said by MyDogHsFleas :

Seems like faulty logic to me.

"Sir, we are going to let the guy go who ransacked your house and stole all your stuff, because you didn't lock your back window. This is definitely your fault. Why did you even threaten him with prosecution? You have no right. In fact, we are going to release the information about your back window on the Internet, and make sarcastic remarks about how stupid you are."

said by rosco :

but if I call his house and say "can I have your stuff" and then he brings it to me...did I steal it?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

No, but that's not what happened here. No one gave them permission.

said by elios :

the server did

i type in the URL asking the server for the data the server HERE YOU GO and send it to me

IF they were smart they would have at lest check the IP of were its coming from and better yet ask for a log in of some kind

its as much stealing as asking youtube for a video

said by elios :

its as much stealing as asking youtube for a video

said by MyDogHsFleas :

Again, this is the mentality of "if it's easy to take, it's legal".

The YouTube case is completely different. YouTube's business model IS to make the videos freely available, and they make money on advertising.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

No, but that's not what happened here. No one gave them permission.

said by elios :

you do not seem to know how the net works do you?
let me help
if i send a request for a file to a server
and that server sends me want i ask for back
no law has been broken that server did exactly what its admins told it to do

if you dont want people using your service that are not intended to you need to protect it

for god sakes at lest put a password on it if not more

most of the steams off that are available to any one that as basic cable so imo its not even copyright infringement

maybe you could make a case for theft of service for the bandwidth used but you would have track down EVERY user that didnt pay for the service and good luck doing that

as i have said once on the net always on the net no putting it back now other then to secure it
GG MobiTV GG

said by La Luna :

Nor did they bother to secure anything. Whose fault is that? Howard Forums? I don't think so.

They got nailed, now they are trying to cover their butts for a really bad mistake on their part.

Have they bothered to secure anything even now, which would solve the problem? Doesn't appear so. They are wasting time bugging Howard Forums.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

Yeah, actually, it is Howard Forums' fault. Reputable forums don't post security bypasses, even if l33t hackers think they're "simple". And if someone posts one, and they are asked to take it down, they do.

You are right about this, from a practical point of view.

said by La Luna :

Nor did they bother to secure anything. Whose fault is that? Howard Forums? I don't think so.

They got nailed, now they are trying to cover their butts for a really bad mistake on their part.

Have they bothered to secure anything even now, which would solve the problem? Doesn't appear so. They are wasting time bugging Howard Forums.

said by rosco :

they could start with an IP block restriction...it cant be that hard to figure out sprint's ip's.
even a username/password page could be inserted with generated passwords for subscribed phone numbers sent to the phone via text message..

said by TKJunkMail :

It isn't just Sprint.
»www.mobitv.com/channels/
They have this product available for multiple vendors. One is Palm WiFi. That is, the connection could be coming from any HotSpot anywhere. IP blocks won't work there.

And anyway, their system is just feeding Real Player streams:

<a href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/X-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">station name</a>
Where 554/X could be 554/"any # 1 to 9999"
and "station name" can be any characters. And if your device supports 3gpp it works.

said by rosco :

I have to point out that it is not a security bypass. There was NO security in place. obscurity != security

said by dot_null :

How could it be a security bypass if MobiTV has no security? Their webserver will serve up that text file to anyone who asks for it, even if the referrer is listed as HowardForums. No one had to crack, hack or do anything else to receive these streams. If you look at how web servers work, this is akin to asking a building with a doorman permission to enter the premises and he blindly grants it, without stopping to ask whether you had legitimate business in the building.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

Again, you are confusing the technical means of securing a website with the legalities involved. In DMCA terms, there was a circumvention of protection.

Here's a summary of RealNetworks vs. Streambox that I found. In this case, RealNetworks sued Streambox for bypassing their (weak) security and accessing their servers and streaming content to a VCR-like piece of software, that would record video for later playback. RealNetworks won the lawsuit, brought under DMCA.

quote:

---

Court rejected defendant's argument that its product did not constitute a violation of the DMCA because Plaintiff's effort to stop copying did not "effectively protect" against unauthorized infringement. The only question the court considered was whether there was a technological protection, not whether it was effective.

---

said by TKJunkMail :

Securing their system will take some time and negotiations with the carriers. All the users from Sprint, AT&T, Palm, etc(see their web page to see how many »www.mobitv.com/channels/ ) have paid about $10/mo for access. To add in security now means downloading code in to hundreds of thousands of devices from many different carriers. That isn't something they will just dash off. It could be quite a while before they fix any security holes.