Microsoft 365 health status

Topic

New Reply

Yes, that’s copyright 2017 https://status.office.com/  
[See the full post at: Microsoft 365 health status]

Reply | Quote

Replies

[b]

woody wrote:

Yes, that’s copyright 2017

Is that a problem? Isn’t “year of first publication” very typical following the © symbol?

Applying a copyright notice to a work has not been required since March 1, 1989, but may still provide practical and legal benefits. Notice typically consists of the copyright symbol or the word “Copyright,” the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication.

Copyright Basics (PDF) at copyright.gov

(Page 4)

• This reply was modified 5 years, 7 months ago by b.

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

Is that a problem?

Not a problem. It just means that MS has been using this Microsoft 365 health status message since 2017, the year Microsoft 365 was announced.

Reply | Quote

I didn’t realize you were complimenting Microsoft on their efficiency. It doesn’t happen often.

Reply | Quote

From a legal perspective, an outdated copyright year potentially is a problem.

Reply | Quote

GoneToPlaid wrote:

From a legal perspective, an outdated copyright year potentially is a problem.

It’s not outdated when the official requirement is the year of first publication:

Copyright notice is a statement placed on copies or phonorecords of a work to inform the public that a copyright owner is claiming ownership of it. A notice consists of three elements that generally appear as a single continuous statement:

• The copyright symbol © (or for phonorecords, the symbol ℗ ); the word “copyright”; or the abbreviation “copr.”;
• The year of first publication of the work; and
• The name of the copyright owner.

Example: © 2017 John Doe

Copyright Notice

The copyright notice on a work establishes a claim to copyright. The date on the notice establishes how far back the claim is made. This means if you update the date, you are no longer claiming the copyright for the original date and that means if somebody has copied the work in the meantime and they claim its theirs on the ground that their publishing the copy was before your claim, then it will be difficult to establish who is the originator of the work.

Therefore, if the claim is based on common law copyright (not formally registered), then the date should be the date of first publication. If the claim is a registered copyright, then the date should be the date claimed in the registration. In cases where the work was substantially revised you may establish a new copyright claim to the revised work by adding another copyright notice with a newer date or by adding an additional date to the existing notice as in “© 2000, 2010”. Again, the added date establishes how far back the claim is made on the revision.

Do copyright dates need to be updated?

Reply | Quote

After the © symbol add the following code to your web page:

<script type=”text/javascript”>
var today = new Date()
var year = today.getFullYear()
document.write(year)
</script>

Now the year is always current.

Reply | Quote

Why does it need to display the current year?

Reply | Quote

On printed items, such as a book, the date it was printed is good as the content will never change. On websites where the content is always changing I would have the current date to cover the current material.

Reply | Quote

Actually, at least in some jurisdictions copyright is supposed to go by “work done” where the work is defined as being done by a person.

Therefore, under that theory I understand an automated system left running with no changes “should” be copyrighted as of the most recent change, even when it’s processing data from somewhere else and also indicating the last-processed date. Right?

Reply | Quote

That code doesn’t take care of bugs in older browsers. I use:

Copyright &copy;
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE=”JavaScript”>
RightNow = new Date();
var TheYear = RightNow.getYear()
if (TheYear >= 100 && TheYear <= 1999)
{TheYear=TheYear + 1900}
else
{TheYear=TheYear}
document.write(TheYear + ” “)
</SCRIPT>

 

Reply | Quote

Current Status…

…We’re analyzing authentication logs to isolate the cause of the issue.

…We’ve confirmed via telemetry and reports from some of the affected customers that service has recovered for a majority of impacted users. We’re continuing to investigate log data to better understand what caused this issue and to validate which recovery measures we took restored service functionality. Additionally, our telemetry indicates that this issue was specific to users located in the North America region.

…We performed a manual restart of a backend service and performed a configuration change to mitigate the issue. We’re continuing to monitor the environment to validate that service has fully recovered.

…Our telemetry indicates that service has largely recovered. We’re monitoring the environment to ensure it remains stable while we continue our investigation into the root cause of the problem.

…Our services remain healthy, and we’ve confirmed via continuous service monitoring that all of the previously affected scenarios are working as expected. Additionally, we’re progressing through our investigation to isolate the underlying problem.

Reply | Quote

At least you can take comfort in knowing these things don’t happen in “the cloud.”  Oh, wait…

2 users thanked author for this post.

GoneToPlaid, Geo

Reply | Quote

Ah the Cloud where all concerns for anyone’s deadlines just lose any meaning, to the folks in Redmond. Here it’s back online, would you like a GWX to go with that lost productivity oh cherished  end users!

I’ll bet that those servers for Redmond’s monthly billing/auto-debit services fees are triple redundant failover secure with no service interruptions or downtime.

Reply | Quote