[narcissus]

I read once that the 'under penalty of perjury' was 'linked' to the statement that you were an authorised representative of the company making the claim, not 'linked' to the claim itself.

Having said that, it's been a long time since I've seen a notice :)

[JoshTriplett]

It specifically says "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

So, if you're not the copyright owner...

[narcissus]

See that's the thing: I read that as "I'm saying that Product X is being infringed and I swear that I am authorised to act on behalf of the owner of Product X".

It is not saying that "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that that the product I claim is being infringed actually is being infringed".

That's a pretty important difference I think.

[JoshTriplett]

Fair enough. Do you have any reference to indicate that as the intended reading?

[narcissus]

I don't unfortunately. The discussion I read was so long ago that it was probably on Slashdot :) Having said that, I found a few sites with 'DMCA policies' (eg. http://www.azlyrics.com/copyright.html ). Looking at how they discuss perjury, as well as just reading that line that you quoted nothing mentions that you are claiming the infringement under perjury, just that you are allowed to represent the product that is allegedly being infringed.

[nobody3141592]

There is a similar clause in patent applications but I have never heard of a defeated patent involving a prosecution for perjury!

I suspect the burden of proving that it was a deliberate lie to damage the other guy , in a criminal trial, is rather too high.