Re:Question #9 (Score 1)

How can that not be perjury? They falsely claimed something to be true. Because that's not, by itself, perjury, any more than "falsely claiming something", by itself, is lying. The RIAA believed that the MP3 was by an artist it had the right to represent. It wasn't claiming to be Professor Usher's representative, and didn't know that the MP3 in quesiton wasn't by the artist it was representing. Its "falsely claiming something" was not deliberate. It was not lying, or committing perjury, it was just wrong. Exactly. And if you read the response to the original question in the interview, you'll see that the penalty of perjury refers to the representation of the person whose copyrights are supposedly being infringed upon. To quote from the reply to #9:

Having said that, it appears your interpretation of the language in 512 (c)(3)(vi) is in error. The phrase "under penalty of perjury," applies to the representation that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. It does not apply to the accuracy of the information about the alleged infringement. Quoting federal district Judge Bates in Verizon v. RIAA, The DMCA also requires a person seeking a subpoena to state, under penalty of perjury, that he is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, 257 F. Supp.2d 244, at 262. In other words, the perjury clause may be violated if you seek a DMCA subpoena without the authorization of the copyright owner.