|
Search GoogleIf you search Google for that URL, you'll come up with a huge number of hits. Granted a lot of those are probably because of thie HoFo thing, but still.
I love HoFo, it has alot of great information. | |
|
PhoenixDownFIOS is Awesome Premium Member join:2003-06-08 Fresh Meadows, NY |
What's that saying about security by obscurity?In any case, I'd like to thank MobiTV for bringing this to my attention. I wouldn't have known about this had they not started the legal chatter. ::thumbs up:: | |
|
| koamPink Pecker Premium Member join:2000-08-16 East Puddle |
koam
Premium Member
2008-Mar-8 9:50 am
Re: What's that saying about security by obscurity?Does anyone know how to make this work on a PC (XP) with either IE or Firefox or WMP?
I tried several of the links in each app and it just gave me errors.
What am I doing wrong? thanks | |
|
1 edit |
DCMA in CanadaFrom PDF attached to this newspiece quote: Howard Chui PO Box 2003 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4EIA3
DCMA doesn't work in Canada. | |
|
| dnoyeBFerrous Phallus join:2000-10-09 Southfield, MI |
dnoyeB
Member
2008-Mar-7 10:17 am
Re: DCMA in CanadaDMCA doesen't work if there is no protection to circumvent. | |
|
| | |
Re: DCMA in CanadaDMCA doesn't work if they're the ones distributing their own content. | |
|
| R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo join:2000-10-04 Glen Allen, VA |
to patcat88
said by patcat88:From PDF attached to this newspiece quote: Howard Chui PO Box 2003 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4EIA3
DCMA doesn't work in Canada. DMCA doesn't work when it's called DCMA. | |
|
|
If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?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." | |
|
| elios join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO 1 edit |
elios
Member
2008-Mar-7 9:36 am
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
Anon
2008-Mar-7 10:48 am
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?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!". | |
|
| | | gimme5 join:2002-12-23 Kissimmee, FL |
gimme5
Member
2008-Mar-8 12:19 pm
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?exactly | |
|
| | |
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 |
elios
Member
2008-Mar-7 11:22 am
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?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 | |
|
| | | | |
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?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. | |
|
| | | | | bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies Premium Member join:2001-06-09 Derry, NH |
bear73
Premium Member
2008-Mar-7 12:51 pm
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?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. | |
|
| | | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?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 VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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 VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?Didn't I read above that HF is officed in Canada?
Does Canada subscribe and submit to the DCMA?
NV | |
|
| | | | | | | | | rosco35 Premium Member join:2003-11-10 USA |
rosco35
Premium Member
2008-Mar-7 2:12 pm
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?I think the web host is in america. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?Then you'd have to sue the hosting company.
NV | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sister MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?How embarrassing that the head of MobiTV does not know how to spell "site". | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | lauraDomestic Bliss Premium Member join:2002-04-16 San Jose, CA |
laura
Premium Member
2008-Mar-14 12:10 am
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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? But his name's MOBY. not mobi. If it was mobi, maybe he'd have a case. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
zardiw to sporkme
Anon
2008-Mar-9 4:50 pm
to sporkme
LMAO. I noticed that. NOBODY knows how to spell anymore....z | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:Does Canada subscribe and submit to the DCMA? Which one? The Dental Crown Mould removal Act? The Dreaded Crab Mammary Act? Or the Digital Consumer Molestation Act? Yes to all of the above. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
2 recommendations |
to MyDogHsFleas
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 1 edit |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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. Yeah, that is the fact. And the fact is, it's a valid threat, and Howard Forums is going to be forced to take it down. It's the way of the DMCA. 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.
Forgetting who's got the right analogy... it's certainly true that anyone who knows anything about Web security would not have considered this site secure. But, read the DMCA and the cases that have been litigated under it. Easy-to-crack technical protection means is not a defense. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:[...blah blah blah...][random analogy about stealing property][...blah blah blah...] No, do you know what this is ACTUALLY like? This is ACTUALLY like some idiot who made a website with video streams on it that were accesible to the public, but they didn't mean to. And then they tried to shut down any website that pointed it out. That's what this is like. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
2 recommendations |
to MyDogHsFleas
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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. Sorry if you took it as an insult, it was just my way of trying to say that I thought you were wrong and I thought that in reality I was right and that I would be proven so here on Earth. I guess we'll see. The last thing I am trying to do is "stifle discussion". I have no idea where you got that from. This discussion is very active and no one seems the least shy about chiming in. On the other hand, this is your site, not mine, and if you want to whack me with a ban stick, that's your right. I'll find somewhere else to interact. This site's actually pretty good at not descending into flame wars or mindless me-too posts. People actually think about what they write. That's why I participate here. I often learn from these discussions even when it feels like I'm one against many. I appreciate that. Plus your technical content is excellent. That's why I came here in the first place. I think I paid some actual $ too, to become a "premium member". And, yeah, all analogies are lame, aren't they? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
This must me alternate earth/USA because here on the real Earth and in the real USA we have laws that protect journalists and more importantly speech. We also have safe harbor provisions that say that Howardforums is not responsible for content posted on their site by others. And the other important thing is it doesn't matter if they discovered a URL using a spider, or found it in config files. How the URL came to be known is irrelevant because it's freedom of speech to discuss URL's, even illegal access to them (otherwise things like the anarchists cookbook would be illegal). Just as it's not illegal to talk about killing someone or committing other crimes. Talking about anything is NOT illegal, only actions are illegal. Now maybe in your alternate reality speech and thoughts are illegal, but here in the real USA they AREN'T.
Now even if the Judge errored badly and assumed that talking about a lack of security is a breach of the digital security provisions of the DCMA (it's NOT) the Judge is required to pursue the path to the least effect on speech, and that means he would be obligated to tell the plaintiff that they need to implement access control on the URL like every one else.
But beyond even that, the owner of Howardforums isn't in the US. Jurisdictional issues are complex, just like the wikileaks case where the Judge was completely wrong to take the case this one brings up issues on whether the court even has the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Just remember, speech and thoughts aren't illegal, no mater how illegal the topic is, at least no in the US. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA |
to MyDogHsFleas
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
C DM
Member
2008-Mar-8 3:36 pm
Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?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. That is pretty much as close to the online situation as it gets. And the whole thing isn't even about coming and watching or anything else, but just telling other people about it, how is that a violation of anything? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?It's like this. You took your stuff, and left it behind a WallMart. People came along and then took it. Nothing illegal, or immoral.....z | |
|
| | | | | wierdo join:2001-02-16 Miami, FL |
to MyDogHsFleas
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. | |
|
| | | | | dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency? join:2004-01-22 united state |
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. | |
|
| | | |
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." | |
|
| rosco35 Premium Member join:2003-11-10 USA |
to MyDogHsFleas
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." No but if I call his house and say "can I have your stuff" and then he brings it to me...did I steal it? | |
|
| | ••••••••••••••••••• |
| RayW Premium Member join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT
2 recommendations |
to MyDogHsFleas
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." 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? | |
|
| | ••••• |
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to MyDogHsFleas
however it is not illegal to post info on how to find this stuff. for example i could say the Walmart in x town has a habit of leaving the loading dock open at night around close. now if you go freeload a flatscreen you are in the wrong however i havent violated any laws. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
to MyDogHsFleas
» www.news.com/8301-13578_ ··· 1_3-0-20MobiTV, 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.
Hey, when you get your teeth kicked in, the lawyers are a convenient excuse. | |
|
| | •••
|
elios join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO |
elios
Member
2008-Mar-7 9:34 am
lolonce one the net ALWAYS on the net to late now cats out of the bag | |
|
DinnerOut Premium Member join:2001-06-29 Columbus, OH |
go Howard!!! | |
|
Haste9 join:2001-06-08 Oak Brook, IL |
Haste9
Member
2008-Mar-7 9:49 am
Poor MobiTV...There's hacks roaming around the net for almost everything MobiTV it seems like. I'd say that's something for them to worry about. | |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY 1 edit |
n2jtx
Member
2008-Mar-7 9:56 am
They Got ME!quote: We've got an aching suspicion that MobiTV's attempt to get HowardForums shutdown might just result in those URLs getting significantly more attention than they would have otherwise.
It got me interested! So the idiots at mobitv.com are relying on the great "Security through obscurity" method of protection and are now whining that their "obscurity" has leaked out. Their counsel and engineering staff "NEED TO GET A CLUE!". At the very least implement a password protection scheme for account holders and also incorporate a PKS for encrypting the data. Geesh... | |
|
|
Now I knowI'll bet their servers are taking a hit today! I had no idea and I snoop around forums pretty regularly. | |
|
|
Works GreatWorks great with VLC video player. Don't need a browser, just the URLs. | |
|
WiFiguruTo infinity... and beyond Premium Member join:2005-06-21 Seattle, WA |
WiFiguru
Premium Member
2008-Mar-7 11:18 am
Howard down.Howardforums is now down =(
Dang! | |
|
| ••• |
|
notalawyer
Anon
2008-Mar-7 11:22 am
B&E vs burglaring...I recall from my intro to law class that there is a distinction between Robbery and burglary - one entails just walking into a house and stealing, and the other entails breaking into a house and stealing. I believe the coverage in various homeowners insurance make that same distinction, and if you remove certain coverage, damages are much lower - | |
|
| |
Re: B&E vs burglaring...Need to go back to law school and study the basics. A robbery takes place when stealing involves physical force or fear. Burglary occurs when something is stolen without physical force or fear. You can walk into an unlocked house or break a windows to get in and it is still burglary. When you threaten or use physical harm, you are robbing.
Take for example...a bank "Robber". He didn't break into the bank to steal...he used physical threats to steal the money.
Now...back to topic....I'm going to burgle mobi to my heart's content. | |
|
Lumberjack Premium Member join:2003-01-18 Newport News, VA |
So lets see what happens to my post here at BBRFor those of you that want the links: <channel name="MSNBC" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="FOX News" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/8-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Discovery" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/3-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="TLC" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Animal Planet" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/63-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="NBC Comedy" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1500-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="ESPN Mobile TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4103-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="NBC Sports Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1513-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Lipstick Jungle" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1508-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Maxx Look" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/48-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<description>
Bikinis, lingerie, and less. Beach, Bedroom, Hot tub. MAXX Look ??? All Girls. All the time
</description>
−
<channel name="Toon World TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/28-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Access Hollywood" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1515-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Love Laffs" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4104-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Bloomberg" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/52-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
</channel>
−
<channel name="Tim Gunns Guide to Style" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1519-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="The Mic Hip Hop" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/910-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="V40 Hot Hits" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/911-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Totally 80s 90s" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/96-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Double Z Country" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/72-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="RandB Jamz" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/425-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Ritmo Caliente" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/97-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Chaos Extreme" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/913-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Shift Alternative" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/912-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="USA Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1503-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Bravo To Go" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1502-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="SCI FI Pulse Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1501-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Oxygen" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/58-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="Discovery Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/53-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="A and E Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/17-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="The History Channel Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/19-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="NBC News Mobile" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/2-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="Fashion TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/22-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="Comedy Time" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/21-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="MAXX SPORTS" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com/50-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
−
<channel name="IGN" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/59-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="Bombones" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/74-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="CNET" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/23-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="CSPAN" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/30-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="CSPAN2" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/31-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="Soulja Boy Tell Em TV" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4100-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="Ataku" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/83-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="D40 Digital Camera" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/1346-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
<channel name="Bank of America" href="rtsp://live.mobitv.com:554/4101-CDMA.sdp" type="video/3gpp">
| |
|
| Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
My goodness.What an informative post!
That is a lot if stuff that I didn't already know.
I'll have to write that down somewhere.
Thanks for educating me.
NV | |
|
| | Lumberjack Premium Member join:2003-01-18 Newport News, VA |
Re: My goodness.I know, it's spiffy and "so wrong" so I just had to do it!. BTW, all you really do is pump those links into your phone's browser and it should spin up the player for the channels so long as you have the codec on the device . | |
|
N10Cities Premium Member join:2002-05-07 0000000 1 edit |
To paraphrase a line from Emperor Palpatine....Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational STREISAND EFFECT! | |
|
| TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA
1 recommendation |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2008-Mar-7 1:27 pm
Re: To paraphrase a line from Emperor Palpatine....Great, now I have this mental image of a giant floating Barbara Streisand head singing "People"! Make it stop!!! | |
|
| matt314159 Premium Member join:2006-01-18 Orange City, IA |
to N10Cities
said by N10Cities:Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational STREISAND EFFECT! I was just going to post about that. That is EXACTLY what is happening here. I have no sympathy for MobiTV, they had a couple of choices on how to deal with this and they took the wrong one. Make no mistake, YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT A URL! So Mobitv has NO GROUNDS to call for a suit of any kind. If you take that a step further, and actually USE THOSE INSTRUCTIONS, then you are breaking the law. but the post that contained the original URL and INCREDIBLY SIMPLE instructions does not break any law that I've heard of, canadian, US, or otherwise. This was just a desperate attempt by the management of MobiTV to try to crush the story. In doing so, thanks to their bonehead move, exponentially more people now know about it. Smooth move, exlax! | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Mar-7 2:55 pm
The link to the list of links is now blockedForbidden
You don't have permission to access /sprintTVlive.mcd on this server. Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat) Server at qtv.mobitv.com Port 80 | |
|
| ••• |
|
howi join:2005-07-27 Mississauga, ON 4 edits |
howi
Member
2008-Mar-7 5:22 pm
MobiTV mess: my analogyFolks,
I have posted it in HoFo and compares it with a intriguing movie theatre...
- It is not right that not to pay for the tickets to watch the movies showing at the theatres. I agree.
- At a theatre box office, it has no locked door, no bullet-proof glass window, just a counter in the theatre where the public can access.
- There is an automated machine issuing tickets. Supposedly, only the staffs who are authorized to work at the box office know how to operate the machine and issue the tickets.
- Just for "convenience", that machine is just sitting on the counter and staffs at the box office have a binder right next to the ticket machine. There is a label on the front printed, "moviestixbarcodes".
- One night, as usual, movie goers are lining up for buying their tickets at the box office.
- While waiting in the line, someone has nothing to do but watching the staffs at the box office. Then someone starts seeing something quite routine, repetitive there...
- Before the machine cranks out the tickets, the staff opens the binder, scan for something first. It turns out to be a sheet of paper with different bar codes for different movies.
- While the box office staffs counting change for other movie goers, someone walks up to the counter, opens the binder, scans the codes and picks up the ticket.
- Isn't it strange? The box office staffs looks like they do not see what has just happened or perhaps they thought, "Hmm... Only authorized people know how to operate the ticket machine and can issue the tickets, it is gotta be okay. We trust those people who knows how to use the machine."
- Then someone discuss this matter with the other movie goers about what happens at that theatre. It is just as easy as step 1-2-3! So those movie goers start "self-serving" themselves while others who still have no idea keeps lining up and paying for the tickets.
- Suddenly a manager at the theatre has overheard the discussion and pulls someone to a side... "Stop telling people about it, or I will have your mouth covered by force! That binder is for internal use and we have never said you can get the ticket by yourself like that!"
- Then someone replies, "So we are just talking how your machine works and how the tickets are issued! It is an observable fact and everyone in the line-up long enough would come up with the idea too! It is not my problem for your 'convenient truth' !"
I compares the act of merely observing in the line-up at the box office as like knowing the URL in the first place! To me, if that binder is in the possession of the authorized personnel, the binder would not be put it right at the machine and on the counter, i.e. PLACE BEHIND THE COUNTER!! There would be arrangement and sign telling for internal use. All people would be asked for permission when trying to open the binder or operate the machine. Same thing goes to MobiTV over how they handle that XML file and the rtsp links.
That is what MobiTV trying to claim about... "Oh, you shouldn't even know where we 'hide the binder' in the first place" but ends up putting it at the counter where everyone can see the whole process? The biggest flaw is that the "trust" system... The whole set up is possible to make everyone in the public as AUTHORIZED personnel to gain access to that "binder of bar codes" and in this case the directory of the rtsp links to the streaming contents - No AAA, no token, no security!?
The bottom line is that we either keep things out of sight, or never use it at all! Once you start use it in the public, people start seeing it and discussing it. | |
|
| |
C DM
Member
2008-Mar-7 6:01 pm
Re: MobiTV mess: my analogyHonestly, that is more complex (and has other extraneous things) than it really is--the analogy about a movie theater with glass walls and/or someone's TV playing with curtains open and people simply looking in from the outside and telling others about it is much simpler and closer to what the "equivalent" is online. Not to mention that the whole thing with HowardForums is more about the part about telling other people about it, rather than about the part of actually watching or getting in anywhere. | |
|
| |
to howi
This is a pretty good analogy.
The key point is: strange as it may seem to you, and regardless of how stupid you may think it is, the act of using that binder which is not hidden securely "behind the counter", or telling someone else how to use that binder, is, arguably, a DMCA violation. | |
|
bhhurd Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Pennsburg, PA |
bhhurd
Premium Member
2008-Mar-7 5:58 pm
More like a strange tool roadThe "house" analogy is not appropriate.
The mobitv issue is more like driving on an unmarked tool road. There are no signs telling you that you need to pay a toll.
You come up on a long line of traffic backed up in the right lane, but the left lane is clear, so you take it. There is no sign about a tool booth ahead. You pass the back up and there is still no sign, infact there are no toll booths.
You get off the road and you see some shrill lawyer screaming about blocking off the sidewalk where some guy was giving away free maps to the toll road.
I think this anology is a bit closer to what mobitv is doing to HoFo. | |
|
| matt314159 Premium Member join:2006-01-18 Orange City, IA |
Re: More like a strange tool roadI think all these analogies are irrelevant.
The post at howardforums did not break any laws. A URL can't be copyrighted. And the instructions are free speech.
Howard is in the clear.
BUT. Once you implement the instructions to view the video signal, you're breaking the law. REGARDLESS of security measures.
Still, though, the burden lies with mobitv to secure their system. Unless they decide instead to track down and prosecute each and every person who watches the signal without authorization. Considering their previous actions, maybe this is something they want to consider. | |
|
howi join:2005-07-27 Mississauga, ON 1 edit |
howi
Member
2008-Mar-7 6:40 pm
HoFo 1 , MobiTV 1Folks, Just get the words from Howard himself... HoFo is OK now! He and the MobiTV's president have the dialogue earlier: » www.howardforums.com/sho ··· ount=561Howard, 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.
I look forward to continuing to find interesting and vibrant insights from HowardForums.
Best regards, Paul Scanlan Cofounder, President | |
|
| •••• |
|
zardiw
Anon
2008-Mar-9 4:14 pm
Advertising PloyThis was a ploy by MobiTV to create cheap advertising. It didn't cost them a dime, and now everybody knows about MobiTV...lol.......z | |
|
| lauraDomestic Bliss Premium Member join:2002-04-16 San Jose, CA |
laura
Premium Member
2008-Mar-14 12:09 am
Re: Advertising Ploysaid by zardiw :
This was a ploy by MobiTV to create cheap advertising. It didn't cost them a dime, and now everybody knows about MobiTV...lol.......z and everyone thinks they're idiots. | |
|
|
|