I was lucky to only spend a small amount of my career dealing with the cube farm, in do computer research work.

Everyone used closed-ear headphones. In theory, people were listening to music, but many people including myself, used them regardless to both block sound and visually indicate to others "I can't hear you".
 

First, yes, It's all just theoretical discussion until there's case law. Something like this, that's pretty unlikely to happen. This is a discussion on a Internet forum, one would think discussions are just that. I don't see the need to get belligerent about it.

As I said, beyond the explicit perjury penalty, there would certainly be (in theory) penalties for falsifying information in the notification.

Personally, don't think they'd actually be criminal beyond (vi)'s explicit perjury penalty (if it applied in anyway), but was just relating the opinions of my law professors I've had the discussion with.

The main argument (ignoring any that address the grammar of the law, which very fit and miss when talking American English) is that (vi) mentions the accuracy of the information in the notification. In addition to (v) that address the good faith belief (and (v)'s mention of agency). The overlap suggests that the first clause in (vi) has to be operative in some manner for it to be included.

If you want to talk plain text (which really means little given the looseness of grammar in the law, even major SCOTUS decisions have ignored sentence clauses of the Constitution for seemingly arbitrary reasons), In (vi), neither the second or third clauses can be individually excluded with the sentence making sense. The perjury clause is subordinate to the accuracy clause, but is adjunct to the agency clause.

There's no way to parse that sentence's grammar that really makes sense, Whether you want the perjury to apply to just the agency, just the accuracy, or both. So I don't think an appeal to the 'plain text' of it clears anything up.

I doubt there's much of anything useful in terms notes on legislative intent for something that minute, but can't access that easily from off-campus anyway, and given the politeness of the discussion, I doubt it would matter.

Again, just opinion and the results of my reading and discussion with my law professors. Take it for what you want. There's no need to get rude about it.

The wording of U.S. Code 17 Â 512(c)(vi) has been interpreted that way, and to cover the entirety of the notification. Not sure what the case law is.

My professors that I've spoken with on the matter are of the opinion that either it applies to both or that if it doesn't apply to the entirety of the notification, that it be on par with statements in a federal criminal complaint (in though it's a civil matter, because of the criminal implications of copyright infringement), which if knowingly false would basically amount to perjury.

You realize how many things have to be attested to under penalty of perjury? You realize how many times people have gone to jail for the most straight-forwardly blatant fail statements in such cases? Next to none if any.

Any doubt? DMCA takedown requests have to be attested to under penalty of perjury. Ever hear of a false/improper DMCA request? How about someone going to jail for making a false one? (Keep in mind a statement made under penalty of perjury by an automated system does not make the person whose authority the system is being used under in any immune).
 

When I took AP CS in highschool, they were just switching to C++. We actually hard two years of courses and AP was the second year. I pushed to skip the first class (which was basic at the time) and after taking the final was able to.

The school didn't even normally give the exam. After some parental rage, they finely setup so I could take the exam (just me). 45 minutes of test taking earned me a 5/5. Though since all the changes in the exam at the time my college just gave credit for an elective instead of saving from taking a course.

Nothing wrong with the current page. It has severed well for a long time with minor evolutionary changes. It is familiar and comforting, and works perfectly.

I have spent much time looking at the new page, but nothing on it seemed like it gave something the old one didn't.

Unfortunately, broadband choices are very limited in most of the U.S. (elsewhere too I'm sure, but only know the states).

Where I currently live despite it being a moderate sized city, with an extreme tech community. Your only options are cable through Comcast or DSL through Centurylink. When you factor in what speed you can get where in the city. Voting with your wallet isn't much of an option.

Back when there was some competition and choice in my area for DSL service, my standard question was "Could I run a commercial porn busisness off this connection and max it out 24/7/365?". (Assuring them that wasn't my intended use, but I wanted that freedom).

One ISP responded by saying, 'Of course, actually until recently one of our customers was one of the biggest porn companies in the US'.

ISPs have no shame. There's hope of getting anywhere with that.

Most have fine-print in their contracts that unlimited isn't really unlimited.

It sucks.

One thing you can do is look into a business account. You pay more, but you get unlimited bandwidth, and can often run servers and such that aren't allow with a consumer account.

If you want to try to fight the issue, look carefully at your bill and what taxes are being applied. Look up the text of the laws the taxes are based upon. If memory serves one of the common taxes that has to do with telecommunications (wish I could remember the name) has certain requirements of not interfering with you usage in certain ways that /should/ keep them from capping you.

Abusive contracts are perfectly legal, just not always binding.