View Single Post
Old 08-19-2009, 12:44 PM   #100
Shaggy
Wizard
Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Shaggy's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlauzon View Post
And it's fairly easy for someone to write up a document that they hold the copyright, then put it in the file. The person who picks up the document and makes the claim "we hold the copyright" believes that they hold the copyright and does not know differently.
I'm not sure I understand the example you're giving.

The "under penalty of perjury" means that they're not supposed to just guess or assume that they hold the copyright, they're making a legal claim that they knowingly hold it.

In order for Conde Nast to issue a DMCA takedown request for the material on Project Gutenberg, they have to legally state that they knowingly hold the copyright on that material. I don't see any wiggle room there for "oops, our mistake".
Shaggy is offline   Reply With Quote