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.
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.
