interesting.
well sorry for it not being as interesting as i thought...
Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
21–30 of 43 posts
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. They might have; but I doubt Microsoft, Yahoo, and Twitter did as well. © 2012 Microsoft Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. © 2012 Twitter
I quote the US government: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html "and the year of first publication"
It appears that you're correct, but I'm still having a hard time believing that the legal departments of almost every major company make the same mistake. That makes me think that there is something we're missing.
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#23©2008 Google Forgive my ignorance, but why don't companies program the copyright year to automatically update?
The year is supposed to be the first year the work was created. You can do 2008-2012 if you want though (and let the end year automatically update). But since that's the assumption if you don't include the end year, there isn't any reason to do it.
with the way copyright works, is the notice necessary at all? if you put the wrong date at the bottom of your website, it doesn't invalidate your copyright. i could put © 2047 at the bottom of my site if i wanted to.
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#24Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The year is supposed to be the first year the work was created. You can do 2008-2012 if you want though (and let the end year automatically update). But since that's the assumption if you don't include the end year, there isn't any reason to do it.
with the way copyright works, is the notice necessary at all? if you put the wrong date at the bottom of your website, it doesn't invalidate your copyright. i could put © 2047 at the bottom of my site if i wanted to.
It isn’t. Copyright is automatic.
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
with the way copyright works, is the notice necessary at all? if you put the wrong date at the bottom of your website, it doesn't invalidate your copyright. i could put © 2047 at the bottom of my site if i wanted to.
It isn’t. Copyright is automatic.
Copyright is automatic where it is automatic. In the United States you don't need a copyright statement. Also, no matter where you're from, "all rights reserved" is meaningless (post-Berne Convention).
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I quote the US government: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html "and the year of first publication"
It appears that you're correct, but I'm still having a hard time believing that the legal departments of almost every major company make the same mistake. That makes me think that there is something we're missing.
They could be counting the year it was rendered on your computer. That seems a bit wonky though.
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's a mistake, they should have left the original date. If you update it you are supposed to do year, year, year or a range. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
I still doubt that Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. are all mistaken in listing the current year in their copyright. That seems implausible.
Things aren't as cut and dry with legal traditions. I'm sure there are tons of scraps of legal language that remain in use only because it's traditional and few people know any better. Like some kind of legal shibboleth.
Like coderdude said above[1], whenever you see "All Rights Reserved"[2] you're seeing it in action.
1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3541501 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn’t. Copyright is automatic.
Copyright is automatic where it is automatic. In the United States you don't need a copyright statement. Also, no matter where you're from, "all rights reserved" is meaningless (post-Berne Convention).
It's (as I understand it) legally meaningless, but it's not "meaningless": it's a socially acceptable way to express the sentiment of "this is not open source or in any way something I am sharing with the public". Avoiding confusion is a good thing. It's like the opposite of a GPL COPYING file.
Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
well sorry for it not being as interesting as i thought...
A post that just says "interesting" is noise, so people will downvote it.
damn, and here i thought i was "safe".
but apparently someone said its a repeat, and a fake, and yet offers no explanation why. Do you know why?