3 ms·

No, it applies to the claim that you are authorized to act on an exclusive right that has been allegedly infringed. If the claim of infringement is so laughable

No, it applies to the claim that you are authorized to act on an exclusive right that has been allegedly infringed. If the claim of infringement is so laughable that it cannot be or is not being alleged in good faith - as opposed to a good-faith but legally incorrect allegation of infringement - then there is no exclusive right allegedly being infringed, and the claim of authority is false. I am pretty sure that the claimant didn't really believe he was violating his rights. Though I guess one could argue that a bad-faith allegation of infringement still truly and honestly counts as an allegation of infringement, so maybe it's not so straightforward as perjury...

Dylan16807 5y ago
You interpretation seems a big reach to me. The rights being (not) infringed are reproduction and distribution. Even if we go with "no rights are allegedly being infringed", a claim of "I am authorized for all 0 of these things" isn't actually a false statement.
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  The wording of the statutory claim asserts the existence of "an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed", which means that the claimant is asserting that there is at least one such right that is allegedly being infringed. It's clear that there is at least one exclusive right in existence for this work without regard to the question of alleged infringement, so the only question is whether infringement of the right is truly being alleged. I accept that it's possible to interpret that last question either way in the case of someone asserting a self-infringement while probably knowing that self-infringement can't exist, since the interpretation will depend on whether a bad-faith known-meritless allegation still counts as an allegation for this purpose, and I guess also on whether the person knows the terminology enough to know that what they're claiming is false. In any case, there are many reasons why this is not the kind of perjury claim that any prosecutor would ever bring to court, so we'll probably never get a ruling on it.

Dylan16807 5y ago

You interpretation seems a big reach to me. The rights being (not) infringed are reproduction and distribution. Even if we go with "no rights are allegedly being infringed", a claim of "I am authorized for all 0 of these things" isn't actually a false statement.

jkaplowitz 5y ago
The wording of the statutory claim asserts the existence of "an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed", which means that the claimant is asserting that there is at least one such right that is allegedly being infringed. It's clear that there is at least one exclusive right in existence for this work without regard to the question of alleged infringement, so the only question is whether infringement of the right is truly being alleged. I accept that it's possible to interpret that last question either way in the case of someone asserting a self-infringement while probably knowing that self-infringement can't exist, since the interpretation will depend on whether a bad-faith known-meritless allegation still counts as an allegation for this purpose, and I guess also on whether the person knows the terminology enough to know that what they're claiming is false. In any case, there are many reasons why this is not the kind of perjury claim that any prosecutor would ever bring to court, so we'll probably never get a ruling on it.