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?

7 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. It used to be public domain by |DaBuzz| · · Score: 5

    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.

    Now when their monopoly is threatened, they take ownership of the data and how it's used ... how convenient.

  2. Two problems by Analog · · Score: 4
    1) The 'agreement' isn't shown until you have the information. I seriously doubt this is legally enforcable.

    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? ;)

  3. NSI cannot copyright the Whois database. by doogieh · · Score: 5

    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.

    1. Re:NSI cannot copyright the Whois database. by Frater+219 · · Score: 4

      Here are some relevant excerpts from Feist v. Rural Tel.:


      Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable.



      While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because it contains some forward text and some original material in the yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, coordinated, and arranged those facts is not original in any way.


      Do read the case; it's very interesting material. ("Rural" is a telephone company; "Feist" is a publisher of wide-area phone books which used data from Rural's white pages in making a wide-area white pages directory including material from ten other phone companies.)

  4. enforcement [lawyer's view] by hawk · · Score: 4

    [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.

  5. REAL WHOIS... by WorldMaker · · Score: 4

    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

  6. When? Two starting times. by knuth · · Score: 4

    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.

    • No one agreed to it. Except NSI, of course.
    • Cannot reproduce? So I can't report spam?
    • Cannot modify? That means Rob or any other domain owner cannot ever get a new e-mail account, meatspace address, phone number, or FAX. Get serious.

    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.