Indeed, who would review other people's code for free or for fun?
Well, right offhand, Coverity will. They're not perfect, of course, but they're pretty good. Their system didn't flag Heartbleed, but Heartbleed showed them how they could add a new test that would and that has reportedly found other possible issues, which are being investigated and will either be fixed or found to be false positives and used to refine the new test. Either way, not a bad thing.
Do you as a taxpayer want to in effect provide free profits to Sprint or T-Mobile's shareholders - even if you don't use those carriers - because you think it's good that they are around to provide more competition?
Yes. Absolutely yes. I am pretty confident that in the long run that costs me less per year than if ATT owned all the spectrum.
Heh. I'm thinking about switching from Comcast to Uverse because it looks like I can get substantially similar service (minus some channels I don't use) for half as much. I've been trying to figure out what I'm missing that will make it actually not a savings.
The only part of the DMCA complaint that is under penalty of perjury is the person doing the filing claiming they are an authorized agent of the purported complainer. I, as a non-Sony employee, could not issue takedown requests in Sony's name (probably because folks might deliberately file bogus requests in order to make Sony look dumb. Er). The rest of it is all on "good faith belief" basis, which is nigh impossible to disprove. In particular "our computer system says it looks like a match, and the system hasn't been shown to be totally ridiculously inaccurate yet" qualifies, so far at least.
Now, the rebuttal to the complaint, that is if I recall correctly under penalty of perjury. But the takedown request is utterly safe to file.