LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-19-2007, 12:34 PM   #46
crashmeister
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: t2 - trying to anyway
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Helmet

In an attempt to illustrate, imagine a landowner wishing to restrict access to his or her land. From my perspective, if the landowner posts a sign that says "no trespassing", you better not enter the property*. The argument presented by the get-something-for-nothing side is that the landowner must construct a fence to keep people out. Not only that, but the fence must be "adequate" (which I assume means it can't be in need of repair, can't be climbed, or exploited by any other common methods). Apparently, the landowner's wishes are irrelevant unless he/she devises an impenetrable form of defense for their property. Otherwise, they deserve to have people walk on or use their land because their security was not "adequate".
Yeah - but you got to know where the land is in the first place and that way the landowner probably would need to put up a fence to be 100% sure there are no infractors.

Also to stay with my earlier post - if the landowner has something considered for whatever reasons harmful or not fit for the general public in there he would be required to fence it in.
Please note that we are talking about a business here not private persons.

The original post is rather vague:

This friend of mine found the mms:// links within web pages, and used other web content to guess further mms stream urls. These could then be downloaded using mplayer to dump the streams.

If there are links somewhere in the page that are not shown (as in forgotten in a redesign I'd suppose) that lead to paycontent without anything popping up I don't see the illegality.

Also it is in my view not illegal to guess stream links - that would leave anybody who misstypes an url open to litigation.

It's not a nice thing to do - but illegal? Doubt it.

On a personal note and OT: My compassionate feelings for people that do a job like that are rather limited since I spent a lot of my professional life cleaning up behind 'professionals'that cry bloody murder when their own screwups lead to trouble.

Last edited by crashmeister; 06-19-2007 at 12:35 PM.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 08:36 PM   #47
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister
Yeah - but you got to know where the land is in the first place...
Interestingly, a person does not have to know where the property boundaries are to be liable for trespassing. I don't know what jurisdiction applies to anyone specifically, but the Restatement of Torts (third edition) section 158 says this for trespass:
Quote:
One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or (b) remains on the land, or (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove.
The Restatement is a publication by legal scholars (law professors, judges, attorneys, etc.) that examines the laws in the various states, and develop rules of law that most closely match the approach the majority of states take for a certain behavior. The scholars also anticipate current trends in the law and include that in their wording. These legal scholars are very well respected and many state courts adopt their wording of the law as-is.

Anyway, the thing I'm trying to point out is that the law for trespass does not mention anything about the person having knowledge that they are trespassing. It is entirely possible for someone to be held liable for damages by an inadvertent entry onto the land.

<EDIT>
To clarify, "intentionally" as it's used in the restatement does not imply knowledge of the property boundaries. It simply means the person acted willfully--that the act causing the trespass was desired--not that the trespass itself was desired. As an example, moving my arms to stretch is a desired, willful act. I don't want to hurt anyone, but if I accidentally poke someone in the eye while I stretch, the law says I have acted "intentionally" if the person is injured. It's the desire to perform the act - not the desire to achieve an outcome.
</EDIT>

Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister
... and that way the landowner probably would need to put up a fence to be 100% sure there are no infractors.
And that's where my "adequate" reference comes from. What kind of fence? Would a hurricane fence do...even if it's easily climbed? What if it were a 1-foot high fence? How many people must it prevent from entering before it's considered "adequate"? That's too vague. It's not predictable. A landowner/content provider wouldn't know if his/her security scheme is good enough to gain protection by the courts. The line has to be drawn, and the only logical place to draw it is where other people know the owner wants to restrict access.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister
Also to stay with my earlier post - if the landowner has something considered for whatever reasons harmful or not fit for the general public in there he would be required to fence it in.
Please note that we are talking about a business here not private persons.
I believe you're referring to one of the "nuisance" concepts in the law (public, private, and/or attractive). In each case though, there is something undesirable about the nuisance: a hidden defect that might cause injury, a condition on the property affecting neighboring lands (like excessively loud noise).

If that is what you're talking about, it doesn't apply to this situation. The content/videos may certainly be "attractive" in that people want them, but they certainly are not dangerous or undesirable. They are not things to protect the public from. Therefore, there's no duty for the owner to fence in or secure them.

Business or person, I'm not aware that the law treats either classification differently here. If you know differently, please let me know your source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister
The original post is rather vague
That is a very good point. I thought it was a logical conclusion that the OP knew the content was intended to be restricted before downloading it. I came to that conclusion because of the thread's title and the wording/tone of the original post. But I can see how it might be interpreted differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister
On a personal note and OT: My compassionate feelings for people that do a job like that are rather limited since I spent a lot of my professional life cleaning up behind 'professionals'that cry bloody murder when their own screwups lead to trouble.
Understandable. I've dealt with people that try to pass the buck every single time. Still, the recourse against those people is for management to terminate them--not to grant the public at large a license to exploit the employee's work (or lack thereof).

Last edited by Dark_Helmet; 06-19-2007 at 10:36 PM.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 09:55 PM   #48
sundialsvcs
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 5,377

Rep: Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108
I personally believe that "the operative question" is .. have you ever stopped to consider where 'your paycheck' comes from?

Maybe it would be better to ask ...

Have you ever stopped to consider that 'your paycheck "comes from" anywhere?'

If you have never been "a business owner," then the answer is probably no. Every two weeks, like clockwork, a direct deposit "magically appears" in your checking-account, and you give utterly no thought to how it got there.

Lucky you.

I personally do not wish upon you the agony of "making payroll." Of knowing that your employees depend upon that direct-deposit and for that reason you have taken out a second-mortgage on your house and prayed to the gods that be that you would not lose that house. But if I asked the people who are nodding their heads right now to raise their hands, I'm sure that around the world an astonishing number of hands would right now be raised.

It is not "a victimless crime."

You are, in fact, stealing from all of us who right now have our hands raised . . .
 
Old 06-19-2007, 10:12 PM   #49
phantom_cyph
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: My HDD...
Distribution: WinXP for designing, Linux for life.
Posts: 2,329
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 47
I hate to put it to you this way...but I don't think people realize the difference between hacking and cracking, I will not however take the time to distinguish this. Just look up "Eric Raymond" and you'll figure it out.

I must bring to light however that most IT Security techs could hack each other's companies blind, do you really think that the people that protect your mail account are goody-goody people with a strong set of ethics, no criminal background and a Bible by their computer? You have to know how to hack to prevent/fight it, same as a cop and a gun.

The problem I find with cracking is that it is no longer a matter of skill like hacking is. There is software that does everything for you.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 03:03 AM   #50
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Helmet
Anyway, the thing I'm trying to point out is that the law for trespass does not mention anything about the person having knowledge that they are trespassing. It is entirely possible for someone to be held liable for damages by an inadvertent entry onto the land.
So, If I'll buy a square meter of a a land in the middle on something, and I'll remove signs "It's mine property, do not enter", this means - I'll be able to charge anyone who accidentally walks through that square meter of land I own? Looks like a "security hole" in a law to me - this allows using law in unlawful ways...

Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom_cyph
I hate to put it to you this way...but I don't think people realize the difference between hacking and cracking
..and piracy, I suppose.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 03:09 AM   #51
b0uncer
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Distribution: CentOS, OS X
Posts: 5,131

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Easy thinking: why do people try to "secure" websites, prevent content downloading except from within a login session trough some mechanism which tries to hide the actual file so you can only click a button to get it (and not use any external programs, for example, to automatically download the file) or have subscriptions at all? Because they don't want you to just go there and get the content they want you to pay for

Stealing is not brutally taking something from someone, it's taking something without a permission. Simple.

If that was anything more than a hypothetical idea, I would probably tell the "friend" stop being stupid and send an email to the admin of the service, describing the problem so they can fix it. Of course there are a million people who won't do that, but I'm not crying if somebody gets their heads
 
Old 06-20-2007, 03:49 AM   #52
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
It is not "a victimless crime."

You are, in fact, stealing from all of us who right now have our hands raised . . .
So you just use Linux because it is free of charge and not because you admire the free software philosophy. 'Stealing'... pfffff! You should be ashamed of yourself and instantly install Windows again.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 08:32 AM   #53
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0uncer
Stealing is not brutally taking something from someone, it's taking something without a permission. Simple.
I think that:
1) If some web site content lies in area that can be freely accessed by typing address into browser - that's the problem of a site owner. I suppose that anything that isn't supposed to be accessible for everyone should be transeffered either via secure communication or password-protected domain.
2) If some content lies area that isn't easily accessible and have password protection, etc. Breaking password and downloading content are more like stealing than the first case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by V!NCENT
So you just use Linux because it is free of charge and not because you admire the free software philosophy. 'Stealing'... pfffff! You should be ashamed of yourself and instantly install Windows again.
GPL'ed software can be stolen from public too, so it doesn't matter which operating system you are running.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 09:36 AM   #54
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErV
So, If I'll buy a square meter of a a land in the middle on something, and I'll remove signs "It's mine property, do not enter", this means - I'll be able to charge anyone who accidentally walks through that square meter of land I own? Looks like a "security hole" in a law to me - this allows using law in unlawful ways...
In theory: yes. In practice: no. There are a few things preventing this from happening.

First: damages. To recover from someone for trespass, the owner must show they were personally harmed or their land was harmed by the trespass. Someone walking across a strip of land is not going to cause any significant damage. However, the landowner is personally harmed because ownership of property gives the owner the right to exclude all others. Trespassing is a harm against that right. Even so, damages for that harm are limited--generally nominal damages (say, $2.00). However, a person that trespasses repeatedly can be ordered to pay much larger sums of money--punitive damages. An example: a construction company can be held liable for trespass if the scaffolding used to build a structure on property A extends over property B. If the owner of property B sues the construction company, they'll recover nominal damages at first (barring special circumstances). However, if the construction company refuses to remove the scaffolding (i.e. continues to trespass), then the owner of property B can sue again and recover punitive damages.

Second: record notice. The law imputes knowledge on the public in certain situations. This is one of them. Each transfer of land is recorded. The record of the change in ownership must include a description of the property--the boundaries. The records are made public. In this situation, the law considers the public to know where those boundaries are because the information is publicly accessible. So it's not possible for a person to say "I didn't know" -- even if the person truly did not know.

Third: the purpose of trespass. The law of trespass is to protect the landowner's right to exclude others. Using the land in the manner you describe would be to turn the "shield" of trespass into a "sword". The courts take that into account when deciding how much a person is liable to pay for trespassing.

In the OP's original situation, there are damages associated with it. The video itself has value. Therefore the taking of the video without satisfying the creator's restriction causes damage to the creator. There's no equivalent of "record notice" for the OP's situation, and that's why I take the position that it becomes illegal to violate a creator's rights in copyright once the creator takes steps to inform the public that the content is meant for restricted distribution. The creator can't expect everyone to be psychic. Therefore there must be at least an attempt to let people know, and in this case, it's successful because the OP got the sense that the material was for paying customers only. And in this case, copyright protection is not being used as a "sword" but as a "shield". It's protecting the creator's right to exclude/control distribution of the video. The creator isn't laying in wait to trap unsuspecting people.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 09:50 AM   #55
crashmeister
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: t2 - trying to anyway
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 47
Killerargument: Did anyone ever hear of anybody being prosecuted for clicking a publicly available link or random url?

I didn't.

As for payrolls and general business rants:
I feel your pain.When I had a business with employees (well not me per se but my wife sunk MY money into it)my beer consumption almost doubled and the meaning of life seemed to be handing out money.
But I didn't think if I don't secure my product and people pick it up w/o paying because of that they are stealing from me.
Crap like that is my own fault and if I screw up thats that.

Way I look at it is that I download anything I want that is freely clickable or typable.
If that harms people in whatever ways its regrettable but I don't have to verify the websitedesigns of the whole internet.People are getting paid to do that and nobody put a gun to their head telling them to put content on lousy designed or unsecured websites.

It is the company's responsibility to secure their websites and that the end of it.
If it wouldn't whats next?

Open line Credit Card transactions?
People putting up websites with paycontent that is freely clickable and then sue everybody that did?
It would be a heaven for fraudsters if you put the resposibility for website design in the hands of the consumer.

Besides one can always plead ignorance (or as is the case in 90% of the web users really are ignorant).
How is some guy/gal is supposed they find themselfs on the ICBM construction site of GE and what they build in the backyard isn't a toy if they just click somewhere in the browser window?
Those people just use the internet and don't have a clue and then the pros that screw up want to hold the ignorant (in a nice sense) responsible?

Last edited by crashmeister; 06-20-2007 at 09:52 AM.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 10:23 AM   #56
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister
Killerargument: Did anyone ever hear of anybody being prosecuted for clicking a publicly available link or random url?

I didn't.
Neither have I, but there are a lot of problems with that statement. First, the statement has a logical fallacy. Just because neither you or I have heard it happen does not mean it hasn't. Second, prosecuting (or rather suing them), is not a prerequisite for something being illegal. I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for driving in the HOV lane and I've never heard of anyone getting prosecuted for it. But driving in the HOV lane with only one occupant is still illegal.

Also, your argument assumes lack of knowledge on the part of the public. That's the pivotal point. Although it is arguable (as you mentioned) to interpret the OP's question differently, I still maintain that someone with knowledge of the creator's desire to restrict the content is violating the creator's rights in copyright by downloading the content, and therefore, is performing an illegal act. A person is not liable for downloading content that there is no indication by the copyright owner that distribution is restricted. However, if the person finds out after-the-fact that distribution was restricted (and they did not satisfy the restriction), there's a legal obligation to remove the material.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 10:40 AM   #57
crashmeister
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: t2 - trying to anyway
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Helmet
I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for driving in the HOV lane and I've never heard of anyone getting prosecuted for it. But driving in the HOV lane with only one occupant is still illegal.
Well you have now - got a ticket in Washington D.C. on the beltway.
At that time this was new and I was new to the US having no idea what the sign was supposed to mean.

If you assume the public as knowledgeable and liable you have to make the internet an 'over 18'restricted area depending on local laws of course.

Of course you are right that it all comes down to intent.
But that didn't help me with the ticket either - so it's gotta be wrong,right :-)

Last edited by crashmeister; 06-20-2007 at 10:44 AM.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 11:06 AM   #58
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
Ok, one sec, let me clarify, because I think what I was saying became muddled with the analogy to trespass.

I'm not charging the public with knowledge. I'm saying the copyright owner has a duty to inform the users that the distribution of the material is restricted. If the copyright owner fails to make a reasonable effort to inform users, the copyright owner cannot claim infringement.

If, however, the copyright owner has made a reasonable effort to inform users that distribution is restricted (or the user otherwise knows that distribution is restricted), then any user violating that restriction is liable for copyright infringement regardless of the security employed by the copyright owner.

As a side note, sorry about the ticket. I just recently got fined for expired registration and inspection. Both were expired by a paltry seven days. It's a pain to get those dismissed.
 
Old 06-20-2007, 11:18 AM   #59
crashmeister
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: t2 - trying to anyway
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 47
The ticket didn't bother me.I don't even know if they ever sent it or whatever (was a company car).

Anway I don't think we going anywhere here because basically what it seems we agree on is that what it really comes down to is intent and I got to go and fix one of my unsecured ftp servers
 
Old 06-20-2007, 11:26 AM   #60
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
Sounds good.

I'm sure you'll lock it down tight - and it won't lead to a similar thread being posted on another forum.
 
  


Reply

Tags
cracking, security


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
squirrelmail "error in login page"" when content advisor is enabled simi_virgo Linux - Networking 4 08-21-2008 01:25 PM
podcast topic: "Closed source drivers illegal" pterandon LQ Suggestions & Feedback 1 09-12-2006 11:26 AM
ProFTPd- "Illegal PORT Command" JCdude2525 Linux - Networking 5 12-06-2004 05:42 AM
Various Problems After Kernel Recompile - Keyboard Screwed, "Illegal Instructions"... johnleemk Linux - General 0 02-04-2004 11:33 PM
Cracking the "wall" of SuSE. Need help please... shassouneh Linux - Distributions 12 05-05-2002 02:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration