Slashdot Mirror
Whois information copyrighted
Jonas Öberg writes "It appears as if Network Solutions fairly recently put in a clause at the end of all whois requests, telling you that you're not allowed to reproduce, sell, transfer or modify the information. See whois slashdot.org for an example. " I've seen this before-can anyone tell us when this first started?
I didn't notice it yesterday...
It's been there for a while. NSI saw the day coming that there would be other registeries and registrars, and tried to claim that the database of domain names and contacts was their "Intellectual Property", and you couldn't use it to start a competing service. Consensus is that it wouldn't hold up.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
When I complained to Internic about spam I was receiving due to their database being mined and sold, I was told that there was nothing that could be done because the information was in the public domain.
... how convenient.
Now when their monopoly is threatened, they take ownership of the data and how it's used
Slashdot posted an article on internic revamping their website. The notice appeared then. When I signed up for my domain in late january, the changes had not yet occured.
Interesting observation - can a phone book listing be copyrighted?
--
Call me naive, but...
Hasn't whois been around a lot longer than Network Solutions' monopoly? Like back in the NSF days for instance. I find it hard to believe that such a thing would hold up.
Strange to have an agreement that comes after the fact... that's almost as good as having a license agreement under the shrinkwrap.
I don't recall agreeing to that. Don't I need to "sign" something to say that I agreed to it, rather than being told that I agree to it?
Just wondering.....
I first noticed it 3 days ago. That's evil... I guess I can't email the technical contact, since I would be reproducing the information in my mail header.
Or rather, they shouldn't...
... crash and burn!
The trouble is that we have a for profit business controlling something that was set up to be a non-profit organization. The lines have been blurred, especially since Network Solutions hijacked 'www.internic.net'.
Its about time we open up the whois database and let the world run it's own nameservers, instead of just "Network Solutions"
NSOL - 68 1/4 down 3 5/16ths
My whois information is in the public domain, and always will be.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It started few days ago (2 or 3, I'm not sure).
They don't exactly assert their copyright (There's no word "copyright" in the disclaimer), they just say that you cannot use it for commercial purposes.
This is done to prevent abuse of those addresses by spammers, and for NSI to be able to sue spammers for usage of NSI's mailing lists. I think that's a Good Thing(tm) by itself.
However, that doesn't stop NSI itself from sending spam to registered contacts. They did it on more than a few occasions...Ah well.
I'm not a lawyer, but what action did I take to agree to their terms? Clicking on a link from slashdot? After that point, I have no way of rejecting their terms.
What's really interesting is that they made it a license agreement rather than a simple copyright. Might they feel they are on shaky ground?
Don't you own it Rob? Aren't you just giving it to them? They might own the distribution media (ie. Network Sol'ns whois server), but not the info itself (as you've given them the info not the rights to the info, they didn't create it).
I don't think its a very cool thing to do, but tons of companies do it every day.
Lisa
2) The information itself is public domain. This means all they can control is access to their database. There is legal precedent that says if I have access to their database, I can suck all the information out of it and put it in my own, then do with my database as I please. The only way this can work for them is if they put the database totally off limits; nice catch-22 they've gotten themselves into, eh? ;)
This new "copyright" could actually benifit domain registrants, since I know a lot of the spam I am always recieving comes to the address I use for domain registration. I know this is true because it is the only time I have ever used that E-mail address for anything. What NSOL has essentially done is make it illegal for spammers to harvest e-mail or postal addresses and phone numbers from the whois database. Personally, I think this is the way things should be. Let's just hope that they don't decide to sell the list, and let's hope that they grant permission to reproduce the data for nonprofit use such as Internet statistics/research, etc. I do think that any registrant should have the option of making a domain record public though.
~GoRK
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
I checked my domain records around here and the last time
i looked the date was May 12th and there was no notice at that
date... so i'd guess that it was yesterday or today...
Shadus
I noticed three days ago and submited it to /.
2 days ago. I guess it got lost in the pile
of incoming stories.
In 1991, the Supreme Court decided that the factual content of phone directories are NOT copyrightable. (see Feist Publications, 499 US 340)
There is little difference between a phone book entry and a whois entry; they may be able to copyright the FORM of the database, but the INFORMATION is useable by all.
Simple way to avoid it, just figure some way to have your whois client cut the connection after the real information you're looking for comes through. No license, no agreement. Not that it's legally binding in the first place, mind you..
What does this do to a service like Domain Surfer?
Werd.
NSOL is selling the information to spammers. They just want to be paid for selling us out. Besides, spammers won't abide by this notice. Spammers are what is known in game theory as "Habitual defectors." Defectors never cooperate. They violate any rule designed to benefit the group if it is to their advantage to do so. Habitual defectors-- like Network Solutions-- are the guys who look at collection plates, salvation army boxes, and tip jars as free money.
And there's no drawback to violating this "rule"-- it's not legally binding, and NSOL has no legitimate claim on information that they do not legally own.
This is the worst of both worlds. It's a scam by NSOL that will only harm ethical users. They should be flogged in public, I tell ya!
icebox:/var/named/pz# whois CRYNWR-DOM
Registrant:
Crynwr Software (CRYNWR-DOM)
521 Pleasant Valley Rd.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213
Domain Name: CRYNWR.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Nelson, Russell N (RNN3) nelson@CRYNWR.COM
+1-315-268-1925
Record last updated on 20-Dec-96.
Record created on 31-Jan-92.
Database last updated on 13-May-99 08:35:10 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.CRYNWR.COM 192.203.178.14
ANGEL.HEAVEN.NET 198.69.28.2
ASYLUM.SF.CA.US 192.48.232.17
You agree that you will not reproduce, sell, transfer, or
modify any of the data presented in response to your search request, or
use of any such data for commercial purpose, without the prior
express written permission of Network Solutions.
Domain Surfer is in trouble. And heck, so am *I*... my DNS resolver (caching only) has some of this copyrighted info that it "reproduces".. am I going to be sued!!!???
---
Don Rude - AKA - RudeDude
RudeDude
Perl/Linux/PHP hacker
I don't think so. Well here it is then:
NSI can blow me.
Anyone care to write a whois sucker in perl that goes out and sucks every whois entry out of the database by IP address?
For Bonus credit, re-encode the data you get in XML, burn it on to CD, and send me a copy at this address:
Anonymous Coward
C/O CmdrTaco
1440 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC
USA
Good news. My Name, Email address, and Phone number are only released under the GPL. By including my GPL licensed data, they have made a GPL licensed work. Now just to find a lawyer willing to litigate on it.
James Blackwell, innocent@merconline.com, JB26539
Network Solutions' monopoly going to be broken up? I could have sworn I heard that the registering of domain names was going to be made public forum...
Maybe we should get a band of rioters together and storm the NSI headquarters with pitchforks and torches. Or we could try to convince the DOJ to look into it.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Keep dreaming, NSI. I didn't agree to nothin'. Don't tell me I did and expect me to believe you.
I'll copy and post any whois information anywhere I want.
...reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, sent to a remote system, etc., without my express written permission. Rob, Slashdot, and all you comment readers, magically agree to this just by having read it.
NSI's notice (see below) is just as silly.
>>>>
You agree that you will not reproduce, sell, transfer, or
modify any of the data presented in response to your search request, or
use of any such data for commercial purpose, without the prior
express written permission of Network Solutions.
I don't think there is a legal leg to stand on here. For years I've been crossing out the phrase "payment indicates acceptance" on my renual. I've also placed verbage on my check saying that cashing the check constitutes acceptance of my offer to not necessarily accept the license in question.
It is a shrink wrap, and those are basically uninforcible.
fwd://www.zdnet.com
fwd://www.abc.com
fwd://www.nbc.com
fwd://www.msnbc.com
fwd: fwd: fwd:!!!
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
There's no such word as "costed."
Well, according to my Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, the 10th (v.t., to estimate or determine the cost of) and 11th (v.i., to estimate or determine costs, as of manufacturing something) have past forms as "costed". Perhaps if you hung around cost accountants (such as my mom), you would hear such phrases as, "What, the widget production process? I costed that yesterday". I am probably sure that Rob did not mean "costed" in this manner, but it is in fact a word.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
I think what NSI is trying to do is to establish ownership over the database, as opposed to the information that's in it. It's widely known that facts can't be copyrighted, but the presentation of those facts might be a different matter. So I suspect that NSI's thinking is that they don't want anybody to be able to systematically poll the database in order to create a copy of it.
Obviously, if you look up a domain name, you're free to do whatever you want with the results. If you look up ten names, then the same thing probably applies. But if you wrote a script to query all domain names, take the contact info and create your own databse, then that might well fall under copyright protection.
If that's all accurate, then it's probably for the good. I get spam and junk snail mail that obviously originated from my domain registrations. The fewer people who have replicas of the registration database, the better.
I'm not sure how much legal history there is on this stuff, unfortunately.
I've often wondered about this. If I write on a check "cashing of this check constitutes payment in full on Foobar Bank Mortage #XXX-XXXX" and the check is cashed, is my house now all legally and undisputablty paid for?
Strange things happen to silly copyright laws when they start crossing national borders. In fact, they may not emerge on the other side at all!
hi`
if I am right, databases are especially protetected by some European law - e.g. a German company selled a phone book on CD and were successfully sued by the German Telecom.
First off, IANAL, but my mom is and I used to love reading her legal journals and case law books (and yet I passed up a carrer in law to program computers...yay)
To answer your question: Technically yes the bill would be paid off, but I wouldn't count on it standing up in court. When a note such as that it placed in a check, is IS legally binding because the party you give the check to has the option to refuse your check and payment. If there is an alternative option, and they cash it anyway, they legally accepted it.
So should we all try this? No. While your legally in the right, most US courts would find for the mortgage company. Unless you got really lucky most judges would see this for what it is, an attempt to dodge a legitimate bill, and require you to pay it. It's kind of a trivial argument anyway. Write that note on your next mortgage check and I'll bet they just return the check to you uncashed. Heck, they'll most likely nail you with late fees at that point too, since you didn't properly submit your payment.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
This is just a sign that Network Solutions's time has come has that and that they must be destroyed!
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
The legal jargon for offering a check endorsed as a "payment in full" is "accord and satisfaction"; if the payment is offered in full settlement of an unliquidated claim or a bona fide dispute, it will act to discharge the original contract. If you offer your check when there is no bona fide dispute or unliquidated claim (which would be the case if, for example, your mortgage is not in collection or foreclosure), the endorsement has no effect.
Well...
I got SPAMed by best44@apmail.com on 3-25-99 offering me a CDROM with the information for +2M Domain Name Owners (supposedly the real distilled information contained in the +4.6M currently registered domain names). They wanted $US1600 for what I consider to be a public domain; they need to stop smoking that low-grade crack and find a reliable dealer. I believe this particular piece of SPAM is an incarnation of an older marketing effort and that Slashdot covered this little event several months ago.
Then, on 4-1.99, I got SPAM e-mail from Network Solutions (as a current domain name holder) informing me of the earth shattering changes they were making to their web site. This was also covered by Slashdot and generated a lot of heat and motion on ISP mailing lists. Romaji may work OK for Japanese, but is sucks rocks in Chinese and other Asian languages that haven't polluted their symbol sets with odd western characters.
About two ago, I first noticed the, uh, read-through "agreement" tacked on the the end of whois quiries. I didn't bother submitting this tid-bit to slashdot because they always ignore my input (I used to submit as an AC, but when I realized that they ignore AC input in general I figgured they could stuff it).
And, to add insult to injury, the JPNIC stopped distribution of their domain and IP list which I was using to do domain growth "research". No big deal... The JPNIC has all of +80k domains register and their rules for registration are so restrictive and one sided that they will always be thrid-world compaired to other more progressive NICs around the globe... no wonder they're in a recession over there.
The big breakthough, of course, will happen win the Chinese NIC (another SAIC awareded NIC contract) finally settles down and makes some important (and long due) policy decisions. That... and when unicode domain names and URLs are finally handled correctly by the various browsers out there.
Hey,
for MONTHS already, the whois database is nolonger public. The reason for this is that many people got it and ripped the eMails from it to spam people. Now Internic needs you to sign a contract to get the full database.
My guess is, the reason they added this small part below the whois results of their db is that their lawyers told them to. They might have to mention it there too if they do not give out the Database.
- Fabian Thylmann
This seems unenforcable to me. How can they make you agree to certain terms for something you view after the damage is done, i.e., I've viewed it? It might be enforcable, if I performed some action indicating concent, but this is just an order from a body that has no authority over me, and where there is no opportunity for me to concent? Why would I listen.
Also, the part about not reproducing the output is just ridiculous. I cant do 'whois 2ad.com | mail john@2ad.com' or 'whois 2ad.com | lpr' ? That's a joke!
John
This has NOTHING to do with Domain Surfer.
... they HAVE this written permission.
They must have a contract with NSI to get this information anyway, they do not ripp it ouf of the whois results. And notice the part saying "without the prior express written permission of Network Solutions"
At least I VERY much hope so.
- Fabian Thylmann
http://www.stats.net/
[I've really got to start doing this with Lynx; I've about had it with netscape's shenanigans. Once I figure out how to make it pop up new windows for links, I have no more use for netscape. But don't have time to read the source code right now. Especially with the time I'm spending retyping.]
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. I am probably not licensed in your state or nation. IF you need advice on this, see a lawyer who is. This disclaimer void on odd-numbered moons of Jupiter.
A contract must always have "offer" and "acceptance." While we frequently think of acceptance as explicit, it isn't. An acceptance may also be made by conduct. If I offer you ten bucks to mow my lawn, you can accept by showing up and beginning. Your favorite store clerk accpets your offer to buy merchandise at the posted price by ringing it up. And the theory behind shrinkwrap licenses has you axccepting by opening the wrapper.
This doesn't seem to fall into that case. The purported offer comes after the conduct to accept; it certainly doesn't apply to the original transaction.
I also dougbt that it can apply to later transactions--while the argument can be made based on prior notice from a previous listing, the "offer" and "acceptance" are not on the same putative contract.
A more interesting contract question comes from the attempt to add such conditions. The whois command has become standard, and is based on the arrangement to provide this information. THere may be an offer & acceptance of the original terms. I'm not sure what the answer is on that one, it will take a lot of thought that I don't have time for at the moment.
Actually, NSI has hidden the "real" whois, fancy free at http://www.nsiregistry.com which is basically the old WHOIS we got at http://www.internic.net and NSIregistry does not have that copyright notice. Example: WHOIS Slashdot.Org
Are you trying to spam him?
Weren't there changes in copyright law being promulgated by WIPO that would allow such copyrighting of databases? Perhaps that's what NSI is banking on.
From what I remember, it would be possible for an organization like Major League Baseball to copyright its database of ballplayer statistics that was developed at its own expense. While major media could probably afford to develop parallel databases, it would probably be easier to use MLB-branded data. We wouldn't have any such choice of developing a parallel whois database.
IMHO, Dyson and the rest of ICANN screwed up royally by not insisting on a public escrow of this database.
Doggieh hits it on the nose. Feist pretty much slams the possibility for protecting any databse whose structure and organization is essentially determined by function. This is not true for any database, however -- many databases can be protected (and have been protected) by courts since Feist.
On the other hand, NSI will have substantial difficulty distinguishing its database from the white pages in Feist, given the essential function and operation of whois.
BUT BEWARE! The lawyers in Feist have not lost their mind. They may not have an advantage under today's law, but the law may be about to change:
Legislation to give what we lawyers call sui generis (read "special treatment") protection for databases is presently pending before the Congress as we speak. It was a part of last year's Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but (thank g-d) was pulled at the last minute.
Even worse, the definition of "collection of information" was so broad in last year's bill, and the elimination of a traditional "fair use" exception, threatened to make this sui generis bill swallow the few saving graces left in Copyright law.
But like all pieces of special interest legislation -- and the database bill is no different -- It's BAAACK! While the present legislation is far superior to last year's, in that it does have a fair-use-like exception built in, it is all the more dangerous because of its acceptability therefor. Congress may well pass the bill in this form this term or next, unless folks quickly mobilize against it.
What's wrong with HR354? Well, the whois database is an excellent example. After the database legislation passes, NSI might well succeed in making its claims stick.
On the web-based interface, NSI has been slapping on their bogus "agreement" since at least 22 March 1999. See this post from news.admin.net-abuse.email.
However, DejaNews^H^H^H^H.com has no postings yet in news.admin.net-abuse.sightings with the NSI bluff, so I suspect that those of us who do whois from a *NIX prompt only started getting served this rider within the past day or two.
That said, the so-called "agreement" is absolute hogwash.
IANAL, but I think that as a government monopoly for lo these many years, the whois database should be public domain, just as it is not possible to copyright government documents in the U.S.
yabbut, your check won't be the only evidence
presented to the jury! The original paperwork
of the mortgage agreements will also be there
(which is why you'd never even get a trial on this) and the original agreement says there are
certain terms and conditions... The check with
it's binding are also weighed with everything else, not in a vacuum. And their evidence is
a pretty substantial stack of papers (as any of
you who have ever bought a house will attest),
and your evidence is a check (on which you may
have written those words AFTER it was returned
from the bank!!!)
I may or may not be a lawyer, for all you know,
but I have spent as much time in courtrooms as
most civil litigators.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
When do you slashdot boys check your email? We emailed you THE minute it happened. I did 2 whois searches within 15 mins and in that time period it changed. Why dont you go back and check your email from a WEEK ago and post when the changes happened, rather than wait a week and post old news.
I don't understand these replies that say, "Yes your mortgage is paid if the check with the note is cashed, but judges will see it as a cheap shot to dodge payment and rule in favor of the lender." In other words, you are write and the law agrees with the check writer, but because it's "just not right", the law will be ignored. I didn't think courts worked this way. Laws can't just be disregarded whenever it suits someone's purpose.
>and your evidence is a check (on which you may have written those words AFTER
>it was returned from the bank!!!)
Um, the bank keeps copies of all checks on microfilm before they're returned to you. The bank's copy would show that the note was already present on the check at the time the lender presented the check for cashing.
Maybe they should change the message to say "You agree to give me one million dollars." That has about the same legal weight.