[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: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:15:01 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcLgUI2KLAOQs894T0isH3/WSEo0ewAACM6A
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
So, could whoever recieved this letter take it
to a judge and get them to enforce the penalty
for perjury on BSA?
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bauer [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 4:10 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
> Ken Arromdee <email@example.com> 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.
> It says "on behalf of the copyright owners listed above". However,
> I don't see any copyright owners listed above that point (or after
> for that matter). What the do say is "[u]nauthorised
> [d]istribution of...
> Microsoft Office", and later reference filenames that clearly indicate
> OpenOffice. Neither of which are actual copyright holders of
> anything -- they
> are products.
> So, by "copyright owners" they mean either the copyright holders
> of Microsoft Office (the subject of the letter) or the copyright
> holders of the files in question (OpenOffice).
> If the former, then they as an agent of MS are incorrectly claiming
> copyright ownership of OpenOffice. If the latter, then they are
> incorrectly claiming to be an agent of the copyright holders
> of OpenOffice.
> Jim Bauer, firstname.lastname@example.org