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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 28 Feb 2003 at 12:38, Stephen L Johnson wrote:

Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
From:           	Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>
To:             	dvd-discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Organization:   	Date sent:      	28 Feb 2003 12:38:04 -0600
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> This is something that I've been thinking about as well. I'm in the
> (unfortunate) situation of being in hostmaster DNS recpient list at
> work. I't getting to the point of getting one of these takedown notice
> e-mails a day. I'm just glad that I don't have to follow up on them. :)
> 
> My thinking is if there are no legal remedies, bill'em. Somebody has to
> follow up on these take takedown e-mails. If the e-mail is correct, then
> we remove the files under the safe harbour provisions. If the e-mail is
> incorrect, then bill the sender according to the amount of time taken
> and FTE rates of the employees. If they don't pay then send it to a
> collection agency, or go to small claims court, or just plain file suit
> if the monetary amount is signficant enough.
> 
> If every ISP and business did this, the BSA and *AAs of the world would
> certainly change their procedures. If it was wide spread enough, could
> this sort of thing become a class action suit (as much as I detest most
> of them).

That's the problem with the C&Ds, takedowns, and Berman-anteism. There is NO 
penalty for just being abusive or downright STUPID...as in BSA. I don't buy the 
argument that their filters needed adjustment. Surely they know there is a 
product called staroffice, openoffice etc. THere is no check or balance here 
and the courts are being cut out of the loop.

> 
> On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 10:27, Tim Neu wrote:
> > I saw this on slashdot, regarding auto-cease and decist notifications for
> > supposed copyright violations (in this case, MS sending C&D notifications to a
> > school hosting openoffice), and it got me wondering:
> > 
> > What prevents the sender of emails like this from being charged with perjury? 
> > 
> > 
> > Is at a requirement that someone making a perjurous statement know their
> > statement to be untrue, or is the penalty invoked by sending a message like
> > this in the first place? 
> > 
> > Presumably the clause is intended to lend credibility to the take-down
> > request.   
> > 
> > http://distribution.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=581265&listName=dev
> > 
> > Just wondering why we don't start making use of the perjury clause to give
> > companies something to think about.   Presumably, reckless mass-mailing of C&D
> > notices would give way to careful considerations of the consequences of being
> > wrong, and only acting when it is CERTIAN that infringement is taking place...
> > 
> > If it could be enforced.   Any thoughts?
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>
>