Yours sincerely,
    [private]
    Internet Investigator
    On behalf of:
    Pearson Education, Inc.

------------------------------------

Seems like another glorious victory of the overzealous online copyright strikers. Nothing out of the ordinary, will likely get sorted out in a day or two.

> Internet Investigator

Haha... that's a brilliant euphemism for "profession Google user". Or maybe we could call it "serial scrapist"?

Of all the silly titles I tried to come up with, this sure hadn't crossed my mind yet. And it has a catchy ring to it too.

"Internet Investigator" got to be somewhere up there between "Adult Software Engineer" (middle ground between "Junior" and "Senior") and "Server Captain/Commodore/Admiral".

I'm a bit of Web Browsing Enthusiast myself.

Check out our recent job offers at 221B Baker Street, London.

It literally is the name of the company, haha.

https://theinternetinvestigators.com/

Actually, "Internet investigator" is the person's job title, not the company name. The person listed the title like he is an employee or contractor representing Pearson. Anyone 'claiming' to represent them could have sent it.

Pearson. Absolutely evil.

yup, it was the author, see counternotice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2...

> So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address.

Ahhh I see that the DMCA is still a wonderful doxing weapon :)

well, if this is the author of the book, they probably have their contact anyways. And if the claim was clearly illegitimate and the owner didn't want to provide this, I guess he could try going without it. There are probably easier ways to dox people

When someone “swears under the penalty of perjury” something that is inaccurate, and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty, there’s something wrong with the legal system.

> and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty

I assume you're missing a word there?

They probably meant "doesn't".

If it is in error, I am curious how much work it would take to get that perjury result though.

Should be automatic like the DMCA filings they send out.

Regardless of the actual form of the notice (so long as it is not deficient), under the DMCA the only part for which is actually treated as under penalty of perjury is the claim of the person giving notice being or representing the copyright owner or exclusive licensee of the the work identified (notably, the claim that the particular content to be taken down is infringing is not under penalty of perjury.)

While I don’t know the relationship between this “investigator” and Pearson, the claim that Pearson is the owner or exclusive licensee of the books identified does not appear to be in dispute.

This does not appear to be a defect in the application of the penalty by the legal system but of what the penalty applies to under the relevant law.

Not quite. The counter-notice also includes that language, "I swear under penalty of perjury that the notice-giver is wrong". So there's no penalty for lying in the notice, but the same can't be said for the victim of the notice. What's more, you _can't_ counter-notice that your use of copyrighted material is protected by fair use - that has to be found in court, so hopefully you've got deep pockets.

DMCA is an awful law.