> We prefer Luanti over Minecraft due to its open-source design and expressive Lua API, which facilitates data collection and experimentation. - Says notoriously opaque corporation when it comes to anything closed source.
Yeah time for some payback. DMCA claims are supposed to be filed "under the penalty of perjury", so I think it's time for at least one executive to feel some consequence for once.
The perjury part of the DMCA doesn't do what you (and most people) think. It attaches only to the DMCA claimant's authority to act on behalf of the copyright he's alleging is being infringed. It does not attach to the veracity of the allegation itself.
For example, the copyright holder for Bad Apple could face a perjury charge if he issued a DMCA takedown request alleging that something on the internet violates the copyright to Snow White (which he presumably does not own), but would not risk a perjury (in particular) penalty for issuing a takedown request for "Stairway to Heaven", the King James Bible, and the Linux kernel alleging that these things violate Bad Apple's copyright.
For context, GitHub's DMCA form has this assertion:
> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this 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.
I don't think GitHub or any other private party gets to decide what attaches to the perjury clause. A contract can impose liabilities, but it can't create a crime out of thin air.
> (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
>
> (vi) 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 infringed.
>Microsoft uses Luanti for research
Glad they protect Luanti's copyright & fund development.
It's funnier than that.
> We prefer Luanti over Minecraft due to its open-source design and expressive Lua API, which facilitates data collection and experimentation. - Says notoriously opaque corporation when it comes to anything closed source.
Says the corporation which bought Minecraft more than a decade ago yeah!!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/15/microsoft... (via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft#:~:text=On%2015,prop...
They should really finance some of the Luanti team's expenses.
Yeah time for some payback. DMCA claims are supposed to be filed "under the penalty of perjury", so I think it's time for at least one executive to feel some consequence for once.
The perjury part of the DMCA doesn't do what you (and most people) think. It attaches only to the DMCA claimant's authority to act on behalf of the copyright he's alleging is being infringed. It does not attach to the veracity of the allegation itself.
For example, the copyright holder for Bad Apple could face a perjury charge if he issued a DMCA takedown request alleging that something on the internet violates the copyright to Snow White (which he presumably does not own), but would not risk a perjury (in particular) penalty for issuing a takedown request for "Stairway to Heaven", the King James Bible, and the Linux kernel alleging that these things violate Bad Apple's copyright.
For context, GitHub's DMCA form has this assertion:
> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this 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.
I don't think GitHub or any other private party gets to decide what attaches to the perjury clause. A contract can impose liabilities, but it can't create a crime out of thin air.
correct, here's the statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#:~:text=%283%...
> (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
>
> (vi) 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 infringed.