3 ms·
Sue schmue, they filed that form stating they owned the rights to the listed items under penalty of perjury. This is no joke, they should be criminally prosecu
by 300bps 12y ago
Sue schmue, they filed that form stating they owned the rights to the listed items under penalty of perjury. This is no joke, they should be criminally prosecuted.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- andrewaylett 12y agoAs I understand it, they claim "under penalty of perjury" only that they own their original work; the claim that the links given actually infringe said work has no such penalty. My understanding of the logic: It should be relatively easy to tell whether you hold the copyright in a work, unless weird things have happened (see also: SCO). Working out whether a second work is derivative, and if so whether that's fair use? Harder, and the job of a court. That's why it's also really easy to get work re-instated under the DMCA -- at that point, the DMCA has done its bit, failed, and the regular court system takes over.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]