Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobbal | Hacker News Reader

From the DMCA (emphasis added):

> A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of *perjury*, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.

Though this may not refer to the falsehood here. See stackexchange (where I copy/pasted the above from): https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...

View on HN

The perjury clause definitely does not refer to the accuracy, only to the authorization.

Doesn't this include a factual claim, though, as in, "an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed"?

(It may be somewhat difficult to argue that the use of signage as specified in the contract and provided for this very purpose by the claimant should be infringing.)

[Disclaimer: not a lawyer]

Wrongly alleging isn’t perjuring (per that clause). Misrepresenting who you are is.

But, as you granted, even demanded the use by contract, is the right at this point still exclusive to you? Hasn't it been partially transferred under the restrictions of this very contract?

If "exclusive" meant that, then licensing to anyone would make you unable to send a takedown to anyone else.

The point being: How does you licensing the alleged infringer to use the logo, even demanding the placement of said logo under the terms of said contract, not affect your ability to claim infringement? How could you make such a claim in good faith?

You can't make the claim in good faith. And you could, very theoretically, face consequences. But not perjury, because it's only perjury if it wasn't your copyright in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com