* They default to Google as a search engine because Google pays them lots of money, not because they believe that's the best search engine for their users to use. This bloats the browser, makes it harder for potential forkers to remove the code, and makes it harder for them to reverse course in the future should they decide to undo their disastrous series of decisions. * They have shipped many of these anti-features and stuff that belongs in user-installable extensions as part of the source code of Firefox itself. They broke all extensions because they failed to update a certificate (after shipping Firefox with a signing requirement for extensions that can't be disabled), and shipped an extension directly to users via their hotpatching feature that implemented a sponsored tie-in with a TV SHOW which manipulated the text on web pages, a major breach of trust in their use of hotpatching. * The have made major blunders in their handling of "experiments" and telemetry. * The URL bar is now infested with sponsored suggestions, even if you have searching from that bar turned off! * The top sites feature on the new tab page, intended to provide easy access to the sites you use the most, is now infested with sponsored recommendations like Amazon and Ebay. Many of these are sponsored suggestions (a euphemism that means "advertisement"), but ironically these are scarcely more annoying than the actual suggestions. * There is disgusting clickbait and spam on the new tab page by default, thanks to bundling Pocket's article recommendations. 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.įor the purposes of this comment, user-hostility means decisions that have negative utility for Firefox users as a whole, while benefiting Mozilla in some way (usually financial). 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. The new copyright on the derivative work "covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work." * A new version of an existing computer program government source explicitly mentions the following as cases of derivative works which allow for a new copyright: 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." 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. 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. Strictly speaking, life + 70 years actually rules when the author is determined. 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. Pre-1976 copyright reform, flubbing the formalities means you lose copyright entirely. If any one of those terms expire, the work moves into the public domain.Īffixing an earlier copyright date affords no advantages. 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. What it actually does is it establishes first publication date.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |