said by BigMattock :

MobiTV said they didn't want to take Howard's 'sight' down. When does the First Amendment not apply? When it goes against the DMCA? Can't Mobi, the artist, sue MobiTV? Or does Mobi own part of it? Who had the name Mobi first... maybe Mobi(the artist) will have to change his name?

said by Ahrenl :

Horrible analogy.

This is more like someone who left their TV playing on the street, and threatened to sue anyone who told people where to go and watch said TV. No property is being withheld from the original owner, who is ACTUALLY PROVIDING the content to anyone who wishes to ask for it.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

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

Sounds like this story is about over.

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.

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 rosco :

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

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

said by MyDogHsFleas :

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

said by Noah Vail :

Does Canada subscribe and submit to the DCMA?

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 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 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 :

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 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 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 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.

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 MyDogHsFleas :

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.

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.

But I really don't, because you've copied my blue film and posted it on the Internet. Where is my business now?

The thing you and others are missing is that the video streams are not really on public display. If someone goes through the front door of the mobitv site, there is no link that says "Hey! Click here and get it for free!" Instead, there's a signup process by which you are given access.

To bypass it, you have to know (a) the URL of a file and (b) how to download that file, save it, examine its contents, and copy/paste the imbedded URLs into a Web browser. We, as techno-elite people, know how to do those steps easily. I guarantee you that at least half of the people on the Internet would, given the URL, fail to download the file, examine it, and then view the videos. Additionally, the URL to the file is not obvious by any means. Someone figured it out and posted it.

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.

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 rosco :

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

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 MyDogHsFleas :

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

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 elios :

its as much stealing as asking youtube for a video

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 :

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

said by RayW :

Actually, your logic is more faulty. It is more like you left your full size, floor to ceiling, wall to wall picture window drapes open and then got upset because everyone standing on the street or side walk (and not on your lawn) saw you undressed doing actions of dubious morality with another guy for a blue film and they are not buying your film.

In your example you have nothing left, in the other you still have what you started with and the option to close the drapes and continue on with your business.

If you chose not to shut the drapes but instead to sue all the onlookers for staring at you from the public access areas, then I wonder how far you would get?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

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

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 elios :

its more like he left all his stuff out in the front yard and thought it was safe there

said by elios :

its more like he left all his stuff out in the front yard and thought it was safe there

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 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."