[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)?