Exactly. If I write a script to find and download open source files available via BitTorrent and my script has a flaw in it that causes me to accidentally download copyrighted material can I just say, "Oops! Faulty script."? Not a chance. I'll still get sued and told that I am responsible for what my script does even if it was unintentional. Why then do copyright holders get a pass for their allegedly faulty scripts where they falsely claim under penalty of perjury that they own something they don't actually own?
> Why then do copyright holders get a pass for their allegedly faulty scripts where they falsely claim under penalty of perjury that they own something they don't actually own
Among other reasons, because they don't make such a claim under penalty of perjury. The only thing 17 USC 512 actually requires to be "under penalty of perjury" is the statement that you are acting on behalf of a copyright holder. Nothing else in the notice, including the list of alleged infringements, is part of that statement.
You seem to be parroting the unproven legal arguments of one of the parties to a DMCA lawsuit. The statute is fairly clear in what is required:
(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.
So if I send a DMCA takedown notice, I am stating under penalty of perjury that I have the right to submit the DMCA takedown for the property allegedly being infringed. It is quite clear. So if you send a DMCA takedown notice for something you don't have the right to - but claim you do - you have committed perjury.
