[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: Jim Bauer <jfbauer(at)comcast.net>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 19:10:17 -0500
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Newsgroups: local.dvd-discuss
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
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
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