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.
It's true, the only real thing in question is about posting URLs, which is perfectly legal and not copyrighted. On the other hand, torrent sites have gotten in trouble for simply putting up links too to things that aren't really hosted by them. It's different in this case though, since nothing at all is hosted on HoFo except the pages with the text and links (no files or anything like that that are used to access MobiTV).