"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
The wording actually results in "under penalty of purjury" to modify the succeeding part of the sentence, not the preceding part. As a result, the penalties only apply if you act on behalf of another party without authorization.
Penalties would apply for mislabelling content as copyright infringing as well as acting without authorization if the requirement was this along the lines of "a statement, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I think he's talking about the knowing misrepresentation clause that I forgot about, actually (which is not the same as signing off on it under penalty of perjury). As noted by one of the comments above, this provision is completely toothless. To quote DannyBee: "Nobody has successfully gotten anyone fined/real damages for this provision yet. Partially because it requires knowing misrepresentation, not just negligent or even grossly negligent misrepresentation."
So you have to prove that they actually KNEW that Github was not a porno movie owned by them, not just that they were (hypothetically) filing legal papers while intoxicated or without actually reading them.
How you're supposed to prove they actually know anything at all in the face of the sheer stupidity demonstrated by this notice is an open question. I think a real lawyer would need to answer that, but I found something that makes it seem like the standard could be met if they made the statements with a complete disregard for the truth thereof - http://legal.practitioner.com/regulation/standards_9_3_1.htm
But it makes it seem like they could argue that they were simply careless and avoid it, so I don't honestly know.
I manage a private combination of communications bulletins and attack monitoring for a couple of smaller communities / organisations that get attacked on the regular (mostly hosting providers and gaming organisations). I've been considering letting it go invitation-only public.
> It's not all that different to the advantages of vertically integrating iTunes/iOS/Apple Ax-based hardware.
It's different due to the fact that Internet is a "utility" now in the same way gas, electricity and water are (isn't it considered a human right in the USA now?). An Apple iPhone is not in any way a utility, and its functionality can be made up, 1:1 (fanboyism aside, thank you) by another device. iTunes (the store) is not a utility, and its functionality can be made up, 1:1, by purchasing CDs or using Google Play / Spotify / Rdio. iTunes (the app) is not a utility for obvious reasons.
Yes Apple locks you into an ecosystem, however that ecosystem is not a fundamental "requirement" to function as a business. There's simply no replacement for the Internet and, in a lot of places, there's no replacement for $ISP.
It's different due to the fact that Internet is a "utility" now in the same way gas, electricity and water are (isn't it considered a human right in the USA now?)
I'm curious here, is Google actually in a position where it's breaking what is commonly understood as antitrust laws by abusing its position? Are the actions that are defined as "abuse" actually Google abusing their position, or simply utilising it as a market advantage?
More or less, except Britain is currently experiencing the aftershock of David "Think of the Children" Cameron and his band of privacy-hating merrymen. While Verizon was caught out recently tracking users and Comcast maybe does the same, at least they don't forcibly restrict you from using HTTPS.
> There is no reason not to pay for even the most trivial purchase with EFTPOS so I haven't carried cash around in my entire life.
Unfortunately, there is a reason to still carry some cash in Australia: EFTPOS minimums. Airport stores are notorious for this, but it's quite widespread.
"Oh sorry, we have a $10 minimum on EFTPOS."
"... You're a coffee shop."
This stemmed from the fixed price per charge being charged to the merchants. The less you pay, the higher percentage that charge is of the total bill you're paying, resulting in them making slightly less profit.
In reality, those charges have been abolished by almost all, if not all, banks in Australia. It's now just a game of trying to make you buy $7 worth of miscellaneous stuff for your coffee. No thanks, I'll go elsewhere.
> Oh sorry, we have a $10 minimum on EFTPOS."
> "... You're a coffee shop."
I always just ask them to charge me a surcharge instead. Some places "get it", but a few have stared at me blankly. I don't want to a) walk back down the street to an ATM or b) buy a bunch of pastries that I don't want to eat just to pad out my bill.
But otherwise, AU/NZ's EFTPOS system is generally fantastic, although being replaced (anecdotally) by the credit card system since PayPass/PayWave were deployed so quickly here.
> I always just ask them to charge me a surcharge instead. Some places "get it", but a few have stared at me blankly. I don't want to a) walk back down the street to an ATM or b) buy a bunch of pastries that I don't want to eat just to pad out my bill.
Most stare at me blankly and then tell me they can't do that.
You type the value in yourself. It's not difficult. Do it.
Right, I suspect that the difference is that there never were any charges per transaction to the merchant in NZ. I've never seen a shop that had a minimum size for an EFTPOS transaction here.
On the other hand there are a lot of shops that either have a minimum transaction size, or a surcharge, on Credit Card transactions.
