Volume II

Issue : 19: October 7, 2004

• Ontario Superior Court Examines Organization and Commercial Activities under PIPEDA
• Australian Court Finds Copyright Infringement in Data Mining of .UK WHOIS Database
• Court Strikes Down Anti bootlegging Statute
• U.S. Appeals Courts Finds Websites not Places of Public accommodation Under Disability Legislation
• Ontario Court affirms Privilege Extends to Electronic File References in Pleadings
• U.S. District Court Strikes Down Statutory Amendments Made by U.S. Patriot Act
• Recent Decisions of Privacy Commissioner Review Practices of Satellite Television Provider and Contest Sponsor
• California Court Finds Misuse of Digital Millennium Copyright Act
• Ontario Court of Appeal Releases its Decision in Robertson Case Holding Database Inclusion Constituted Copyright Infringement

Home > Volume II > Issue 19: October 7, 2004 > Australian Court Finds Copyright Infringement in Data Mining of .UK WHOIS Database

Australian Court Finds Copyright Infringement in Data Mining of .UK WHOIS Database

The Federal Court of Australia has concluded that the data mining of the .uk WHOIS database in relation to a scheme to send domain name registration notices to registrants identified by the data mining is an infringement of the copyright in the database.

Nominent UK is the central registry provider for UK-based domain names including the .UK ccTLD and certain Second Level Domains such as .co.uk. Two Australian companies, Diverse Internet Pty Ltd and Internet Payments Pty Ltd associated with Bradley Norrish and Chesley Rafferty used sophisticated search techniques to extract and collate names and other details of registrants on the Nominet UK WHOIS Database. Through another company, (UK) Internet Registry Ltd controlled by Rafferty, they sent notices from Western Australia to some 50,000 of those registrants in the UK. The Notices offered registration of domain names ending in the top-level .com domain name. Norrish alone contested the allegations of infringement under the Copyright Act and contraventions of the Fair Trading Act. However, the court concluded that he authorised an employee of Diverse Internet to data mine the database and thus copy a substantial portion of it and that as he was a director and 50% shareholder who took no steps to prevent or avoid the infringement Norris himself infringed copyright.

In accordance with earlier jurisprudence of the court, originality in a database comprising a factual compilation may founded, in whole or in part, in the compiler's labour or expense required to collect the information, and in such a case, infringement depends on the extent to which the collected information has been appropriated by the alleged infringer.

For a copy of the decision, visit:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2004/1244.html