4 ms·
You'd probably need to wade through the takedown notices, but given they were claiming it was acting in a manner to enable piracy rather than lending the assump
by nicholassmith 14y ago
You'd probably need to wade through the takedown notices, but given they were claiming it was acting in a manner to enable piracy rather than lending the assumption is the majority will have been filed incorrectly.
- rmc 14y agoSo the question is then, are any of them going to be prosecuted for perjury and lying under oath? I believe you must swear under penalty of perjury to send a DMCA notice.
- drivingmenuts 14y agoProbably not, thought they certainly deserve it. My guess is that the owner of LendInk has neither the time, nor the resources, to pursue all of the authors that filed false/ignorant DMCA notices, and more likely wants to wash his/her hands of the whole thing. It's just one of those tragedies that will never see any kind of justice. Welcome to the world. It's another day.
- rprasad 14y agoThey're not committing perjury. Perjury requires that someone know that what they are saying is factually incorrect at the time they are saying it. The authors in this matter are not technologically sophisticated enough to understand how either the Kindle Lending or LendInk work(ed). They actually believe that it is promoting piracy. Thus, they are not committing perjury in their DMCA notices.