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

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

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
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bauer [mailto:jfbauer@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 4:10 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] "under penalty of perjury"
> 
> 
> Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net> 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, jfbauer@comcast.net
>