[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"

To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
From: John Galt <galt(at)inconnu.isu.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:37:18 -0700 (MST)
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302280858430.30049-100000@mauve.rahul.net>
Mail-followup-to: galt@inconnu.isu.edu
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302280858430.30049-100000@mauve.rahul.net>
Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Ken Arromdee wrote:

>If you read the message carefully, the "penalty of perjury" part only applies
>to the statement that the BSA is authorized on behalf of the copyright owners
>listed in the notice.  So not in this case.

So?  This probably falls under the "unconscionable acts" clause, so is
subject to sanctions even if they didn't specifically claim it to be
true.  Threatening somebody with bogus charges is Barratry and frowned
upon by the court system...

- -- 
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQE+X55S+ZSKG3nWr3ARAqPLAJ9SRE5tvaD98jbHkzSyijIA+9x5DACfTBsp
hmQw8wzIrEuznuwsNBwS00Y=
=RtL8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
  - From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
Next by Date: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
Previous by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
Next by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread