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 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 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 :

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 :

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.