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?
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.
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.....
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
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?
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? ;)
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..
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
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.
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
[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
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.
I think you missed the point Russ was trying to
make (or at least the point I think he was trying
to make).
Since his copy of his whois record predates the
restrictive text NSI put in the whois records,
he doesn't have to abide by the terms of the new
text. IANAL, but I don't think they can apply it
retroactively, and that's what I think Russ meant.
Doug
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.