Featured Articles

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

We wanted to learn a bit more about Qualcomm's plans for wearables and it turns out that the company believes its…

More...
Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

We had a chance to talk to Michelle Leyden-Li, Senior Director of Marketing, QCT at Qualcomm and get an update on…

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...
Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

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

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...
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