Featured Articles

Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

We broke the news of Nvidia's ambitious gaming tablet plans back in May and now the Shield tablet got a bit…

More...
Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia has announced its first Android tablet and when we say Nokia, we don’t mean Microsoft. The Nokia N1 was designed…

More...
Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell is better known for its storage controllers, but the company doesn’t want to give up on the smartphone and…

More...
TSMC 16nm FinFET Plus in risk production

TSMC 16nm FinFET Plus in risk production

TSMC’s next generation 16nm process has reached an important milestone – 16nm FinFET Plus (16FF+) is now in risk production.

More...
Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia recently released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture, with exceptional performance-per-watt. The Geforce GTX 970…

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