Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor. • Hacker News Board

Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.

#41

Post by dkersten » Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 2:01 PM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #33

chc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to guess the missing thing is that the legal department wasn't the one that implemented the autoupdating date.

IANAL but for web pages, especialy dynamic ones, "the year of first publication" seems to be a flawed concept. You could as well say the page is first published everyday. About the presence of rogue engineers playing with copyright notices at will in big companies, some yahoo properties go through the hassle of manually updating the copyright notice every year under the explicit request from the legal department.

Surely dynamic updates are "republished" not "first published" after the first time the page is created.

Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.

#42

Post by Terretta » Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 7:39 PM UTC

kdommeyer wrote: post #10

ars wrote: post #9

Earlier 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.

Facebook © 2012 The content of Facebook wasn't first created in 2012, so I'm not sure if you're correct. In fact, I've noticed that the majority of sites don't include a date-range. Regardless, thanks for the info.

The page you're looking at was just created.

Re: Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.

#43

Post by sirclueless » Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 12:57 PM UTC

dkersten wrote: post #41

hrktb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but for web pages, especialy dynamic ones, "the year of first publication" seems to be a flawed concept. You could as well say the page is first published everyday. About the presence of rogue engineers playing with copyright notices at will in big companies, some yahoo properties go through the hassle of manually updating the copyright notice every year under the explicit request from the legal department.

Surely dynamic updates are "republished" not "first published" after the first time the page is created.

Not unless it's the same content. Arguably if some of the content is old (old blog posts, tweets, etc.) then you should use a range of years.

As many others have pointed out the whole thing is just a signalling mechanism, and not a strict requirement -- "(c) 2012" says, "Don't steal this stuff, it's copyrighted, and we have actively maintained this page through 2012 so we aren't a company from the stone age."