Subject: Re: another's view on zone enum & on-line signing

From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:01:29 +0100

--On 22 September 2004 11:25 +0100 Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> (Just a data point...)

another data point (and I only bring this up because it's something I
could say earlier):
 http://tinyurl.com/6datz

One of the reasons why I and others (Nominet) have been a little
circumspect about the copyright etc. issues associated with enumeration is
that the matter was sub-judice in Australia, so this is in part by away of
apology for being a little reticent as to the legal basis. We've now had a
first ruling in court showing registries do hold copyright in their own
zone files (at least in Australian law) - i.e. those registries operating
in the "interests of the local community" etc. can, at a legal level
control the use of zonefile contents; i.e. it is worth fighting about the
technical element.

Alex

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:41:53 +0200

> We've now had a first ruling in court showing registries do hold
> copyright in their own zone files (at least in Australian law)

WHOIS data or zone file data?  The press release only mentions WHOIS
data.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:11:46 +0700

Date:        Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:01:29 +0100
    From:        Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <16B3CD5DBBBFFC13C2F51E0B@[192.168.0.16]>

  | - i.e. those registries operating
  | in the "interests of the local community" etc. can, at a legal level
  | control the use of zonefile contents; i.e. it is worth fighting about the
  | technical element.

This is exactly backwards.    If one were to assume that the registry
wanted to control distribution (and should be assisted in doing so, which
I don't agree with in this case, but ignore that for now), but had no legal
protection available (there was no copyright) then relying on keeping
things secret might be the only method available - and so seeking technical
means to do that would be worthwhile.

But the whole point of copyright protection, is so that information can
be made easily available to everyone, without the author of the information
losing their rights to it.

We don't expect newspapers (or books) to get printed on magic ink that
doesn't work with photocopiers - the publisher (or writer, or someone)
has copyright - that restricts the making of copies, inventing silly
and expensive technical means to do the same thing isn't justified
(especially since every time that's been attempted - consider DVDs -
it turns into a farce).

kre