Harry Potter Pirated Editions on Kindle Again

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Abecedary - Remember I'm talking about the database which identifies rights holders, not the content of the books themselves. Although I'd actually argue that Google should have to provide the database of rights holders for the public for any use in return for what they're getting in the settlement.

Actually, it turns out that this may very well be happening as you'd like it to (even better though, since the database wouldn't be owned by Google). Read through this page, and pay close attention to the parts about the Book Rights Registry.

[Hellmark]

There are instances when someone may honestly believe they own the copyright. Such would be if they unwittingly signed away in some publishing deal. In the '50s and '60s, many writers (especially in the music industry) were tricked into signing away rights to their works, and didn't find out till later. Part of why they say always to check the fine print.

[Elfwreck]

Likewise, a publisher could believe they have purchased rights that they have not, because the technology or the law changed since the contracts were written.

But most false claims of copyright are publishers who claim "no part of this book may be copied without permission," when the text itself is in the public domain.

[Shaggy]

I would assume that both of those examples are a very small subset of the DMCA abuses. Most of the ones I've seen are from companies who likely had no confusion about their rights (or lack of), but decided to issue a DMCA takedown anyway, knowing full well that they were going to be able to get away with it. In those cases, perjury would certainly apply, if it ever got pursued that far.

[Hellmark]

Or if they had accidentally neglected to renew copyrights, or that they were granted rights temporarily, and that has since expired.

[Shaggy]

None of which really apply to any of the common DMCA abuses I'm aware of.

[Shaggy]

I think we're getting away from the point (if there was one to begin with). Knowingly making a false claim in a DMCA takedown does in fact have penalties associated with it, even though they are rarely enforced. That's basically what we were originally talking about, I think.

Whether or not it's possible to unknowingly make false claims in certain cases doesn't change the above.

[Hellmark]

Yeah, unfortunately, there is almost nothing done, since all the burden ends up upon the accused to get the ball rolling against the false accusation. I don't think I've heard of one single incident where a false accusation was ever prosecuted.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I would assume that both of those examples are a very small subset of the DMCA abuses. Most of the ones I've seen are from companies who likely had no confusion about their rights (or lack of), but decided to issue a DMCA takedown anyway, knowing full well that they were going to be able to get away with it. In those cases, perjury would certainly apply, if it ever got pursued that far.

Would love to see the SFWA get hit with a perjury charge for demanding works be removed from Scribd in direct defiance of the authors' wishes in some cases.

(I believe their response was something like, "um, no, of course that wasn't an DMCA complaint! It was just an, um, request that they remove stuff.")

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

"Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding"

Note the term "willful". If I assert an untruth, but believe it to be true, I am not willfully doing it.

Regardless of that, "under penalty of perjury" means that you will be guilty of perjury if what you claim is false, I believe that phrase pretty much overrides whatever usual definition of "perjury" there is. So, if you are going to make a claim "under penalty of perjury", you better check that it is true (or that nobody will be able to prove it is not), just believing it is not enough.

[Riocaz]

I was given to believe that in UK and US law, "ignorance" was never a defence.

And I hasten to add that my use of the term ignorance refers only to someone making a claim they were not personally sure was true.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Regardless of that, "under penalty of perjury" means that you will be guilty of perjury if what you claim is false, I believe that phrase pretty much overrides whatever usual definition of "perjury" there is. So, if you are going to make a claim "under penalty of perjury", you better check that it is true (or that nobody will be able to prove it is not), just believing it is not enough.

And it's fairly easy for a large corporation to fabricate "evidence" of copyright ownership that will get them out of perjury. I've already outlined way in a previous message.

And if real evidence comes to light, the company can just say "oops, we must have goofed in our record keeping" and they get off without penalty.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Riocaz

I was given to believe that in UK and US law, "ignorance" was never a defence.

And I hasten to add that my use of the term ignorance refers only to someone making a claim they were not personally sure was true.

It is in perjury--on forms & contracts, there's often a phrase like "the information contained on the preceding claim form is true to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief."

If you didn't know you were claiming something that wasn't true, it's not perjury. Ignorance of the law is no defense; not knowing it's illegal to lie on some contracts doesn't keep you from perjury. However, saying something that's not true is not perjury (not even saying it under oath); only deliberately lying is perjury.

Absolute surety isn't required, just lack of intent to deceive, and lack of firm contradictory knowledge.

(I have friends who get into this with medical forms all the time; nurses get upset when people won't fill things out because they don't know if diabetes runs in the family, because they were adopted.)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

Apparently badly OCR'd editions of 6 Harry Potter titles are now available again for $19.99 each - now listed as published by Amazon!

[Link deleted by moderator]

These editions have been available since the 16th. Wonder how Amazon will handle this situation? Amazon Discussion board posts indicate CS has been repeatedly notified about it.

My God. Is there anything so obvious as that if whatsername would authorize eBook editions of Harry Potter to be sold on Amazon, there are MILLIONS to be made? Pounds, dollars, zlotkeys, whatever.

"What a maroon" the Harry Potter publisher is. (Bugs Bunny)

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A classic example is the US copyright holder of "Gone with the Wind", who will vigorously go after any Canadian site which hosts a copy of the book, even though it's in the public domain in Canada. Pure "scare tactics", but for many sites it's just not worth the hassle to argue about.

Yep, they tried that in Australia, too.

I think the answer was 'that's nice', would you like to point out the Australian legislation to validate your claim?

Nothing heard back after that.

A classier response than piss off you yank scumbag, which is what it really deserved.