[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
On 28 Feb 2003 at 12:38, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
From: Stephen L Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: dvd-discuss <email@example.com>
Organization: Date sent: 28 Feb 2003 12:38:04 -0600
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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 <email@example.com>