[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: (///\ ulTRÅX \\\/)
Date: 06 Feb 1999
Time: 08:45:52
Remote Name: 209.240.200.62
Group: alt.discuss.webtv.hacking Date: Fri, Jan 29, 1999, 12:35am From: ulTRAX@webtv.net (///\ ulTRÅX \\\/) Re: ANY LAWYERS OUT THERE?
ECW wrote: "Perfectly legal. They aren't affecting the content of the pages at all. They are just affecting how their browser reads those URLs. If doing so were a crime people who make AOL pages could sue AOL for the AOL:// tags not working in netscape, IE, ect.. Then there's the fact that almost all wtv urls lead to pages that WebTV or one of it's partners own copyright to. If they want to keep you from accessing those URLs it's their buisness. If it weren't password protected pages, private pods, and the like would be illegal."
First of all I want to remind everyone, and correct me if I'm wong, that those annoying POPUP ads from the Fall 97 Upgrade were pulled I believe because WTV lawyers did not do their homework. That may of may not be true... If it is, then they can make mistakes. If not... that still is no reflection on this issue. None of us are lawyers and to state our opinions as legal fact our is of little help. As for the claim that disabling code does not effect content... the web is based on hypertext. To claim the right to selectively disable links does effect content. The standards arguement does not seem to apply since we are not talking about having use of specific IE or Netscape HTML extensions... only to have access to WTV URLS. Afterall, we are subscibers. WTV goes through all this truoble for one reason.. to secure the network. Yet, obviously WTV has options to secure the network other than the methods they have chosen. In fact some wtv-services are apparently exempt... such as wtv-content and wtv-tricks. (content is odd in that it's still allowed to work in mail but is not always accessible in HPs). Anyway.... we can for the most part access wtv URLs with the browser. In most cases WTV can't claim they are attempting to prevent that which the browser was designed to do. I haven't yet gone to the TOS but I'd find it odd if it required us only to acess WTV URLs in a prescribed manner. The question then seems to be what wtv-services are necessary to preserve network security? It would seem basically flashrom`and customscript. WTV found a very effective way to block access to unauthorized flashrom upgrades.... they just took them off the production servers. Then they found a way to block access to those services. I have no idea what our legal rights are.... but it just seems highly questionable for WTV to delibrately prevent our accessing a fully functioning HP that in essence is our intellectual property. I don't hold this right to be inviolable. Obviously WTV can not provide what it does not support and we have to understand that when we sign on. We can have all the JAVA on our HP we want and can't expect WTV to deliver. But that is not the case with the WTV URLs. Hey... I don't pretend I have any answers. But having to deal with the arguements of others helps me fine tune mine.