[oasisbob]

> The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury.

Hrrrm, I think that may be overstating it a bit.

The DMCA requires a statement from the complaining party of a good faith belief that the use of the material is not authorized, and a statement that the information is accurate; and that under penalty of perjury that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

When Joe's House of Copyright Notices is hired by Sony, and misidentifies content that they (in good faith) believe belongs to Sony, their notification isn't swearing to the accuracy of that information. It's stating that under penalty of perjury they act on behalf of the "owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed".

If I were to claim the same, I'd be perjuring myself, because I sure as hell am not authorized to act on behalf of Sony.

At least that's my reading, as someone who's worked an abuse desk and has spent a bit of time with the DMCA

[sokoloff]

If Sony doesn't actually own the exclusive right, then Joe's House of Copyright Notices being an agent of Sony is not relevant to whether Joe's House of Copyright is authorized to act on behalf of the owner (because Sony is not the owner).

[gergles]

But that's not the point. The only claim made under penalty of perjury is that the party filing the report is authorized to act on behalf of the rightsholder they identified in the report.

The rest (what the material is, who the rightsholder is, that the use is not authorized) is all merely a good faith belief, which is so low a standard as to basically mean "you know, whatever".

[serge2k]

I thought good faith did have some level of standard associated with it (at least to the point where a judge could rule you were just a liar)?