On 07/05/2022 02:18, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
If zone enumeration was not a real concern, NSEC3 would not
exist. However, public DNS is a public tree and so we should have
limited expectations for hiding names in it.
A significant motivation was to help defend database copyright in the
zone
I don’t think copyright can enter into it, by dint of the fact that registry
data, being purely factual and publicly available, cannot be copyrighted.
On March 27, 1991, in a case that transformed the nascent online database
publishing industry, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is
* m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Sat 07 May 2022, 18:38 CEST]:
I don’t think copyright can enter into it, by dint of the fact that
registry data, being purely factual and publicly available, cannot
be copyrighted.
I'm not a lawyer nor pretend to be one on the internet but
https://bitlaw.com/
Actually, that source quotes the Feist decision. The rest of the discussion
makes it pretty clear that domain registries are not copyrightable.
“Thus, a database of unprotectable works (such as basic facts) is protected
only as a compilation. Since the underlying data is not protected, U.S.
cop
For some reason NANOG is quoting my original reply in base64 encoding. I did
not specify that on my end, so I’m not sure what is going on here.
-mel
> On May 7, 2022, at 12:08 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> --_000_D1647C55C4B34117851B3D01FD4CAC89beckmanorg_
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="
> On 7 May 2022, at 17:37, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> I don’t think copyright can enter into it, by dint of the fact that
> registry data, being purely factual and publicly available, cannot be
> copyrighted.
>
> On March 27, 1991, in a case that transformed the nascent online database
> publi
6 matches
Mail list logo
