Featured Articles

LG G Watch R ships in two weeks

LG G Watch R ships in two weeks

The LG G Watch R, the first Android Wear watch with a truly round face, is coming soon and judging by…

More...
LG unveils NUCLUN big.LITTLE SoC

LG unveils NUCLUN big.LITTLE SoC

LG has officially announced its first smartphone SoC, the NUCLUN, formerly known as the Odin.

More...
Microsoft moves 2.4 million Xbox Ones

Microsoft moves 2.4 million Xbox Ones

Microsoft has announced that it move 2.4 million consoles in fiscal year 2015 Q1. The announcement came with the latest financial…

More...
Gainward GTX 970 Phantom previewed

Gainward GTX 970 Phantom previewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

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