I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
IANAL, but AFAIK the penalty of perjury is only applicable to a counter-claim. It is sufficient for the original infringement claim to be in "good faith" (I'm mincing words, but that's the general idea). The law was deliberately designed to allow content-providers to merrily walk about throwing takedown notices without any accountability while the requiring the alleged infringer to be very careful before filing a counter claim.
Slashdot Mirror
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
IANAL, but AFAIK the penalty of perjury is only applicable to a counter-claim. It is sufficient for the original infringement claim to be in "good faith" (I'm mincing words, but that's the general idea). The law was deliberately designed to allow content-providers to merrily walk about throwing takedown notices without any accountability while the requiring the alleged infringer to be very careful before filing a counter claim.
And Thank Google for providing one based on Free Software and Open Standards, not to mention Open Source.
Doesn't "Free Software" automatically imply the use of open standards and open source?