8 ms·

Several things make me skeptical about this browser. 1) Homepage is a bit uncared for. The Copyright shows "2020" at the bottom, the top screenshot looks docto

Several things make me skeptical about this browser. 1) Homepage is a bit uncared for. The Copyright shows "2020" at the bottom, the top screenshot looks doctored rather than being a real screenshot. 2) It's owned by an ad marketing platform, System1, as noted in the FAQ. On the plus side, the Github repository is active.

Josh5 5y ago
What's wrong with 2020? Generally the year displayed with a copyright is the year the work was first published. For a website, 2020 is a pretty recent initial publish. People don't just fully rewrite their website every year.
- phinnaeus 5y ago
  I would think it's whenever the page content was last updated, rather than first published. I also think it's silly to put on your website, but I am not a lawyer and don't know if it has any actual purpose.
  - atoav 5y ago
    Why would you change the copyright forward. A copyright 1994 means "This content exists since 1994, if you copied after that, there is proof I have made this before you"
    - garmaine 5y ago
      That's not what copyright is for or how copyright works. Copyright renewal is a real thing. Copyright years generally get refreshed whenever the content changes.
      - rzzzt 5y ago
        A from-to year format solves both problems.
      - southerntofu 5y ago
        > Copyright renewal is a real thing. Not in most jurisdictions, no. What's your country where copyright renewal is still a thing? (no judgement here, despite all my hatred for copyright i'd rather have copyright renewal than copyright until 50y after death of all editors/compositors/authors as we have in Europe)
        garmaine 5y ago
        Pretty much all jurisdictions. Even in Europe the copyright is extended if you alter a work.
        southerntofu 5y ago
        The original copyright is not extended, no, unless i have some serious legal misunderstandings. For example, translations for a book will have a newer copyright, but the original text's copyright will not be extended by receiving a new translation.
        bscphil 5y ago
        It would be slightly more accurate to say that you receive a new copyright in any new material in the work, not that your copyright is extended on the old material. Under U.S. law at least, a significant alteration of a work results in a derivative work under law, and you are correct to say that it is entirely reasonable to place an updated copyright date on that work.
        bscphil 5y ago
        The United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_renewal_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_renewal_in_the_Unite... Moreover, under United States law, new editions of a preexisting work are considered "derivative works" and in these cases "the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work." [1] SIGNIFICANTLY, this U.S. government source explicitly mentions the following as cases of derivative works which allow for a new copyright: * A new version of an existing computer program * A revision of a website The new copyright on the derivative work "covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work." In other words, by creating a derivative work via updating an existing computer program or modifying a website, you absolutely gain a new copyright on any new material and you absolutely can and should update the copyright date under U.S. law. People urging the contrary, at least insofar as they are talking about the United States or governments with similar copyright regimes are dead wrong, and jcranmer and garmaine are right and unfairly downvoted. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      That's not what ©1994 means. What it actually does is it establishes first publication date. In US copyright law, there are three dates that control copyright: 120 years from creation (first fixation), 95 years from first publication, or life + 70 years. If any one of those terms expire [1], the work moves into the public domain. Affixing an earlier copyright date affords no advantages. Pre-1976 copyright reform, flubbing the formalities means you lose copyright entirely. After that reform, you still keep copyright, but instead you lose out on some ability to recuperate losses, and you give your opponent extra legal ammunition in any copyright infringement cases. [1] Strictly speaking, life + 70 years actually rules when the author is determined. If you read the law carefully, once the fixation/publication threshold is crossed, it is now the burden of proof of the copyright owner to demonstrate that life + 70 hasn't happened yet, and furthermore to demonstrate that the alleged infringer failed to do due diligence to determine the death date of the author. In practice, it could end up really being a lesser-of-all-three situation, but we aren't going to get any case law on this until 2074 at the earliest, since life + 70 doesn't start until 1978.
progval 5y ago
> the top screenshot looks doctored rather than being a real screenshot It's SVG, so not a screenshot at all.
jikbd 5y ago
The first screenshot is in fact not a screenshot but an svg file. I don’t see how that makes the website look more fishy, though…
- overeater 5y ago
  There's awkward spacing in the characters in the address bar. They're uneven.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bArray 5y ago
The reviews are pretty great. Definitely legit. > “It’s incredibly difficult for new browsers to penetrate the market, but there’s one such browser called Waterfox, which is attempting to gain a foothold into the market by claiming to be the fastest browser in existence by leveraging on the 64-bit architecture of the latest operating systems.” - Can A New Web Browser Break Into the Market? / London Datastore Woah, they must be leveraging that new 64 bit technology everybody has been talking about! > “In a week where we celebrate the best of the British technology industry, we speak to young developer Alex Kontos about building a successful web browser, a search engine that gives money to charity, Microsoft Edge and more.” - From bedroom coder to building a Google search engine rival / Trusted Reviews Nice, they even give money to Microsoft Edge!
- jefftk 5y ago
  > they must be leveraging that new 64 bit technology everybody has been talking about! Waterfox is a project that has been around for long enough (~2011) that 64-bit was actually a thing people cared about. > they even give money to Microsoft Edge! They are saying they covered several topics in the interview, of which one was charity, and another was Microsoft Edge.
- MrAlex94 5y ago
  They are from the last decade or so - I linked them when I was a young lad and as you can tell the website is quite outdated now (and being updated in the meanwhile - takes time though!). Just thought it was a nice way to get people familiar with Waterfox since - at least at the time (years ago now) I wasn't too sure how to introduce people to it. > Nice, they even give money to Microsoft Edge! I never did, that's just the structure of the sentence mentioning that they also talk about Edge in the article.

Josh5 5y ago

What's wrong with 2020? Generally the year displayed with a copyright is the year the work was first published. For a website, 2020 is a pretty recent initial publish. People don't just fully rewrite their website every year.

phinnaeus 5y ago
I would think it's whenever the page content was last updated, rather than first published. I also think it's silly to put on your website, but I am not a lawyer and don't know if it has any actual purpose.
- atoav 5y ago
  Why would you change the copyright forward. A copyright 1994 means "This content exists since 1994, if you copied after that, there is proof I have made this before you"
  - garmaine 5y ago
    That's not what copyright is for or how copyright works. Copyright renewal is a real thing. Copyright years generally get refreshed whenever the content changes.
    - rzzzt 5y ago
      A from-to year format solves both problems.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      > Copyright renewal is a real thing. Not in most jurisdictions, no. What's your country where copyright renewal is still a thing? (no judgement here, despite all my hatred for copyright i'd rather have copyright renewal than copyright until 50y after death of all editors/compositors/authors as we have in Europe)
      - garmaine 5y ago
        Pretty much all jurisdictions. Even in Europe the copyright is extended if you alter a work.
        southerntofu 5y ago
        The original copyright is not extended, no, unless i have some serious legal misunderstandings. For example, translations for a book will have a newer copyright, but the original text's copyright will not be extended by receiving a new translation.
        bscphil 5y ago
        It would be slightly more accurate to say that you receive a new copyright in any new material in the work, not that your copyright is extended on the old material. Under U.S. law at least, a significant alteration of a work results in a derivative work under law, and you are correct to say that it is entirely reasonable to place an updated copyright date on that work.
      - bscphil 5y ago
        The United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_renewal_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_renewal_in_the_Unite... Moreover, under United States law, new editions of a preexisting work are considered "derivative works" and in these cases "the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work." [1] SIGNIFICANTLY, this U.S. government source explicitly mentions the following as cases of derivative works which allow for a new copyright: * A new version of an existing computer program * A revision of a website The new copyright on the derivative work "covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work." In other words, by creating a derivative work via updating an existing computer program or modifying a website, you absolutely gain a new copyright on any new material and you absolutely can and should update the copyright date under U.S. law. People urging the contrary, at least insofar as they are talking about the United States or governments with similar copyright regimes are dead wrong, and jcranmer and garmaine are right and unfairly downvoted. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    That's not what ©1994 means. What it actually does is it establishes first publication date. In US copyright law, there are three dates that control copyright: 120 years from creation (first fixation), 95 years from first publication, or life + 70 years. If any one of those terms expire [1], the work moves into the public domain. Affixing an earlier copyright date affords no advantages. Pre-1976 copyright reform, flubbing the formalities means you lose copyright entirely. After that reform, you still keep copyright, but instead you lose out on some ability to recuperate losses, and you give your opponent extra legal ammunition in any copyright infringement cases. [1] Strictly speaking, life + 70 years actually rules when the author is determined. If you read the law carefully, once the fixation/publication threshold is crossed, it is now the burden of proof of the copyright owner to demonstrate that life + 70 hasn't happened yet, and furthermore to demonstrate that the alleged infringer failed to do due diligence to determine the death date of the author. In practice, it could end up really being a lesser-of-all-three situation, but we aren't going to get any case law on this until 2074 at the earliest, since life + 70 doesn't start until 1978.

progval 5y ago

> the top screenshot looks doctored rather than being a real screenshot It's SVG, so not a screenshot at all.

jikbd 5y ago

The first screenshot is in fact not a screenshot but an svg file. I don’t see how that makes the website look more fishy, though…

overeater 5y ago
There's awkward spacing in the characters in the address bar. They're uneven.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bArray 5y ago

The reviews are pretty great. Definitely legit. > “It’s incredibly difficult for new browsers to penetrate the market, but there’s one such browser called Waterfox, which is attempting to gain a foothold into the market by claiming to be the fastest browser in existence by leveraging on the 64-bit architecture of the latest operating systems.” - Can A New Web Browser Break Into the Market? / London Datastore Woah, they must be leveraging that new 64 bit technology everybody has been talking about! > “In a week where we celebrate the best of the British technology industry, we speak to young developer Alex Kontos about building a successful web browser, a search engine that gives money to charity, Microsoft Edge and more.” - From bedroom coder to building a Google search engine rival / Trusted Reviews Nice, they even give money to Microsoft Edge!

jefftk 5y ago
> they must be leveraging that new 64 bit technology everybody has been talking about! Waterfox is a project that has been around for long enough (~2011) that 64-bit was actually a thing people cared about. > they even give money to Microsoft Edge! They are saying they covered several topics in the interview, of which one was charity, and another was Microsoft Edge.
MrAlex94 5y ago
They are from the last decade or so - I linked them when I was a young lad and as you can tell the website is quite outdated now (and being updated in the meanwhile - takes time though!). Just thought it was a nice way to get people familiar with Waterfox since - at least at the time (years ago now) I wasn't too sure how to introduce people to it. > Nice, they even give money to Microsoft Edge! I never did, that's just the structure of the sentence mentioning that they also talk about Edge in the article.