Then ordering MS (US) to surrender the records (of a customer of) MS Ireland doesn't work either. Except that now it does...

Yep, could be. Or maybe we'd get to see how "two-way" our extradition treaties with the US really are...

Yet.

Corporations already have SWAT teams (some SWAT teams are corporations...). Shipborne mercenaries for piracy (the real type) protection. Private corporate space exploration is starting to take off. Already part way there...

Yes, just get a court order in Ireland, job done. For some reason in this case the DOJ is afraid of that...

The information has not been placed out of reach by MS, it never was in the US. Nor is it MS's information - it is information belonging to one of their customers that happens to be stored on MS servers (that "cloud" thing) - outside of the US.

MS have made a big selling point of their Irish data centre location being in-EU for projects (including government stuff) that have data subject to EU rules where, in law, it may not be sent outside the EU. If MS-Ireland (or whichever MS-co it is) suddenly starts sending data to MS (US) just because head office requested it, then I think a lot of big EU contracts become invalid and/or a lot of big EU projects suddenly become illegal under EU law.

Your problem with posturing about "it is you who will be judged and sentenced by the court" is that it also applies if they do ship their customer's personal data out of the EU in breach of EU laws, it is just that they will then be judged and sentenced by a different court.

Stupid thing is there is a perfectly easy and logical way to do this - simply get a court order (warrant) for the data where it is, in Ireland, from an Irish court. All the EU data protection etc. laws allow for data to be released by court order in the right jurisdiction. So why won't the DOJ do that ?

Couldn't possibly be that they are just on a fishing expedition that they couldn't possibly get past any court where the judge isn't already in their pocket ?

The UK high street shops are not all the same chain they are all the same charities. The reason for that is down to local council policies, not online competition.

They put high street business rates up to unsustainable levels, and shops go bust.
Then they get less money from business rates so they put them up again so more shops go bust.
Then charity shops move in - because, guess what, they don't pay business rates.
Then the council gets less money from rates so they up the parking charges and remove free parking to get more money.

So the shoppers have all gone online ? Nope - they've gone to the big out-of-town supermarkets and shopping centres where parking is free and the business rates for the shops are a fraction of the high street. The councils approve the out-of-town developments because they think they get additional business rates and jobs that way - but don't account for the fact that they lose the high street income and jobs.

Result - the high street dies. Populated only by charity shops and customers who don't drive.

I think you have just gone round in circles or are mixing up infringED and infringING. A DMCA notice makes no statement or claim whatsoever (let alone sworn) about any rights in the infringING work. It states merely that someone believes it is infringing another work - and even that is not under penalty of perjury. Remember that if a work infringes your work you may be able to stop its distribution but the infringement does not give you any rights to the work - a claim of infringement is simply not a claim "on" the work.

In the case of this story we do not know the identity of either the claimed infringED work or the claimed rights holder (only an agency who claims to have authority), so it is completely impossible to say whether any perjury has been committed.

Yes you did - sorry, somehow I read "never been applied (enforced)" instead of "never applied".

Good job I am only a lawyer in my nightmares...

Not to me it doesn't. The point that I was making is that it is useless going after false DMCA claims for perjury because the only tiny bit of the notice that is under penalty of perjury is not the bit that is wrong in false claims. This sentence:

What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work

Is in fact the whole point - this is the _only_ bit of the notice that is under penalty of perjury. I allege that your work infringes my work, and I swear that I have rights to my work. No perjury penalty for false allegation.

Read the parent post.

_Statement_ that the notification is accurate.
_Sworn under penalty of perjury_ that the complaining party is authorized to act.

There is _no_ penalty in the law for inaccuracy in any part of the notification other than your authority to act, perjury does _not_ apply because the only bit it applies to is trivial to get right and is not the bit that is almost always wrong in false notices.

I have read it again and I can swear that it still makes perfect sense to me. YMMV of course.

Relevance of that line to the incident in TFA remains unknown, all we know is the allegedly infringing work. We do not know (at least from TFA) what work (call it Foo) that the movie was alleged to have infringed or who is behind the company making the DMCA claim and claiming to be authorized by copyright holder of Foo.

What work did they claim was infringed, and what proof is there that they are not authorized by the owner of that work - since TFA doesn't state.
Do you have a copy of the notice ?

Or, put another way:

- I _allege_ "Internet's Own Boy" infringes copyright of "A work I made up yesterday"
- I _swear_ I act on behalf of copyright owner of "A work I made up yesterday"

Now, clearly we know that "Internet's Own Boy" cannot be derivative of "A work I made up yesterday", but that doesn't mean any perjury has been committed. That part of the statute only kicks in if I don't actually own the copyright of "A work I made up yesterday".

There simply isn't any real penalty in DMCA for saying that A infringes B even when it is blatantly obvious it doesn't - which is what the vast majority of false DMCA claims are - there is only penalty for falsely claiming that you are authorized by copyright owner of B.

And, yes, the DMCA was written like that for a reason - to confuse the unwashed masses into believing they had some protection from false claims by big business whilst in fact providing no such protection.

Read a DMCA claim wording _carefully_.

What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work, and that the other info in the notice is correct (which is I believe merely the location of infringed and allegedly infringing works, and your contact details). The notice is also an allegation of infringement hence you are swearing that you have made an allegation.

What you are not doing is swearing that the allegation of infringement is in any way correct - that can only properly be decided by a court anyway.

Or to put it another way:

1. I allege the moon is made of jelly
2. I swear under penalty of perjury that I have alleged that the moon is made of jelly

1 + 2 = No perjury committed - even though everyone _knows_ that the moon is in fact made of cheese...

Don't have "no contest" in English law either (Scotland might, but I don't think so).

An additional safeguard against punishing the innocent - if they admit something they didn't do then they were guilty of perjury anyway...

Funny isn't it - the US doesn't allow compelled testimony, but resolves 97% of federal cases through plea-bargain, so that's >97% conviction rate.

I'm sure plea bargains are always always guilty people accepting a lesser charge to reduce their punishment, and never the innocent feeling compelled threatened or coerced into pleading guilty to a lesser charge, but in the UK where it's not used I think the prosecutors only get about 80% convictions - and you'd think they would be much _more_ careful to pick the strong cases because they have to have the expense of trial every time.

So, hats off to the US law enforcement and prosecutors or being so very very good at identifying the guilty, or at compelling the innocent to admit guilt (in the land of the fifth) whichever it is...