In addition, I suspect, given that every time you walk into a Starbucks your phone is probably connecting to the network "Google Starbucks", that they probably know how you feel about coffee.
Interesting - as an advertiser I generally recommend using the email address "sent from" as your main source of targeting but combining that with specific keywords within the gmail campaign can be super helpful at finding people at the exact right time.
An interesting idea but I find it hard to see this taking off and becomming the norm. They need to sell it to Google or something so they don't have to rely on the browser.
Also, rewarding users with "premium content" or let them "donate it to publsihers" doesn't seem too realistic.
I like the idea but I see some major hurdles before this takes off.
It looks to me like they want to do a Netflix like system but for long form content. The $5 goes towards hiring a specific writer to do a specific in depth article (or series). Unless I am misunderstanding.
You're probably getting down-voted because (aside from the off-topic comment) that isn't how copyright works. In most cases copyright starts from the time the work is created, and lasts for a specific period of time (Disney-style exceptions notwithstanding), whether copyright is explicitly declared or not.
The copyright notice only serves (informally) to indicate the start-point for this time.
I think the idea is addressing these people (like me) that were used to seeing those "Last edited on XX-XX-XXXX" notices at the footer of HTML pages and worry that the project may be dead/outdated if the date is old.
Now that I think about it, is this why people puts "Copyright $initial_year - $current_year"? Because as you rightly say, only $initial_year is legally relevant.
> Now that I think about it, is this why people puts "Copyright $initial_year - $current_year"? Because as you rightly say, only $initial_year is legally relevant.
Both are, actually, and $current_year may be the most relevant. That formulation generally indicates that the current work was created in $current_year, but is a derivative (possibly through a chain of intermediaries) of a work created in $initial_year.
Derivatives are independent works with their own copyrights, and copyrights of works where the author for copyright purposes is a corporation rather than a natural purpose last a fixed time from the creation of the work in the US, currently, IIRC, 95 years.
So something that says (assuming accuracy of the notice) Copyright 2001-2017, with a corporate author, will be out of copyright (barring further extensions) in 2102, but is ultimately based on an earlier version that will be out of copyright in 2096.
Of course, a lot of websites use automatically updating and false dates for copyright notices, and anyhow the usual current advice is not to include a date at all.
Hmmm I see, I didn't assume people meant that the subsequent updates of the website are intended o be considered derivative works, but for instance by similarity to different editions of a book, I guess this is actually the case?
