Yes "self-inflicted" is a medical/legal term which includes suicide.
In some jurisdiction there is a difference if "the balance of mind was disturbed" or if the coroner believed it was an attempted suicide (cry for help) that 'went wrong'
It gets even funnier in government.
In the 80s I worked in a special government lab (where 'critical' event wasn't a euphemism!)
To get the young mathematicians and programmers we needed we had to pay the same rates they would get in industry - but the pay scales were all set by rank. So the only solution was to promote 21 year old maths grads to the heights of the command structure.
There were senior site meetings that had a 'general' rank head of each dept and 20 or 30 'general' rank 20 something maths specialists!
It's generally hard enough persuading someone that you can measure something from a picture - also telling them that they can't use 'normal' computer software is even harder.
Of course back in the day, when it had to be a Sparc station crammed full of custom i860 boards it as even harder!
But it's pretty difficult to prove unless you are a protected minority and the boss shows up in a white robe and says "we are firing all the N.....s" or you fire a secretary after he/she refused to sleep with you AND you got the refusal in writing!
Usually the employee only wins because the company messed up the paperwork.
It's about an employment contract which involved compensation while an employee was working, where the employer backed out of that later and terminated the employee to keep from paying what are effectively back wages.
I am against suing to get one's job back, esp. here. However, suing to keep the unvested stock they took when dismissing you is a bigger deal.
Here's the thing:
1) Employee is promised stock for efforts
2) Company doesn't want to pay as promised
3) Employee is fired
4) Stock not paid as promised.
I don't think the fact that this occurs in an at will state has any major impact on the analysis.
Stock options vest in the future if you are still working there. The idea is that it keeps you committed - otherwise everybody cashes in on the day after an IPO and walks, and it rewards people who were the reason for the success.
You can't leave and then expect to get unvested options = otherwise people would simply sign up for every startup, stay a month and move on - then come back years later when the company is a success and ask for their million dollars.
It's abused when companies deliberately fire people before the options vest - this is relatively rare, since any sane company knows that getting rid of all your talent is a rather short term option.
This is what Oracle did when they took over Sun - they fired almost all of the VPs before the deal so they would have no share. In their case it was more justified, these people hadn't contributed to Suns future (it didn't have one) and weren't the reason for the Oracle takeover - there was no reason why they should gain from Oracle being in charge when the music stopped.
Here you aren't choosing to leave though. The company is paying you less and offering stock options, and then firing you solely so they can take those back as a deliberate policy.
With Sun and Oracle, at least the case could be made that the VP's would have been redundant during the reorganization process. But it's different from saying "Hey, give up the stock options or you are fired."
I think it's that point where you have arguable contract claims.
Although legally they might be safer firing everyone and re-hiring them post IPO. Although I would hate to work with anyone that they got to agree with this!
And those penalties are based on the cost to the other guy.
So if warner falsely demands your youtube video is taken down - you lost no money so even if they lied the penalty is zero.
If you request a Warner file to be removed they will prove that they lost $billion dollars. After all, an industry that claims star wars made a loss can prove anything.
> And those penalties are based on the cost to the other guy. So if warner falsely demands your youtube video is taken down - you lost no money so even if they lied the penalty is zero.
DMCA notices include the required text "under penalty of perjury". Perjury qualifies as a criminal felony, quite aside from any financial penalties. Unfortunately, nobody has ever enforced that requirement; someone ought to. Perhaps with the parties responsible for sending such notice imprisoned for up to five years (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html), they'd think twice about sending false takedown notices.
I read once that the 'under penalty of perjury' was 'linked' to the statement that you were an authorised representative of the company making the claim, not 'linked' to the claim itself.
Having said that, it's been a long time since I've seen a notice :)
It specifically says "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
See that's the thing: I read that as "I'm saying that Product X is being infringed and I swear that I am authorised to act on behalf of the owner of Product X".
It is not saying that "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that that the product I claim is being infringed actually is being infringed".
I don't unfortunately. The discussion I read was so long ago that it was probably on Slashdot :) Having said that, I found a few sites with 'DMCA policies' (eg. http://www.azlyrics.com/copyright.html ). Looking at how they discuss perjury, as well as just reading that line that you quoted nothing mentions that you are claiming the infringement under perjury, just that you are allowed to represent the product that is allegedly being infringed.
In some jurisdiction there is a difference if "the balance of mind was disturbed" or if the coroner believed it was an attempted suicide (cry for help) that 'went wrong'