PPCGeeks & MobiTV Inc. looks like we werent the only ones.

[Wideawake]

Well many of you may not know but we also received a letter from Josh Andrews of MobiTV Inc. threating legal action if we did not remove copys of their software from our website. I have since removed the infringing posts and attachments, so we are fine. But please do not post anything that maybe considered warez related. I also ran across this post where it looks like hofo had the same issue.
~Mike

[midniteslice]

after reading the posts at hofo, i gotta wonder how these yahoo's would react to a real hacking.

[midniteslice]

Originally Posted by lawman08

they're not "yahoo's" to want to protect their intellectual property.

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

you're entirely correct. i don't condone it at all, and i think that mobitv has every right to want the links and whatnot removed. when i made that statement i was thinking about the fact that the "loophole" was originally found on the sprint forums. on top of that, if their idea of security is not publicizing the link. and using it is as simple as clicking on it, well, that to me is just asking for problems.

[Genjinaro]

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>

[Goddbody]

Well I look at it this way it's their security issue and blaming others for a loop hole is crazy. I respect their right to want it taken off, but it's like leaving the keys inside your $500,000 Bentley, ignition running and all in the hood where car theft is prevelant, and your nowhere to be found. They gotta do a better job over there or they will find themselves sinking quick. Mike you took the appropriate action bruh.

[alabij]

Look! This whole thing is ridiculous. MobiTV needs to address "their" problem. The only reason that they tried to go after Hofo and PPCgeeks is because they are controlled systems. The information is out there. Anyone who can do a google/live search can find that info on some foreign site without effort. The fact that they tried to take egal action probably introduced their software flaws to more people who probably would never have considered the direct link option.

Any smart business would have secretly secured those streams and updated their software in the background.

Trying to control information on the internet is futile.

[⌥ saumaun ☢]

Originally Posted by Genjinaro

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>

Very true. No one 'cracked' or 'reverse engineered' their software. Anyone could stumble over it and not know the significance.

[DavidIQ]

Wow...this "president" of MobiTV really needs to learn to spell if he's going to represent his company on the Internet via e-mails...

[psiphi]

More info in this thread:
http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=2048

[GoodThings2Life]

MobiTV = Sucktacular.