Whois information copyrighted 85
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?
must have been today (Score:1)
I didn't notice it yesterday...
Not new (Score:3)
...phil
It used to be public domain (Score:5)
Now when their monopoly is threatened, they take ownership of the data and how it's used
When their contract ran out.. (Score:3)
Interesting observation - can a phone book listing be copyrighted?
--
Prior art? (Score:3)
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.
wierd.... (Score:1)
what? (Score:2)
Just wondering.....
three days ago (Score:1)
Network Solutions != Internic (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
-russ
copyright? (Score:1)
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.
How can I bind myself without taking action? (Score:2)
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?
Who owns the info? (Score:1)
Spam? (Score:1)
I don't think its a very cool thing to do, but tons of companies do it every day.
Lisa
Two problems (Score:4)
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? ;)
Why this might be good (Score:1)
~GoRK
Re:When their contract ran out.. (Score:1)
The problem comes in when you read the clause in the precident about the data being collected through automatic or mechanical means.
Have you seen adds in classifieds about writing down phonebook entries and mailing them to someone for money? That's what this is. Someone collecting data manually for re-publishing.
Copyright and Phone Books (Score:1)
--
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "
NSI cannot copyright the Whois database. (Score:5)
In 1991, the Supreme Court decided that the factual content of phone directories are NOT copyrightable. (see Feist Publications [findlaw.com], 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.
Re:It used to be public domain (Score:1)
Re:wierd.... (Score:1)
Recent. (Score:2)
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..
Re:Spam? (Score:1)
My guess is that they did it so they can assert their temporary monopoly, but also so they can say they're doing it in order to prevent people from spamming you.
Of course they probably won't consider sending email to all domain admin contacts that they authorize as being spam...
Re:It used to be public domain (Score:1)
Like the other guy said do you still have the message?
If I remember my studies of IP, once something is in the public domain you can not remove it from the public domain. This would give anyone wanting the information a legal leg to stand on. But IANAL.
Re:When their contract ran out.. (Score:1)
According to Dutch law, it seems that phone book listings are indeed (sort of) copyrighted. KPN (the former state owned telco) has successfully frightened companies that put data online that they will go to court regarding online phone book data.
A number of companies have tried to copy the data. Some of them claimed that people in China handcopied all entries in the phone book (which is legal). However, KPN put phoney phone numbers in their digital database and could show that the data was digitally copied.
Strange, a written version is without copyright, a digital is not.
Has anybody printed out the whois database in the Netherlands?
Domain Surfer?? (Score:1)
Re:NSI cannot copyright the Whois database. (Score:4)
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.)
Re:How can I bind myself without taking action? (Score:1)
not any more (Score:1)
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.
In trouble... (Score:1)
---
Don Rude - AKA - RudeDude
Good News. (Score:2)
James Blackwell, innocent@merconline.com, JB26539
So when is... (Score:1)
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.
Bullshit, I didn't agree to anything. (Score:1)
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.
This comment is (C) by me and may not be redist... (Score:1)
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.
Time to nag the newspapers again (Score:1)
fwd://www.abc.com
fwd://www.nbc.com
fwd://www.msnbc.com
fwd: fwd: fwd:!!!
Re:Let's all call Rob. (Score:1)
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
--
Facts vs. format (Score:3)
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.
law on Databases (Score:1)
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.
Re:cashing a check==agreeing to notes written on i (Score:1)
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.
Re:copyright? (Score:1)
Re:what? (Score:1)
Of course there is. Verbal contracts are contracts and enforceable (even though it's very difficult to enforce them). Shrinkwrap licenses have been held to be enforcable by a US district court.
There are other conditions for a valid contract that may or may not be present in this transaction.
Re:cashing a check==agreeing to notes written on i (Score:1)
Re:Get real (Score:1)
As far as whether crossing out the language on the renewal works: The offeror of a contract has the right to determine the means of acceptance of the contract; the offeree may not choose to accept in any way other than that offered by the offeror. When you cross out that provision, you are rejecting NSI's offer and making a counteroffer. However, if NSI cashes the check, they've accepted your counteroffer, which suggests that you have successfully exempted yourself from that provision. But don't count on it.
Getting the WHOIS database (Score:2)
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
unenforcable... (Score:1)
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
No problem for Domain Surfer! (Score:1)
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/
enforcement [lawyer's view] (Score:4)
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.
REAL WHOIS... (Score:4)
Re:Prior art? (Score:1)
WIPO? (Score:2)
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.
Re:law on Databases (Score:1)
But wait until after HR 354! (Score:3)
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! [loc.gov] 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.
Re:not any more (Score:2)
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
Re:wierd.... (Score:1)
Me thinks this is a sort of Death Thrash of NSI.
Re:Get real (Score:1)
The reasoning behind that decision went along the lines that it's usual to expect that if you BUY (not lease or rent) something, you have full and complete control over its usage. By offering some products for normal sale (mice, cables, etc) and some that has other limiting clauses (software) and not distinguishing between the two, the license has no effect.
I've never had a clerk at a store point this out (why should they? It doesn't benefit them) and I seriously doubt any do. The only recourse of the publisher is to get stores to agree to provide this warning.
Shrink-wrap licenses are also completely invalid if they aren't 100% visible through the shrink-wrap. Similarly, if you'd have to open the package to understand (ie, it refrences material inside the box, etc) the agreement, then you can open the shrinkwrap without agreeing...
There are so few cases in which a shrinkwrap license is valid that they're only included for the same reasons all sort of warning are included with products, buying more BMWs for lawyers.
When? Two starting times. (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 [deja.com].
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.
Re:Copyright and Phone Books (Score:1)
is exactly what the German Telecom is trying to
do at the moment. And, if I'm informed correctly,
they just won against other companies selling
phonebook CDs.
Well, *I* never gave them the copyright on
my phone-no and especially not my address.
Re:Recent. (Score:1)
alive until all data has been sent. One cannot
be sued because the phone connection drops while
you're downloading a web document.
Re:law on Databases (Score:1)
Okay, InterNIC didn't create the database by its own, the German database is created by DE-NIC located in Karlsruhe, but I think that they can legally say that you can't distribute, copy or whatever, the database.
Hmm, I should read some articles about this stuff more carefully
Uh, don't mix US laws on privacy with European laws on privacy - EU laws are quite strict about this topic, like the one mentioned above - so it is not legal to export user information to the US - theoretically
Re:cashing a check==agreeing to notes written on i (Score:1)
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.
No, I *don't* agree (Score:1)
Re:not any more (Score:1)
-russ