[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

IANAL but if BSA is acting as the agent of copyright owners, then they are 
bound by the same requirement as the copyright owner in this matter. If BSA 
overextends themselves into harrassment, then the copyright owners cannot be 
shielded from the actions of their agent. Now it's been several years since I 
read business law and would have to check on the various types of agent 
relationships there are. In general as I recall, the more power the agent has, 
the less the principle can use the agent as a shield. 

BTW- Has anyone set up a honeypot for BSA and their ilk?

On 28 Feb 2003 at 9:00, Ken Arromdee wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:00:15 -0800 (PST)
From:           	Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 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.