Posting Publicly Available URL Claimed a "Hack"

Urban Strata writes "Popular mobile phone community HowardForums.com is being hit with take-down notices from MobiTV. At issue is the fact that a HowardForums community member uncovered a publicly accessible URL for MobiTV's television stream. This URL is not encrypted or authenticated in any way, and yet MobiTV sent site owner Howard Chui a cease-and-desist letter for hosting a forum with the public URL, claiming that doing so is equivalent to hacking their service."

Lawyer fees

[FatAlb3rt (533682)]

I wonder how much their lawyer bills each time he has to send out a C&D for posting a link to qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd.

Sekrit Government Haxx0ring

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

Lookit me! I'm hacking the pentagon! [osd.mil] And the CIA! [cia.gov] And the FBI! [fbi.gov]

Hold on, one moment--someone's knocking.

Re:Sekrit Government Haxx0ring

[eln (21727)]

I would say I'll visit you in prison, but I'm not allowed to travel to Cuba.

On the bright side, I hear the conditions there aren't so bad. Rumor has it that they'll give you all the water you can drink, even if you're not thirsty!

Just FYI

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

The URLs obtained with this "hack" play just fine in Quicktime as well.

It's just good business

[Bovius (1243040)]

I wonder if they decided it simply wasn't worth the development effort to put their content behind encryption? Maybe they thought litigation against improper access would be cheaper, or at least simpler. With the RIAA's successes in court over the lsat few years, there is some precedent for that idea.

Yes, I know, secure connections are not rocket science. But it's business; the path perceived most profitable is the path chosen.

Security through obscurity

[Trivial_Zeros (1058508)]

This is a classic example of a site trying to be "secure" through obscurity. The correct response would not be issuing a take down notice, thus publicizing the issue. An intelligent response would be to move the service to a secure site that required credentials.

What exactly is MobiTV trying to claim is their IP? The URL? I didn't think such short addresses were copyrightable. I don't think they realize how the internet works. If I type in a URL in a browser, I'm sending a request for data back. It's up to mobitv what to return. If they don't want us to have access to the data, don't return it. Simple.

Time to change your sig

[Itninja (937614)]

So I guess this means /.ers will now change their sig from 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 to qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd....

Re:Time to change your sig

[MBGMorden (803437)]

Why change when you can have both!!!!?!?!!

DMCA notice to Canada?

[randyest (589159)]

Did anyone ready the PDF of the letter they sent [207.210.82.134] to Howard . . . in Canada . . . citing the DMCA (a US law?) I don't know where HoFo's servers are, or if Canada has a DMCA-like law yet, but that seems pretty silly and maybe Howard should prep a backup server not in the US just in case. Then write the idiots at MobiTV a funny reply like the guys at the pirate bay [thepiratebay.org] do.

Silly MobiTV -- you can't copyright an URL!

Anonymous Karma Whore

[by Anonymous Coward]

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"
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 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"

Give me a break!

[Babu 'God' Hoover (1213422)]

If you don't want people looking at your naked ass all day, put your pants on in the morning.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[TheLostSamurai (1051736)]

Is it stupid to make your stream available unencrypted from a publicly available URLYes

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

How is it wrong to just visit a completely public URL? If they're losing money it's their fault; you can't just say that verizon losing money is wrong. How is that wrong? We're gaining value. Nothing has been destroyed here. This situation is purely verizon's affiliate being lazy and insecure, and you're just stupid for thinking it's wrong to take advantage of that.

Also, this reminds me of this story [slashdot.org] where reuters was accused of hacking for posting a publically-available but secret URL. Everyone thought it was a complete joke and reuters lined up its battalion of lawyers and pumped the plaintiff full of hot lead. How is this any different?

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[mea37 (1201159)]

Oh, great.

Now you've opened up the line for yet another debate on the true meaning of "steal".

A lot of people don't accept that the legally-assigned right to profit from (propagation of) information (1) is a distinct thing from the information itself, and (2) can be and is destroyed / taken from the right-holder when unauthorized propagation of the information occurs.

I don't agree, and for that reason I don't have a big problem with the shorthand of calling it theft in casual contexts even though the analogy is imperfect.

Or rather, I wouldn't have a problem about it, except the reality today is it pushes the debate away from the issues as people wrangle about the semantics.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[router (28432)]

You are the CEO of a multinational corporation. You manage the company into the ground. You are fired, but the golden handshake provision of your contract entitles you to 150M$. Money you didn't, in the strictest sense of the word, earn. Are you stealing?

Look, if I leave a sofa on the curb in San Francisco, and don't look like I am moving, it will disafsckingppear in less than an hour. The internet is no different; you make a stream avail without any protection, I tap into the stream, you don't want me to, you block it. You don't block, you are ok with it. Like leaving the sofa out, implied consent to access unprotected content/stuff.

Your argument essentially distills into having a house with glass walls in the middle of a crowded city and then complaining when people look in. Don't want observers, don't use glass walls.

andy

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

Public URLs do, in fact, imply consent because they are published (by the domain registry people) when they are created, whether you want them to be or not. Just because you put information on there you don't want public doesn't mean I'm stealing it if I view that information.

I'll grant that this is a gray area and I don't happen to think it's "morally right" to view the service, but that's not the same thing as stealing. I've had cable internet, specifically just internet, and also received television service. I informed the provider that I received tv though I wasn't paying for it and nothing was ever done to remedy the situation. After one notification, I no longer felt any need to justify my use of the television service I didn't order, but wasn't paying for either. Was I stealing?

Obviously the company in the article doesn't want people using the service, but to say those who are using it are stealing is not legally accurate, even if the moral ground is less clear.

That said, the site manager that listed the URL is under no obligation I know of (it is a public URL after all that is listed on multiple locations) to remove the link but he'd probably be wise to do so, if for no other reason than to limit time he'll have to spend in court, "guilty" or not.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

It doesn't fucking matter what the intentions are of the person leaving the sofa.. if you picked up the sofa - REGARDLESS OF WHY IT WAS THERE - that's theft. You obtained something you where not otherwise permitted to have. THATS THE FUCKING THEFT.

Actually, it's not. Courts have consistently ruled that anything sitting out on the curb is fair game. For one, the ground in front of the curb isn't private property, it's part of what's called the 'right-of-way' -- IOW, it's, in essence, public property. Furthermore, and this is why the courts rule this way, anything sitting out on the curb is assumed to be refuse. Trash. By throwing something away, you're telling the world that you don't want it anymore. And that is implicit permission.

Anyay, whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't' have something isn't so easy to define. Just because someone is making money off of something, that doesn't mean that obtaining that something for free is wrong. Pepsi and Coke make money by putting water into bottles and selling it, yet I can get water almost anywhere for free.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Anarke_Incarnate (733529)]

Getting something you should not, and for free, is stealing? Wow, I hope you kept the receipt for that law education. You need a refund.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Toonol (1057698)]

They made it publicly available. It's the same as watching an HBO broadcast in a store window. If you do something silly in a public location, the public cannot be blamed for viewing it.

Or, even better; there used to be a hill you could sit on in this town that let you watch over the fence into a drive-in movie screen. Is that theft? No; it's just spillover, a consequence of where the theater was located. They are broadcasting into the public space. They could have raised the fence another twenty feet to fix the problem, but they didn't care enough to.

This site could have restricted the accessibility of the URL, but didn't care enough to.

Plus, as a practical matter, they are now the latest idiot of the week on the internet. There is no way this will work out in their favor.

Freeloading

[Khyber (864651)]

"There are too many people freeloading nowadays. The internet makes it so much easier to freeload"

Jee, I wonder if you'd apply the same concept to OTA radio and Local TV with regards to magnetic recording media back in the 80s and 90s.

The fact of the matter is that they're claiming it is a hack, when it's their own stupidity and ignorance that allowed this to happen. Calling this a hack is just an attempt upon the person's character. People will begin to think the person that stumbled across this is a hacker, then they'll get that reputation, which in turn tarnishes the reputation of the non-hacker. It's character assassination and MobiTV should be nailed to the fucking wall while someone calls for their waaaaaahmbulance.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[snl2587 (1177409)]

Is it wrong? Yes

No. There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[kevinatilusa (620125)]

No. There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.

Various child pornography laws probably wish to differ with the above statement.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[alexhs (877055)]

There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.

I guess you never stumbled upon a goatse or tubgirl publicly available link, then :P

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[AK Marc (707885)]

More like: Is it wrong to walk into a library without a library card?

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

Browsing the stacks, in this case.

You're not preventing anyone else from browsing or checking out the books, and at worst you're taking up a little bit of space in the hall. The resources that you've accessed are still there for all the other patrons.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[StarvingSE (875139)]

These meatspace metaphors just don't work when it comes to technology. It is wrong to walk into a library and take anything that's not nailed down. This is also preventing other library users from using those same resources. In this case, accessing the stream is not preventing paying customers from using the service. Therefore, the metaphor does not work.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[knight24k (1115643)]

Here is about the best metaphor I can come up with.

You go to visit your local zoo because they have a rare tasmanian devil on display. Entrance fee is $5. You notice on arriving that the back of the cage for this animal is clearly open to the street at the rear of the zoo. Instead of paying your admission you walk around back and look at the rare animal without paying, from the street. The zoo then has you arrested for theft.

That's about as good as I can do.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Hillgiant (916436)]

How am I to know that membership is required if they do not ID? If I walk into a Gym and no one IDs me, I think "hey, cool. public gym. didn't know they still existed". If I stumble across a link to a TV stream, I think "hey, cool. free video. I wish they had stripped the ads." I feel it is unreasonable to expect the end user to determine if he or she should be paying for a service. If the service is pay only, it should have some method of access control. A lack of access control implies free (as in beer).

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[goldspider (445116)]

"I feel it is unreasonable to expect the end user to determine if he or she should be paying for a service."

It takes an unhealthy dose of willful ignorance to fail to make that determination on your own.

And yet you're puzzled by why digital content producers try so hard to prevent their works from being 'mistakenly' acquired by people who (according to you) can't determine if they are entitled to said works for free.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[ehrichweiss (706417)]

"But you'd have to be really disconnected from society if you honestly thought that you just found a free gym."

So that gym I go to every Saturday to take martial arts has been charging all these years? Seriously, I go to a free gym every Saturday to train; the name is the Black and Williams Neighborhood Center just in case you think I'm bullshitting. These aren't unheard of in most civilized countries so one has to wonder who is really disconnected from society as per your statement above.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

Is it wrong to walk into a gym

FAIL. This is slashdot, you're supposed to make car analogies.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[MobileMrX (855797)]

Is it wrong to walk into a car?

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Eharley (214725)]

well they're within their rights in asking you to stop.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[ehrichweiss (706417)]

They're also just asking for the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] to bite them in the ass, especially with their lack of security. It would have been better to simply fix the security issues and watch the freeloaders drop off like flies. Instead they chose the route that will actually cost them the most since everyone is now well aware of it so the bandwidth will go up, they will still have to put up security AND they get bad publicity. Sounds like sticking up for their "rights" worked out well.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[sm62704 (957197)]

We aren't talking about just 'visiting a public URL.' We are talking about taking a service you don't pay for.

You're talking about leaving a cardboard box full of merchandise in a public park with a signs saying "take one, leave a dollar" and a cease and desist to a person who posts a sign saying "hey there's stuff in the park".

In short, we're talking about incredible stupidity [uncyclopedia.org].

what about google?

[aleph42 (1082389)]

As always, that kind of position is missing the fact that google is technically doing the same thing.

It's not that far fetch: imagine you are googling for your favorite show, and find some url with a video stream; and it's form a respectable "nbc.com" or the like website. How do you guess it's supposed to be a paying service?
Want a real life example? The other day I was looking for some bash command help, and the third google result was from http://www.experts-exchange.com./ [www.experts-exchange.com] If you access it directly, it hides the answers and asks you to pay. But from google, you get to the answers directly because of some glitch.

What I'm saying is you can't blame the user (or here, the website) if they never went through a dsiclaimer page that made them realise: "well, if I click this link, I will have done something illegal". Free equivalent services exist.

Re:what about google?

[merreborn (853723)]

The other day I was looking for some bash command help, and the third google result was from http://www.experts-exchange.com./ [www.experts-exchange.com] If you access it directly, it hides the answers and asks you to pay. But from google, you get to the answers directly because of some glitch.

Actually, it's not a glitch. Experts exchange wants to have their cake and eat it too.

They want to show up in google search results, but they want people to pay for the answers. However, for the relevant text to be included in google's index, they have to make it available on the page for everyone -- they're not allowed to show google different content from what you get when you click on the link. That's called "cloaking", and google has cracked down on it hard for a few years.

So, experts exchange formats their page like this:
The original question
"Pay to see the first answer"
"Pay to see the second answer"
"Pay to see the third answer"
What looks like a giant page footer footer
more footer
more footer
more footer
more footer
more footer
The original question
The actual content of the first answer
The actual content of the second answer
The actual content of the third answer

Here's an example [experts-exchange.com] Note the "premium members only" crap at the top, the giant "footer", and the *real* answers at the bottom.

This way, google indexes the real content at the bottom of the page, but most people see the fake content at the top of the page, and the "footer", and give up before scrolling down to the real content at the bottom.

It's kinda scummy.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Perl-Pusher (555592)]

Is it against the law to print the address of a person and that person doesn't lock his garage? No

What makes you think this is any different? Immoral != Illegal.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Harin_Teb (1005123)]

likewise: Illegal != wrong.

The OP merely said that it was wrong, he did not say that it was illegal. Wrong is clearly a statement of whether something violates ones morals (in this context).

Just sayin...

This comment worth 5 dollars.

[Joe the Lesser (533425)]

Hey, you should have paid 5 dollars to view this comment. Please cease and desist, because you are stealing my revenue.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Bogtha (906264)]

Does MobiTV and Verizon have the right to send a cease and desist letter? Sure

Do they have the right to send a letter asking them to stop? Sure. But this cease and desist letter [207.210.82.134] goes far beyond that, it claims that they are infringing copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets and it claims so under penalty of perjury. Furthermore, they state they have also sent such claims to the ISP, a third-party. I think that is unsupportable and illegal, and I don't believe they have the right to do that. It's libellous and if they take it any further, it's barratry.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[natoochtoniket (763630)]

Is it a hack? No. It's an url.

Does it allow people to watch TV that they didn't pay for? Yes. The TV is offered for free. People who accept the offer can watch it for free.

Does it prevent Verizon and MobiTV from receiving revenue that they should from the streams? No. Verizon and MobiTV could just withdraw the free offer, and implement a different access-controlled method for the same video.

Is it wrong? No. Someone offers free goods. You accept the offer. You have not done anything wrong.

Does MobiTV and Verizon have the right to send a cease and desist letter? Yes. Anyone can write a letter. It means nothing.

Were MobiTV and Verizon stupid to offer this data online for free? Maybe -- It could have been done intentionally. Lots of people put video online, for free.

Were MobiTV and Verizon stupid to continue offering this data online for free, after they decided that they didn't want to? Yes.

Re:Is this what you want?

[boristdog (133725)]

Is it wrong? Yes

WRONG. Based on your scenario we need to get permission from the site owner to visit any web site.

Any web site which is publicly available is de-facto a public web site. This is precedent since the inception of the www. Even if you had a button that said "Do not click unless you are a paid member of this site" you would have no legal leg to stand on if anyone else clicked it.

Everyone is making real property analogies to this. A web site is not a house, it is not a building, it is not a car. If it were, it would be taxed as such and we would all need written permission to visit each site.

Preventing receiving revenue ? wrong

[dpbsmith (263124)]

Pssst! Listen up! I've just discovered that an address where you can access intellectual property for free! The address is 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116. You know what? Between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. every day they leave the door unlocked! That's right! You can walk right in!

And you know what you'll find? Millions and millions of books, including current bestsellers like Stephen King's Duma Key. Yep, you can just take it right off the shelf, sit down, and read it right there. Instead of paying $17 to $28 dollars, you can read it for free!

In fact, with a Massachusetts driver's license and a little sweet-talk it's not at all hard to do social engineering on the guy at the security desk and talk him into giving you an access card that will let you take that book right through security, right out of the building! For three weeks or more.

Is it a hack? Not really.

Does it allow people to read books that they didn't pay for? Yes

Does it prevent Scribners from receiving revenue that it would otherwise have received? Yes.

Is it wrong? No.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[boristdog (133725)]

I concur, just because the door to my house is unlocked, that doesn't mean anyone is legally allowed to enter. IANAL, but this could be a similar precedent.

WRONG! YAdefinitelyNAL!

Entering a house or other property without permission is trespass. Visiting a website is not trespass.

If this were a precedent, people could start suing you just for surfing the web. Visit my website without paying? That's a default judgement for $2500.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Shagg (99693)]

Your house is private property, which is why people are not allowed to enter. It has nothing to do with whether the door is locked or not.

This situation is similar to putting up a big sign in your yard that is visible from public property, and then complaining about people who look at it. If you want it to be private, then don't make it visible from public property. Same thing with a URL. If you want the content to be private, then don't make the link publicly accessible. If you do make it public, you can't complain when people look.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Intron (870560)]

The best part of the cease-and-desist exchange was this:

"Originally Posted by mobitv
The url "qtv.mobitv.com/sprintTVlive.mcd" is not publicly available, nor is it posted anywhere on our website for viewers to access. The only way to access the links is through this url, and the only way to obtain this url is through hacking/debugging."

mobitv posted their "secret" URL in a message on the forum. So much for the trade secret claim.

Re:Cease! Desist! Grow Up!

[T-Bone-T (1048702)]

There is a huge difference between this and logging into account. You have to have a url and some form of authentication to log in to an account and access the data. MobiTV has a url with readily available content but no authentication is required, thus there is no account to hack.

When you go to a url, one of two things happens:
1. The content is served regardless of who you are.
or
2. The server asks for some form of authentication and if the proper response is received, the server responds with the content.

It is hacking if you find a way to circumvent #2 but it is not hacking if #1 happens. When you go to the MobiTV urls, #2 is expected to happen but #1 is happening instead with no additional action on your part. There is nothing illegal about your actions when that happens, only stupidity on the part of MobiTV.

Re:Shame shame

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

Let's go with something that fits the bill a little better. On a hot summer day you run a long garden hose out from your yard on the sidewalk turn it on and leave it running. Then you run an ad in the paper telling people that if they mail you five bucks they can use your hose to get a drink. But one day you notice a neighbor has been telling friends about your hose and they start coming by and getting a drink without mailing in the money.
 
You've put your resource out in a public place with no restrictions - and they should be accountable?

Re:Shame shame

[AK Marc (707885)]

In most places, it is illegal to leave a running car unattended, but it is not illegal to borrow something with permission. A sign saying "take one" is an invitation to take one item that doesn't belong to you. They have them at supermaket checkouts. If you are told you can take something, you may take it and it isn't illegal. In the example, the car was running, open, and with a sign indicating that the person should take a free joyride. If the sign can be reasonably assumed to be placed there by the owner (which would be reasonable, since in the example it was placed there by him) then it is perfectly legal to take the car. The only one that broke any laws was the owner, leaving the car running and unattended.