MobiTv and HowardForums *Situation is now resolved*

[WiWavelength]

by the way, i like when he keeps calling it hacking/debugging...does he even know what debugging is? or hacking for that matter?

Where did the discoverer of this loophole first get the channel list file URL (http: //qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd)? That is the pertinent question. MobiTV seemingly argues that the discoverer got the URL via hacking/debugging the MobiTV client software. But whether such entailed or required illegal hacking/debugging is a debatable point, potentially one for the courts to decide.

AJ

[adambigge]

TO: jandrews@mobitv.com

http://www.google.com/search?q=qtv.m...ient=firefox-a

Check this out.


Are you going to shut down GOOGLE now? Or do you only go after the people who don't have pockets deep enough to brush off your asinine complaints?

Fix your security problems rather than blame other people for them.

That Google search result page is a direct result of YOUR actions. Since you made a stink about it everyone and their mother now knows about your so called "secure" web feed. Funny since it has no encryption and no password protection that you call it "Secure". The information came originally from a Sprint user that knew how to look at his BROWSER HISTORY!! That is what you consider a hack? Wow. You are very, very, very naive. I hope that this blunder of yours teaches your company to protect its property by actually using some form of security rather than the "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy.

Good day and good luck. You are going to need it since your have angered hundreds of thousands of the consumer base your company relies on for its income.

Do you think you will get to keep your job after this fiasco? I doubt it. Better polish that resume up buddy.

Sent this to Mr. Andrews. I bet he is rethinking this whole situation now. How do you think his superiors/stockholders are going to respond to this mess once they see how stupid their executive officers are?

[donsev]

I have to say that I have enjoyed reading the various positions and especially the well reasoned opinions based on interpretations of the applicable laws.

And while there have been any number of analogies suggested to explain the issues at hand, I don't know why the original analogy suggested by Howard in his first post is not the most appropriate... that of a movie theatre that happened to have glass walls.

Or more specifically, John Doe built a house that has a 60" plasma in his living room. The outside wall of his living room has a huge window that allows anyone from the public street to view his TV. John is upset that anyone can view his "premium" content that he is paying for from his cable provider, but he refuses to put up a shade to block the public "access" to his TV (he likes the view to the outside, and is too lazy to open and close the shade when approriate).

Are the people who are watching John's TV from the public street stealing? Is the person who discovered this one day while driving by John's house, and told his friends, complicit in the theft? Is the local newspaper that published an article about John (mentioning his address) and the crowds that gather each day on the public street to watch HBO for free also violating a law? Couldn't John's continued display of copyrighted material to the "general public" be in violation of the owners IP rights - just as the NFL has cracked down on church groups and other social groups who display the SuperBowl on screens of 60" or larger?

I know that there is the suggestion that malicious intent must have been at play in determining how to access this information, but as has already been mentioned, it is quite easy to access the information from a browser cache or router log. As a matter of fact, it is even possible that this information was obtained orginally quite by accident. It is possible that one of the many search engine web crawlers tagged the page and some curious person who actually clicked on the 20th page of some search result saw a link and said "hmm, what's this?".

Or just as likely, as a parent who follows up on their childrens' use of the internet by scanning the network router log for "inapproriate use" occasionally, I could very easily have seen a suspicious entry (rtsp://) and followed the link to see what it was (which I have done numerous times).

Since I clicked on the link from my own router log, does that make me a thief? Since there is no disclaimer or restriction on the link, how do I even know that it is illegal?? Am I to be held responsible for accessing a site that is available to anyone on the internet, regardless as to whether the provider of the link feels that I shouldn't? And let's assume for a moment that MobiTV provides R or X-rated material on their channels (I have no idea whether they do or not, but that is besides the point), shouldn't they be held responsible for not providing an appropriate age restriction mechanism to prevent my children from doing so?

I don't have the answers, but am very curious to see how this pans out.

[stufried]

It is clear that free speech permits you to write how to books. Free speech would protect me in writing a book on how to steal cars, make bombs, make fake ids, or even entice little children for the purpose of sexual molestation. When you write an article on how to crack a program, that is somehow different?

[skullan]

Posts 366, 375, 377 and 380 explains that you more than likely don't need a 'crack app'.

[t-bone-t]

i take offense to the "sleezeball lawyer" comment first of all. Youre all acting like victims here and its getting a little sad. theres no "BS" threats there is plenty of basis there. I would know since I DO participate in the legal field as ive tried to give logical legal analysis which people want to ignore and follow their gut instead of brains. So be it, i have no duty to convince anyone here of what is "legal or illegal by the law." Believe me, dont believe me, whatever honestly it wont change the outcome of the matter at hand anyways.

Secondly, their attorney sounds very intelligent how he worded his inquiries. He was very specific in mentioning certain aspects and not mentioning certain aspects. Thats the game of the law.

Their attorney does have a great point im sorry to break it. Without this "said file" those web links would never have been accessible. you cant go to mobitv.com and access them. Attorney asks for said file to be removed, this site refuses. And the links were not obtained in any normal method outside of like i said going though the executable or sniffing which involves an intent to access the information without paying for the service.

As i keep saying he is a very clever guy it sounds like and i think howard should have left the responses to his legal dept and not gotten into a verbal battle with the attorney. He didnt do himself any justice in that conversation that i can ascertain, other than convince me that mobitv does have a strong case and this site is about to be a marter for free speech.

Have you seen the movie "Catch Me If You Can"? The main character learns from his dad that the New York Yankees don't win because they are good, they win because the other teams can't take their eyes off the Yankees' pin-stripes. I believe that has happened to you. The lawyer does indeed sound smart with his "big" words but if you examine what those words actually mean, you'll find they mean something entirely different. As has been said before, it doesn't take any hacking, debugging, or decompiling to access the files. A file is publicly available if I can type the url, no matter how obscure it may seem to you, in my browser and access it without any authentication. You can complain about it all you want but you can't go after anyone that does it unless you have made a reasonable effort to secure the file(s), which is not the case.

[HC - NO "i"]

Folks,

Even fellow HC has compared it with a movie theatre with no walls, imagine this...

- 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 how the staffs at the box office. Then someone starts seeing something quite routine, repetitive there...

- Before the machine cranks out the tickets, the staffs 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 changes 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' !"

[deparson]

Crazy stuff.

My guess is that Mobitv learns a very hard and nasty lesson in that there software will be on the top of the 'lets crack it/hack it/whack it' list of many bright University students with zillions of extra hours on their hands.

Its like putting up a huge sign in your front yard that says "Hey you snot noise kids...you better not TP my house!!!"

[phatmanmd]

front page of slashdot. nice work guys!

[Deke218]

Strange that this "Lawyer" would anger then very people his "company" is pushing it's crap product on. Are they trying to run themselves out of business? If this forum took the position that IdiotTV should be boycotted at all cost, how long before they went under? One person from here just over to the next forum, etc... I wonder if we could make that work?

[cazed with power rant: "We could make or brake the mobile world! We could raise ants to giants and lower giants to ants. We could turn mobitv into mobiUseToBe! {add demented laugh track here while cutting the head off a baby cow - to be use for veal later} ]

[cwosigns]

- While the box office staffs counting changes for other movie goers, someone walks up to the counter, opens the binder, scans the codes and picks up the ticket.

The codes are in a binder in the possession of authorized employees. A URL is public unless there are security measures in place to protect it.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

[The Punisher]

i hope your host stands behind you all the way and does not shut down. You have done nothing illegal, and if mobitv is stupid enough to take it to court in order to get you shutdown or remove the information, they will only be wasting their time and money.

Fight it to the end Howard, and if you need help, just ask.

[t-bone-t]

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."

The underlined part is the problem. They trust those who know how to use the machine when they shouldn't. Knowing how to do something is completely different from being authorized to do something. To assume there is any connection between them is a illogical.

[deparson]

With front page on Slashdot I think HoFo's bigger issues will be his hosting providers ability to manage the load!

(and Mobitv's shrinking user base)

i hope your host stands behind you all the way and does not shut down. You have done nothing illegal, and if mobitv is stupid enough to take it to court in order to get you shutdown or remove the information, they will only be wasting their time and money.

Fight it to the end Howard, and if you need help, just ask.

[deparson]

I get 116 Google hits when I search for..

qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd

I guess their "Vice President and General Council" has some more work to do! They will go out of business from the FedEx fees alone.

Funny thing is the only paid link is for Mobitv