Authorised=false.html
-
Financial Times (ft.com) has a highly secure article viewing authorisation system. See if you can work out how to circumvent it.
-
haha brilliant! :-)
-
Somebody, somewhere, was paid a decent amount of money to design this thing. Couldn't they at least obfuscate the page name?
-
It's an interesting twist on ?ADMIN=TRUE at least.
I wonder what CMS does stupid things like this - some kind of custom in-house job I'd guess.
-
@froog said:
Financial Times (ft.com) has a highly secure article viewing authorisation system. See if you can work out how to circumvent it.
[b]NOTICE[/b]
Any unautorized persons attempting to gain access to ft.com's proprietary secured content will be prosecuted under the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Any persons divulging methods of their circumvention will be also subject to prosecution under the DMCA on the grounds of publishing copyrighted trade secrets in addition to aiding criminals in circumventing our copy protection mechanisms.
Thank you, and have a nice day
- FT.com Legal Dept.
-
In germany, at least, the law prohibits you from circumventing any effective copy protection mechanism. Since this can not be called an effective copy protection mechanism, we are all safe.
-
@TheRider said:
In germany, at least, the law prohibits you from circumventing any effective copy protection mechanism. Since this can not be called an effective copy protection mechanism, we are all safe.
But, if you can circumvent it, it is not an effective copy protection mechanism.
-
@nachof said:
But, if you can circumvent it, it is not an effective copy protection mechanism.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. And therefore, any lawsuit against you will be futile.
-
...or, actually, it wasn't. You guys take everything to the letter. Do I really need to explain with a lot of words what the intent of the german law is? Besides, english is not my first language. :-(
-
Hah - The notice states 'Any persons divulging methods of their circumvention will be subject to prosecution...', however note that I did not provide any method to circumvent the 'secured' content, I simpy suggested that someone else attempts to circumvent it ;)
-
I H4x0r3d it whilst declining their cookies too ...
-
But if you have circumvented it, is it still legally effective?
-
@dhromed said:
But if you have circumvented it, is it still legally effective?
Perhaps the problem is trying to circumvent it. If you fail, it means it was effective, so your attempt was illegal. If you succeed, then it wasn't effective.
Now, what happens if you end up in jail because you faild and someone later shows that it wasn't effective? Do you get compensation?
-
@nachof said:
Now, what happens if you end up in jail ... and someone later shows [you are innocent]? Do you get compensation?
Hah hah! You must not live in the US, right?
-
@nachof said:
Now, what happens if you end up in jail because you faild and someone later shows that it wasn't effective? Do you get compensation?
If you get out of jail, that is considered your compensation, instead of spending the rest of your life behind bars. Unless they screw up spectacularly, there is absolutely no incentive to NOT prosecute someone except for the time and money involved, and if a high profile case is involved and the people are screaming for Blood Right Now, it is harmful to the career of an aspiring DA to NOT prosecute you.
-
Good thing I have a laminated get out of jail free card*.
* only good in Contra-Costa County
-
@medialint said:
Good thing I have a laminated get out of jail free card*.
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
-
@TheRider said:
In germany, at least, the law prohibits you from circumventing any effective copy protection mechanism. Since this can not be called an effective copy protection mechanism, we are all safe.
In law, "effective" often doesn't mean "works well", it means "has an effect". This is a legally effective copy-protection mechanism.
-
@Carnildo said:
In law, "effective" often doesn't mean "works well", it means "has an effect". This is a legally effective copy-protection mechanism.
No, it's not. It is an access protection mechanism.
By circumventing it, you reap the benefits available only to paid subscribers and thus commit (machine) fraud, at least that is what I believe the situation to be with respect to German law. No need to invoke any copyright acts - in fact, anybody who manages to display the page can freely copy it because there is NO copy protection scheme in place.
-
@mendel said:
at least that is what I believe the situation to be with respect to German law. No need to invoke any copyright acts - in fact, anybody who manages to display the page can freely copy it because there is NO copy protection scheme in place.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten about the Berne Convention. Which I believe applies in Germany.
