> A deficient notice ... doesn’t get to use c.1.A as a fallback. That is extremely good to know; I hadn’t spotted that provision while skimming through things.

> A deficient notice ... doesn’t get to use c.1.A as a fallback. That is extremely good to know; I hadn’t spotted that provision while skimming through things. I still believe that this was a non-deficient notice, though. Shall we take a look at the required elements as they apply here? (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. The MPA claims to be authorized to act on behalf of the listed movie studios. I see no reason to suspect this claim, and presume the redacted signaturesvare legitimate. (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. Exhibit A (redacted) contains the titles and presumably other identifying information of movies owned by the studios represented by the MPA that are allegedly infringed by the Popcorn Time software. (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. Two specifc GitHub repositories are specifically identified by URL, and further clarified by the statement “ Our request is specifically aimed at the aforementioned repositories and does not concern any other related repositories.” Though not required, they provide some justification as to why they believe these repositories infringe their copyrights in the listed movies. (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted. This is presumably contained in the redacted signature block at the bottom of the notice. (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law “ We are providing this notice based on our good faith belief that the use of motion pictures and television programs owned by the MPA Member Studios in the manner occurring via the Project is not authorized by the copyright owners, their agents, or the law.” (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. “The information in this notification is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, we are authorized to act on behalf of the MPA Member Studios, which own or control exclusive rights under copyright that are being infringed in the manner described herein.”