5 ms·
Yes, though "CYA" isn't necessarily entirely fair either. The legal system isn't exactly entirely deterministic, particularly if there is a jury involved, so I
by xoa 4y ago
Yes, though "CYA" isn't necessarily entirely fair either. The legal system isn't exactly entirely deterministic, particularly if there is a jury involved, so I think the tendency towards conservatism and seeking every edge isn't entirely unreasonable. Cost does certainly have to be weighed against any measures, and particularly for technical issues costs may often not be obvious to lawyers themselves or managers. But after actually experiencing all the stress and costs of a legal case just a few times, and only as a peripheral player, I can understand worries around all of it.
Also to the root's line here:
>I gave multiple examples of other code bases at Microsoft and Google and other big companies that dont include the year at all in some cases and definitely dont update every year.
This is one of those things where it seems reasonable at first blush but then completely not on second look. There are lots of cases in tech where "look these huge players do this" makes sense, but when it comes to either scaling or law things are different. Here I'd be looking for examples of small players doing that, because the big players have such powerful law teams and deep pockets that risks they'd dismiss as unimportant might be existence-threatening to a small company.
- lapcat 4y agoIs there a single case in all of legal history where someone has lost a copyright because of failure to update the copyright year? If not, then you don't need to do it.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoAs far at I know, you don't even need a copyright statement anymore. Everything is copyright by default.
- monkpit 4y agoThis was my understanding as well, I was surprised that the article didn’t end with the advice to remove it altogether.
- wongarsu 4y agoWhich is how it has been for most of the Western world for well over a century. Automatic copyright one of the core principles of the 1886 Berne Convention, but the US only joined in 1989.
- ghaff 4y agoIt surprises people that the US had, relatively speaking, more copyright hoops for creators to jump through than most of the rest of the world prior to harmonizing with the Berne Convention.
- xoa 4y agoI thought everything is copyrighted by default, but in the US at least if you don't register it limits your legal remedies somewhat (no mandatory minimums and such)?
- JohnFen 4y agoHere's the summary of how my attorney explained it (IANAL, obviously, and may be misremembering, so consult your own attorney). In the US, copyright is a thing that applies the moment you have put a work into a fixed, tangible form. Actual publication is not required. If your work is copied, you can sue. But if you register it, you have some additional power and -- perhaps most importantly -- you don't have to worry about a court fight over when the copyright term began. A registered copyright began at the date in the copyright registration. There can be no argument about that. Some of the other benefits... if you register your copyright, you can sue for statutory damages rather than having to demonstrate actual damages and you gain the ability to recover legal expenses.
- jcranmer 4y agoSince you said "all of legal history", yes, there are loads of cases. Prior to 1976, in the US, maintaining copyright required doing several steps such that if you failed to do any one of those steps, you lost copyright for good. Failing to renew copyright registration is one of those, and one classic film (It's a Wonderful Life) is public domain because its owner did precisely that. Post-1976, screwing up copyright formalities means relatively little in copyright (the biggest thing is you lose the ability to sue for statutory damages if you don't register copyright). Eventually, there's going to be legal confusion over what year protections run out, but that isn't going to be relevant for software until quite late this century thanks to the current 95-year copyright regimes.
- lapcat 4y agoMore info: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2TYK2NfhJ6pmDqW8rfT4LCf/its-a-wonderful-life-from-festive-flop-to-christmas-classic https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2TYK2NfhJ6pmDqW8rf... But that is not the same thing as updating the copyright year on a copyright notice, and you know it. A film like "It's a Wonderful Life" is a finished work that never changes, unlike software or web sites. In every film, the copyright notice in the credits will remain forever the same. It can't be changed without editing the film ex post facto a la Steven Spielberg or George Lucas. Even if the copyright of "It's a Wonderful Life" had been renewed, the copyright notice in the credits would not have changed.