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

["Tim Neu" <tim(at)tneu.visi.com>]

> > But they were not authorized by the Copyright holders of the files
> > in question.
> 
> If so, then they have NO legal authority since they are not an agent 
> of the copyright holder. I find that hard to believe but if so, then 
> they must pay the penalty of perjury...but to whom? What court did 
> they swear in front of? What court has jurisdiction?

All that they are swearing is that they are representing the copyright owners
of the programs listed.  Since Microsoft Office is listed, that much is truthful. 

You may notice that the rest of the wording is not done as strongly, so even
if the entire document were a sworn statement, I don't think you could go
after them with it. 

There should be some legal recourse, though, since this is basically a form of
legal harrassment if the claims are not true.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
______         _ __                          Military Intelligence
  /           ' )  )        -KC0LQL-         Honest Politician
 / o ______    /  / _  . .                   Intellectual Property
/ <_/ / / <   /  (_</_(_/_  -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu