Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman08
they're not "yahoo's" to want to protect their intellectual property. Now i will agree- did they screw the pooch on security? Yes totally. Does that prevent them from asking essentially a "hack" ie a workaround to be removed? No. and i feel the site owner here handled it MUCH more maturely than Howard of HOFO trying to be a marter for free speech and risking the site for the community not taking it seriously what so ever, IMO.
think of it like this. Theres cable lines everywhere. so if you climb the pole and patch into their lines and steal cable should they just allow this to happen?
Its the same thing here. Sure the lines aren't "security protected" which was the big (and false) argument over at HOFO. People just dont seem to get that just because something isn't protected doesn't give you the right to access it because you found a loophole in. They were too "fanboying" their own website than to realize what they were doing was completely wrong, even if it was just discussion it and hosting the file. This is just about as malicious as hosting warez files. Unauthorized tweaking to a cab, or searching a cab file for the links it uses- either way its unauthorized access thats not public information to use.
If someone leaves their house unlocked it doesn't give you the right to walk right in and take what you want and then not expect them (well the state) to prosecute you. There's punishment if you're somewhere you don't belong
|
Stealing cable is stealing cable, it is protected legally 360 degrees.
Breaking and entering, same deal, bigger consequence.
Hacking past a secure server and downloading files, legal action can be taken.
Now Mobi, they can't call it that, they have no way of calling it a hack.
Even in the remote case of if it was; its as iffy (legal wise) as mooching Wifi pretty much, whats trespassing, what is hosted and what is a hotspot.
I come across to cases where the defendant won and only one where the defendant lost because he had gone out of his way and tresp***** in the attempt to mooch.
Its hard to win these cases and unlike physical entry or hacked entry, there is no lock, SSL, disclaimer, label or right of passage to that content.
In not a house, nor was it unauthorized entry. Thus there would have been use of any of those methods stated.
Howard has little to worry about, a URL isn't a hack or breach, regardless of how they came across it, no breaks were required to get to it or use it...
These fights get as ridiculous as infringement battles sometimes.
If Mobi is unhappy about it, then Mobi goofed and Mobi is to blame.
Get legal when someone cracks an password, SSL Authenticator, FTP etc etc..
IMHO midniteslice choose his word well.=D>