Featured Articles

Nvidia adjusts GTX 980 and GTX 970 pricing

Nvidia adjusts GTX 980 and GTX 970 pricing

It appears that Nvidia has been feeling the pulse of the market and took some note from comments regarding the original…

More...
iPhone 6 and 6 Plus reviews are up and they are good

iPhone 6 and 6 Plus reviews are up and they are good

Apple is dancing the same dance year after year. It releases the iPhone and two days before they start shipping it…

More...
Amazon announces three new tablets

Amazon announces three new tablets

Amazon has just released three new tablets starting with the $99 priced 6-inch Kindle Fire HD6. This is a 6-inch tablet…

More...
PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

Today we will take a look at the PowerColor TurboDuo Radeon R9 285. The card is based on AMD’s new…

More...
Nvidia Shield Tablet 32GB 4G LTE out for pre orders

Nvidia Shield Tablet 32GB 4G LTE out for pre orders

Nvidia has finally revealed the shipping date of its Shield Tablet 32GB in 4G LTE flavour and in case you pre-order…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 01 August 2013 10:42

Rotolight censors unfavorable review

Written by Nick Farrell



DCMA is our friend

A review which showed that the Rotolight Anova faired poorly to a competing product, the Kino Flo Celeb was censored from the video Vimeo. The review posted by Den Lennie found the Rotolight product inferior. Normally firms suck poor reviews, but it seems that Rotolight could not let it lie.

The outfit responded by filing a perjurious, fraudulent DMCA takedown notice with Vimeo. Vimeo which gets shedloads of DMCA complaints took down the review. Rotolight claimed that the review violated Rotolight's trademark which is wrong on so many different levels.

The DMCA is only available as a remedy for copyright infringement so it can’t be used for trademark infringement. More obviously, product reviews are not trademark infringements. What is a little alarming is that the outfit made it clear that it made the claim because they didn't like the results, not because of any copyright claim.

In a first message it said "We just feel that the test was not fair or representative of our product," but in their second post they said: “We should have just contacted you directly to arrange the re-test rather than acted via Vimeo, please accept our sincere apologies for that. We of course have no issue at all with you posting the results of the re-test all we wanted was just to ensure the test was representative, there was nothing more to it than that.”

More here

Nick Farrell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments