On 1/2/08, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to say that this made my day :) Although I'd probably =~ s/get/bribe/
Heh. I opted to keep the level at "snark" and not "actionable." Soapboxing aside, I suspect that the usual reason for updates is either a simple misunderstanding of the notice's meaning (just because something was copyrighted last year doesn't mean it's expired this year) or technical issues (we don't know exactly when the particular bit of content was created, so we give the whole site the date of the newest content). I don't like the latter, as it dilutes the notices to where I would expect a judge to deny you statutory damages, i.e. same as when you don't have a properly-formatted notice at all. I'd rather be up-front about it and put a generic notice without a year. It doesn't qualify for statutory damages either, but they seem unlikely anyway. Were it a site statutory damages were a realistic possibility, I'd care enough to track the correct date for every bit of content, and then I'd be explicitly setting a TMPL_VAR. ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
