Featured Articles

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel has released a 3G cellular modem with an integrated power amplifier that fits into a 300 mm2 footprint, claiming it…

More...
Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

It's not all rosy in the house of Intel. It seems that upcoming Atom out-of-order cores might be giving this semiconductor…

More...
TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC will start producing 16nm wafers in the first quarter of 2015. Sometime in the second quarter production should ramp up…

More...
Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S is the ‘tock’ of the Haswell architecture and despite being delayed from the original plan, this desktop part is scheduled…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

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