[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
- From: "Tim Neu" <tim(at)tneu.visi.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:27:12 -0600
- In-reply-to: <20030227212003.GA22191@sethf.com>
- References: <20030227212003.GA22191@sethf.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
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.
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?
______ _ __ Military Intelligence
/ ' ) ) -KC0LQL- Honest Politician
/ o ______ / / _ . . Intellectual Property
/ <_/ / / < / (_</_(_/_ -- firstname.lastname@example.org / http://www.visi.com/~tneu