  rosco Premium join:2003-11-10 USA 1 edit | MobiTv will start by trying to get Gnax to take the site offline.
»www.howardforums.com/announcement.php?f=57 |
|
 wierdo
join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to MyDogHsFleas Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?
said by MyDogHsFleas :said by elios :yes but its your own fault you left it there if you leave some thing out in the open like long enough some one is going to take it What you say is completely true. It would be stupid for me to leave something out in my front yard that I didn't want to be taken. However, that does NOT make it legal for someone to take it. If I catch the guy who took it and press charges, his defense of "it's your fault because you left it in your front yard" is not going to work. You misunderstand. It's like you leaving all your stuff out on your front lawn with a sign that says "take what you please." It's a fair assumption that anything that's on an HTTP server is intended for public consumption, barring a password or some other access control being in place.
I don't need explicit permission from my bank to type in the URL to their online banking application. -- It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
  dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22 united state | reply to MyDogHsFleas But if you leave it all on the public right of way, say the sidewalk or the planning strip, its free game. Leave a file on the public right of way and it too is free game. |
|
  Camelot One Premium,MVM join:2001-11-21 Sarasota, FL clubs:
| reply to MyDogHsFleas Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?
said by MyDogHsFleas :said by Noah Vail :If MobiTV would rather people not availed themselves of a free link to their content, they should stop publishing a free link to their content. 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. 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. -- Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
  Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| 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. |
|
 MyDogHsFleas Premium join:2007-08-15 Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | 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. 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. |
|
  Camelot One Premium,MVM join:2001-11-21 Sarasota, FL clubs:
| said by MyDogHsFleas :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. 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. 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. -- Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|