Breach of Copyright +

[domaingenius]

I have just twigged and discovered that in winning a
UDRP against me the Complainant both breached copyright
and the Data Protection Act 1998 in the UK by using
a printout from Domain Tools to show a domain name
and my details from an old whois record relating to
a .co.uk domain. I wonder how the Court will now view
such blatant disregard for the laws ?. (I appreciate
position might be different in USA ?)

DG

 

[Theo]

The WHOIS info is public info. WHOIS protection is for spam purposes only.

 

[domaingenius]

The WHOIS info is public info. WHOIS protection is for spam purposes only.

The whois of Nominet in UK is all Copyrighted and domain tools is reselling
it which is breach of copyright. Apparently some kind of legal actions may
be being planned by Nominet but not sure on that. Look up any
.co.uk domain and you will see the Copyright notice.

DG

 

[Theo]

So you're saying that the technicality is not the info but how they obtained it, not directly from Nominet?

 

[Dale Hubbard]

They obtain it from Nominet. Every time you do a whois lookup there, they perform a 'whois2' lookup and database it. They will then sell you parts of the Nominet database upon request. This is a breach of Nominet's IP rights. They (Nominet) know it too and are (slowly) on that particular case. Wheels grind slowly here in the UK.

They obtain it from Nominet. Every time you do a whois lookup there, they perform a 'whois2' lookup and database it. They will then sell you parts of the Nominet database upon request. This is a breach of Nominet's IP rights. They (Nominet) know it too and are (slowly) on that particular case. Wheels grind slowly here in the UK.

In context, "...they perform a 'whois2'..." above is DT.

 

[Theo]

I don't mean to play devil's advocate but how would this affect a WIPO decision? They provided WHOIS information that apparently had Domaintools logo etc. on it. But does it matter whether they used Domaintools, Nominet or a private investigator? Also, supposing that Nominet has copyrights on the WHOIS info, they are the only party with a right to sue.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

@acro: In this context (as per OP) it wouldn't. I'm just making reference to the way in which DT collect their data.

 

[domaingenius]

I don't mean to play devil's advocate but how would this affect a WIPO decision? They provided WHOIS information that apparently had Domaintools logo etc. on it. But does it matter whether they used Domaintools, Nominet or a private investigator? Also, supposing that Nominet has copyrights on the WHOIS info, they are the only party with a right to sue.

Acro, im not saying that it would effect a UDRP decision but what I am
counting on is (a) The lawyers and client involved will not want it brought
up in High Court that they knowingly breached copyright and data protection
acts and (b) It influencing the Judge/Court against them and for myself, as
I seek to recover the domain. I have 3 years use of the name and a TM
application pending. It is at the very least a bit of leverage.

DG

Here's what the WHOIS info says on all .co.uk domains;
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2009.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois, which
includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

DG, they could subpoena that information anyway. If Nominet were asked by a legal entity, they would supply it without too much persuasion.

 

[domaingenius]

DG, they could subpoena that information anyway. If Nominet were asked by a legal entity, they would supply it without too much persuasion.

aZooza, I do not doubt that for one minute, but (a) They could not
do that for a UDRP complaint (b) respectfully to you, "they could"
does not make what they did do legal. Example. A bank robber could have opened up a bank account and borrowed the money, but instead
her robbed the bank because he wanted the information without
bothering with Court procedures. How will the Court view that ?.
I agree they could POSSIBLY have obtained the info if they started
a court case, but they didnt, but I have.

DG

I should add to that. I actually asked Nominet to tell me if a .co.uk
domain had been previously registered and if so when. They said sorry
we cannot tell you that because of DPA 1998. Also should add the
record of whois that the parties bought from DT was actually an
old stored record that showed my address, were as current record doesnt.
It also had "Copyright Nominet" stamped all over it. I know some may
think I am making mountain out of molehill but having been through
this all at least several times before the Court does work on such
pedantic basis.

DG

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Well, facts are facts. I don't quite follow your "bank robber" analogy. Your initial premise was that you thought the DPA would protect you. That won't fly. The matter in hand is whether or not a true historical record can be evidenced against you. The answer is "yes" I'm afraid, and as you ask in your initial post, the DPA is fine in the UK but not in the USA.

 

[domaingenius]

All I am saying is this. They have breached the DPA by their unfair
processing of data, so the ICO has advised me. They have misused
Nominet's copyright material by buying it from Domain Tools. I am going to
use both those points against them in the UK High Court action
I have started to recover the domain that I lost at WIPO.

DG

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Well, I admire your tenacity. However, you seem to be 'cherry picking' a little. Anyway, best of luck.

 

[jberryhill]

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois

Yes, which states:

This is not an exhaustive list, and is always subject to the restrictions above, but generally the WHOIS is intended to:

*
identify whether or not the domain name is registered, provided that you do not have access to the Domain Availability Checker system;
*
identify the person or host responsible for a domain name (e.g. to confirm that this matches the apparent provider of a website, email or other service related to the domain name);
*
allow registrants of .uk domain names to see information about their domain name;
*
show publicly if a domain name is in a special status; and
*
locate and contact the registrant and/or host of the domain name in relation to the prevention or detection of systems abuse, or to establish or defend legal rights (including an intent to use the Dispute Resolution Service).

So, the terms you are claiming to have been "violated" expressly permit the use of WHOIS data in the course of defending legal rights. The fact that Nominet *requires* the use of WHOIS data in domain disputes doesn't help you much.

 

[domaingenius]

Yes, which states:

This is not an exhaustive list, and is always subject to the restrictions above, but generally the WHOIS is intended to:

*
identify whether or not the domain name is registered, provided that you do not have access to the Domain Availability Checker system;
*
identify the person or host responsible for a domain name (e.g. to confirm that this matches the apparent provider of a website, email or other service related to the domain name);
*
allow registrants of .uk domain names to see information about their domain name;
*
show publicly if a domain name is in a special status; and
*
locate and contact the registrant and/or host of the domain name in relation to the prevention or detection of systems abuse, or to establish or defend legal rights (including an intent to use the Dispute Resolution Service).

So, the terms you are claiming to have been "violated" expressly permit the use of WHOIS data in the course of defending legal rights. The fact that Nominet *requires* the use of WHOIS data in domain disputes doesn't help you much.

What I am saying is this. It is Domain Tools who have breached
copyright by storing and selling the data. THAT is against Copyright
and Nominet have confirmed that to me. The purchase
FROM Domain Tools is in breach of the UK's Data Protection Act 1998
in that ,and I am advised by the Information Commissioner if
this, constitutes unfair processing of personal data ,which is
a breach of that Act. I know you have free speech and all in
US, but here in UK we have such laws as DPA 1998 etc, thats
why domain tools could not do what they do in UK.

DG

This explains exactly what Personal Data is and what
"sensitive personal data " is;
http://www.walsall.gov.uk/index/council_and_democracy/data_protection/content-newpage-79.htm

It is this that causes the complainant problems in
that they processed personal data in an unlawful manner
by purchasing it from Domain Tools and storing it
on their computer . THAT is processing personal data
and collected such data from an unlawful source.

DG