7 ms·

DigitalRev.com served with DMCA takedown notice by GoPro for review

159 points by choult 14y ago

marshallford 14y ago
This makes me mad. It's that simple.
ceejayoz 14y ago
They filed a copyright claim for a trademark violation?
nicholassmith 14y ago
That's got to be a fuck up, GoPro don't seem stupid enough to sic a DMCA on a review.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  They already released a statement saying it was on purpose. They don't seem to think it was wrong.
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    I've just been reading the reasons behind it and it's so, so stupid.
rayiner 14y ago
Trademarks are not the subject of DMCA protection, see: https://www.eff.org/wp/unsafe-harbors-abusive-dmca-subpoenas-and-takedown-demands https://www.eff.org/wp/unsafe-harbors-abusive-dmca-subpoenas.... Even if they were, mentioning a trademark in a review is clearly not "use of a mark in commerce." Any shmuck can send you a letter under the color of authority, but this one clearly has no validity. The ISP is under no obligation to actually take down to content, and shouldn't have here. As an aside: this is what happens when Congress "innovates" with the legal system. I'm sure someone thought it was a good idea to make take-down notices not be legal documents signed by a lawyer. But now any shmuck can send one without the threat of repercussions. When you have a device that invokes the color of state authority, you should have to jump through certain hurdles. Having to find a lawyer willing to risk sanctions putting a signed document in front of a judge is a powerful filter.
- pcrumm 14y ago
  This isn't entirely correct. Per the DMCA (or, really, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - OCILLA), the hosting provider must comply with a takedown notice should they receive it, regardless of how idiotic it appears, so long as the content that is claimed to be infringing is hosted by the provider and the notice is completed. It's up to the website owner to file a counter-notice in instances like this; once they do so, the hosting provider will re-enable the content within 14 days provided the original notice filer doesn't initiate legal action. ChillingEffects has a long (but very informative) FAQ on the DMCA that dispels a lot of common misunderstandings. Some bits that are of note in my opinion is the overview of the takedown process: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 And the fact that the provider /must/ respond to the takedown notice: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID129 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID129 And some information on the counter-notice procedure: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922
  - chc 14y ago
    But the takedown notice doesn't actually claim any content infringes on GoPro's copyrights, does it? There are zero allegations of copyright violation listed here, so it seems like zero pages should have been taken down. Is that not right? (Not a lawyer, just a question.)
  - koenigdavidmj 14y ago
    Probably not worth it to risk, but the notice from GoPro did not identify any copyrighted works that were being used. They only identified trademarks.
    - at-fates-hands 14y ago
      This is what I was wondering. Maybe they decided to use the trademarks on the names in the article? Sounds like a catch22 if you ask me. Put the trademark on the word and they serve you up a DCMA. Don't put it on and then you rise the ire of GoPro since you didn't use the mark on the trademarked names of their products. Eh, what a hassle.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dubcanada 14y ago
We know a single side of this story. Unless someone has the actual story. There may have been infringing content.
- wtallis 14y ago
  Nope. Any takedown notice or C&D that can't even keep straight whether it's talking about trademarks or copyrights is an empty threat. If this kind of thing were sent by a lawyer, that lawyer would need to be disbarred. There's just no room here for another side of the story to demonstrate some kind of competence on the part of GoPro.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  Here's GoPro's story: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z8hdm http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l... "This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store." (No representation is made herein as to the validity or invalidity of this side of the story.)
dubcanada 14y ago
We know a single side of this story. Unless someone has the actual story. There may have been infringing content.
wtallis 14y ago
That hosting company is pretty pathetic for not having a lawyer even glance at the poorly assembled and obviously toothless complaint. That kind of notice is only good for sharing for laughs, and certainly didn't warrant passing along as a threat to the customer.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Per the DMCA, hosting companies have to act regardless of validity. The targeted user can file a counter-notification, which the hosting company has to automatically honor no less than 10 and no more than 14 days later. After that it goes to the courts (if the DMCA complainant chooses to sue). So, in short, when Congress built the DMCA, they made it possible to silence someone for a guaranteed 10 day period with a spurious DMCA request.
  - wtallis 14y ago
    No, the hosting company is protected until they have actual notice or knowledge of infringement of copyrights, and the notice posted on the website fails to identify any copyrights that are alleged to be infringed.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      In this particular case, yes, because GoPro's lawyer is apparently a moron who doesn't know the difference between trademark and copyright. If they'd claimed a copyright infringement, though, the ISP has to act.
      - MaysonL 14y ago
        Is it GoPro's lawyer? Seems to me it might well be the CEO's fault for hiring marketing people who would send out such a takedown notice without running it by a lawyer.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The hosting company doesn't have to take down the content. Rather, if they don't take down the content and it is later found infringing, then the hosting company can't claim the protection of the DMCA safe harbor.
sairamkunala 14y ago
This url would be banned since GoPro would use the same argument for not using *&tm; with GoPro
ChuckMcM 14y ago
This smells bad. There is no DMCA basis for mentioning a third parties trademarked names in a review (there is in commercials you can't say "Cheerios" unless General Mills is ok with it, but you can say "That O shaped cereal", but no such restrictions editorial). Further the complaint is specious. Further the filing of a counter notice takes little time. (I can't see anyone pursuing the alleged infringement in court). A simpler explanation for me, is a manufactured controversy to get use rage views to drive traffic to a reviews site (which lives and dies by its traffic numbers). I'm taking a wait and see attitude here.
manaskarekar 14y ago
IS DMCA applicable worldwide? Does DigitalRev have any US presence at all? I see a customer service hotline and a US webstore, but they are based out of Hong Kong. "2701-2705 Saxon Tower Cheung Sha Wan Kowloon Hong Kong" http://www.digitalrev.com/contact_us http://www.digitalrev.com/contact_us
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  They're hosted at a US company, SoftLayer, who has to comply.
  - antiterra 14y ago
    Or would have to comply to gain safe-harbor against copyright infringement, if any copyright claims were made in the DMCA takedown notice. In this case, there were only trademark claims, and there is no DMCA safe harbor for trademarks.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
jedmeyers 14y ago
Is it possible that someone claimed that GoPro issued a takedown notice when they did not? Just to make GoPro look bad and attract some publicity to this "GOPRO Hero 3 vs SONY HDR-AS15" article?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- platypii 14y ago
  No, gopro has acknowledged it. I think it's a weak response, but here it is: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z8hdm http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l...
- simcop2387 14y ago
  In the reddit thread provided by dshankar it looks like they did send it. They acknowledge it and say it was for some images and branding they used on the review.
bradleyjg 14y ago
17 US 512: (f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. --- A take down notice that is so facially invalid may well qualify as knowing misrepresentation.
- antiterra 14y ago
  > A take down notice that is so facially invalid may well qualify as knowing misrepresentation. Or simply show incompetence that supports a claim of lack of knowing misrepresentation.
nzealand 14y ago
Why not file a counter notification? If you are a SoftLayer client and/or end user, i.e., subscriber, and you feel that material you have placed online that has been removed following an infringement complaint is in fact not an infringement, you may file a counter notification. 17 U.S.C. Section 512 (g)(3) requires that to be valid, the counter notification must be written and addressed to our agent (listed above) and must provide the following information (the list below comes straight from the statute; if you do not understand the language please seek independent advice): A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber. Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled. A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. SoftLayer is not required to respond to counter notifications that do not meet the requirements above.
veritas20 14y ago
One point that I find interesting is that the letter posted on the site is actually from the "Brand Manager" and not "General Counsel". Not having read the material on the site before, I would assume that the article that seemingly pits GoPro vs. Sony did not have an overwhelmingly positive review of GoPro and maybe pointed out some shortcomings of the product and potentially some flaws. No need to define the role of Brand Manager here, but it would seem that this take down notice was done to censor a review that they did not find endearing.
RandallBrown 14y ago
Why are the gopros on that site more than double the retail cost?
- wmf 14y ago
  So we have a scammy grey market retailer advertising GoPro cameras using GoPro's official marketing material (mostly images). Perhaps GoPro sees this as brand damage and unleashes the DMCA, but using the wrong URL. Then the Internet misinterprets the attack as attempted censorship.
- smackfu 14y ago
  The pricing is definitely odd. Some are a lot more than retail, some are a bit more than retail.
- JWLong 14y ago
  Probably because DigitalRev is based in Hong Kong... just a guess, though.
dshankar 14y ago
GoPro response: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z8hdm http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l...
- Vivtek 14y ago
  Wow, that's a really mealymouthed response, isn't it?
- xentronium 14y ago
  I don't buy it. They state: > Thanks for the heads up on this issue. The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review. Obviously, we welcome editorial reviews of our products. This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store. Original letter contains: > Accordingly, we hereby demand that Softlayer.com immediately remove or disable access to the Infringing Material at: > http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-hero-3-vs-sony/Njk3MDQ3MDg_A http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-hero-3-vs-sony/Njk3M...
  - MikeKusold 14y ago
    I believe it depending on the images used in the article. Everything I know about GoPro leads me to believe that they are just as controlling about their marketing as Red Bull is.
    - w-ll 14y ago
      That or their lawyers got bored and said... who can we fuck. The communication failure was between the PR team and the lawyer team.
  - buro9 14y ago
    The guys on a few cycling forums aren't buying it either. This will hurt GoPro if they don't deal with it swiftly and in a positive way.
MrScruff 14y ago
I hope that there will be a positive flip side to these incidents. The swathes of negative publicity and often humiliating climb downs that follow, will make the DMCA a toxic legal tool for many companies. At least those that are concerned with good PR anyway.
engtech 14y ago
Reading the reddit thread on this, it seems that the DMCA takedown was because the review is using copyrighted images/material that is authorized for use by GoPro resellers, of which digitalrev.com is not one. I found this comment by photoknut[1] summed up the story: "I'm sure the DMCA was used a general way for GoPro to have this article pulled. Sure they could've had lawyer contact lawyers and go through all that, but I'm sure this was easier. They clearly don't allow unauthorized resellers to use their images, that definitely falls under the umbrella of a DMCA takedown notice. GoPro owns those images and says who can use them, DigitalRev clearly can not. " He goes on to mention that digitalrev has a shady history of re-selling the camera they damage in reviews as a new product. 1: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z9j8e http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l...
- antiterra 14y ago
  A shady history of reselling has nothing to with a DMCA takedown. A DMCA takedown notice that says nothing about copyrights is a nonsensical action to take to protect copyrights. Further, if this random internet person's conjecture was correct, the takedown notice would be for the images and not the article itself. That is, it can never legitimately be a way for them to 'have the article pulled.' Yes, doing something completely incorrect is easier than hiring an expert. But GoPro isn't exactly a mom and pop shop these days, do you think they use this same 'this was easier' philosophy on reporting taxes?
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
Question: Do you have to be a lawyer to send a DMCA notice? This one was sent by their "brand manager" called Patrick Hayes. I highly doubt they're a lawyer. Can anyone weight in on if this is lawful?
- DanBC 14y ago
  Anyone can send one. It's a legal document, made under risk of committing perjury (a serious criminal offence that carries jail time) so not getting legal advice before you send one off seems a bit silly.
  - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
    Ah ok. Thanks.

159 points by choult 14y ago

marshallford 14y ago

This makes me mad. It's that simple.

ceejayoz 14y ago

They filed a copyright claim for a trademark violation?

nicholassmith 14y ago

That's got to be a fuck up, GoPro don't seem stupid enough to sic a DMCA on a review.

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
They already released a statement saying it was on purpose. They don't seem to think it was wrong.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  I've just been reading the reasons behind it and it's so, so stupid.

rayiner 14y ago

Trademarks are not the subject of DMCA protection, see: https://www.eff.org/wp/unsafe-harbors-abusive-dmca-subpoenas-and-takedown-demands https://www.eff.org/wp/unsafe-harbors-abusive-dmca-subpoenas.... Even if they were, mentioning a trademark in a review is clearly not "use of a mark in commerce." Any shmuck can send you a letter under the color of authority, but this one clearly has no validity. The ISP is under no obligation to actually take down to content, and shouldn't have here. As an aside: this is what happens when Congress "innovates" with the legal system. I'm sure someone thought it was a good idea to make take-down notices not be legal documents signed by a lawyer. But now any shmuck can send one without the threat of repercussions. When you have a device that invokes the color of state authority, you should have to jump through certain hurdles. Having to find a lawyer willing to risk sanctions putting a signed document in front of a judge is a powerful filter.

pcrumm 14y ago
This isn't entirely correct. Per the DMCA (or, really, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - OCILLA), the hosting provider must comply with a takedown notice should they receive it, regardless of how idiotic it appears, so long as the content that is claimed to be infringing is hosted by the provider and the notice is completed. It's up to the website owner to file a counter-notice in instances like this; once they do so, the hosting provider will re-enable the content within 14 days provided the original notice filer doesn't initiate legal action. ChillingEffects has a long (but very informative) FAQ on the DMCA that dispels a lot of common misunderstandings. Some bits that are of note in my opinion is the overview of the takedown process: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 And the fact that the provider /must/ respond to the takedown notice: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID129 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID129 And some information on the counter-notice procedure: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922
- chc 14y ago
  But the takedown notice doesn't actually claim any content infringes on GoPro's copyrights, does it? There are zero allegations of copyright violation listed here, so it seems like zero pages should have been taken down. Is that not right? (Not a lawyer, just a question.)
- koenigdavidmj 14y ago
  Probably not worth it to risk, but the notice from GoPro did not identify any copyrighted works that were being used. They only identified trademarks.
  - at-fates-hands 14y ago
    This is what I was wondering. Maybe they decided to use the trademarks on the names in the article? Sounds like a catch22 if you ask me. Put the trademark on the word and they serve you up a DCMA. Don't put it on and then you rise the ire of GoPro since you didn't use the mark on the trademarked names of their products. Eh, what a hassle.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

dubcanada 14y ago

We know a single side of this story. Unless someone has the actual story. There may have been infringing content.

wtallis 14y ago
Nope. Any takedown notice or C&D that can't even keep straight whether it's talking about trademarks or copyrights is an empty threat. If this kind of thing were sent by a lawyer, that lawyer would need to be disbarred. There's just no room here for another side of the story to demonstrate some kind of competence on the part of GoPro.
fennecfoxen 14y ago
Here's GoPro's story: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z8hdm http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l... "This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store." (No representation is made herein as to the validity or invalidity of this side of the story.)

dubcanada 14y ago

We know a single side of this story. Unless someone has the actual story. There may have been infringing content.

wtallis 14y ago

That hosting company is pretty pathetic for not having a lawyer even glance at the poorly assembled and obviously toothless complaint. That kind of notice is only good for sharing for laughs, and certainly didn't warrant passing along as a threat to the customer.

ceejayoz 14y ago
Per the DMCA, hosting companies have to act regardless of validity. The targeted user can file a counter-notification, which the hosting company has to automatically honor no less than 10 and no more than 14 days later. After that it goes to the courts (if the DMCA complainant chooses to sue). So, in short, when Congress built the DMCA, they made it possible to silence someone for a guaranteed 10 day period with a spurious DMCA request.
- wtallis 14y ago
  No, the hosting company is protected until they have actual notice or knowledge of infringement of copyrights, and the notice posted on the website fails to identify any copyrights that are alleged to be infringed.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    In this particular case, yes, because GoPro's lawyer is apparently a moron who doesn't know the difference between trademark and copyright. If they'd claimed a copyright infringement, though, the ISP has to act.
    - MaysonL 14y ago
      Is it GoPro's lawyer? Seems to me it might well be the CEO's fault for hiring marketing people who would send out such a takedown notice without running it by a lawyer.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The hosting company doesn't have to take down the content. Rather, if they don't take down the content and it is later found infringing, then the hosting company can't claim the protection of the DMCA safe harbor.

sairamkunala 14y ago

This url would be banned since GoPro would use the same argument for not using *&tm; with GoPro

ChuckMcM 14y ago

This smells bad. There is no DMCA basis for mentioning a third parties trademarked names in a review (there is in commercials you can't say "Cheerios" unless General Mills is ok with it, but you can say "That O shaped cereal", but no such restrictions editorial). Further the complaint is specious. Further the filing of a counter notice takes little time. (I can't see anyone pursuing the alleged infringement in court). A simpler explanation for me, is a manufactured controversy to get use rage views to drive traffic to a reviews site (which lives and dies by its traffic numbers). I'm taking a wait and see attitude here.

manaskarekar 14y ago

IS DMCA applicable worldwide? Does DigitalRev have any US presence at all? I see a customer service hotline and a US webstore, but they are based out of Hong Kong. "2701-2705 Saxon Tower Cheung Sha Wan Kowloon Hong Kong" http://www.digitalrev.com/contact_us http://www.digitalrev.com/contact_us

ceejayoz 14y ago
They're hosted at a US company, SoftLayer, who has to comply.
- antiterra 14y ago
  Or would have to comply to gain safe-harbor against copyright infringement, if any copyright claims were made in the DMCA takedown notice. In this case, there were only trademark claims, and there is no DMCA safe harbor for trademarks.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jedmeyers 14y ago

Is it possible that someone claimed that GoPro issued a takedown notice when they did not? Just to make GoPro look bad and attract some publicity to this "GOPRO Hero 3 vs SONY HDR-AS15" article?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
platypii 14y ago
No, gopro has acknowledged it. I think it's a weak response, but here it is: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z8hdm http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l...
simcop2387 14y ago
In the reddit thread provided by dshankar it looks like they did send it. They acknowledge it and say it was for some images and branding they used on the review.

bradleyjg 14y ago

17 US 512: (f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. --- A take down notice that is so facially invalid may well qualify as knowing misrepresentation.

antiterra 14y ago
> A take down notice that is so facially invalid may well qualify as knowing misrepresentation. Or simply show incompetence that supports a claim of lack of knowing misrepresentation.

nzealand 14y ago

Why not file a counter notification? If you are a SoftLayer client and/or end user, i.e., subscriber, and you feel that material you have placed online that has been removed following an infringement complaint is in fact not an infringement, you may file a counter notification. 17 U.S.C. Section 512 (g)(3) requires that to be valid, the counter notification must be written and addressed to our agent (listed above) and must provide the following information (the list below comes straight from the statute; if you do not understand the language please seek independent advice): A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber. Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled. A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. SoftLayer is not required to respond to counter notifications that do not meet the requirements above.

veritas20 14y ago

One point that I find interesting is that the letter posted on the site is actually from the "Brand Manager" and not "General Counsel". Not having read the material on the site before, I would assume that the article that seemingly pits GoPro vs. Sony did not have an overwhelmingly positive review of GoPro and maybe pointed out some shortcomings of the product and potentially some flaws. No need to define the role of Brand Manager here, but it would seem that this take down notice was done to censor a review that they did not find endearing.

RandallBrown 14y ago

Why are the gopros on that site more than double the retail cost?

wmf 14y ago
So we have a scammy grey market retailer advertising GoPro cameras using GoPro's official marketing material (mostly images). Perhaps GoPro sees this as brand damage and unleashes the DMCA, but using the wrong URL. Then the Internet misinterprets the attack as attempted censorship.
smackfu 14y ago
The pricing is definitely odd. Some are a lot more than retail, some are a bit more than retail.
JWLong 14y ago
Probably because DigitalRev is based in Hong Kong... just a guess, though.

dshankar 14y ago

GoPro response: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z8hdm http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l...

Vivtek 14y ago
Wow, that's a really mealymouthed response, isn't it?
xentronium 14y ago
I don't buy it. They state: > Thanks for the heads up on this issue. The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review. Obviously, we welcome editorial reviews of our products. This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store. Original letter contains: > Accordingly, we hereby demand that Softlayer.com immediately remove or disable access to the Infringing Material at: > http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-hero-3-vs-sony/Njk3MDQ3MDg_A http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-hero-3-vs-sony/Njk3M...
- MikeKusold 14y ago
  I believe it depending on the images used in the article. Everything I know about GoPro leads me to believe that they are just as controlling about their marketing as Red Bull is.
  - w-ll 14y ago
    That or their lawyers got bored and said... who can we fuck. The communication failure was between the PR team and the lawyer team.
- buro9 14y ago
  The guys on a few cycling forums aren't buying it either. This will hurt GoPro if they don't deal with it swiftly and in a positive way.

MrScruff 14y ago

I hope that there will be a positive flip side to these incidents. The swathes of negative publicity and often humiliating climb downs that follow, will make the DMCA a toxic legal tool for many companies. At least those that are concerned with good PR anyway.

engtech 14y ago

Reading the reddit thread on this, it seems that the DMCA takedown was because the review is using copyrighted images/material that is authorized for use by GoPro resellers, of which digitalrev.com is not one. I found this comment by photoknut[1] summed up the story: "I'm sure the DMCA was used a general way for GoPro to have this article pulled. Sure they could've had lawyer contact lawyers and go through all that, but I'm sure this was easier. They clearly don't allow unauthorized resellers to use their images, that definitely falls under the umbrella of a DMCA takedown notice. GoPro owns those images and says who can use them, DigitalRev clearly can not. " He goes on to mention that digitalrev has a shady history of re-selling the camera they damage in reviews as a new product. 1: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z9j8e http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l...

antiterra 14y ago
A shady history of reselling has nothing to with a DMCA takedown. A DMCA takedown notice that says nothing about copyrights is a nonsensical action to take to protect copyrights. Further, if this random internet person's conjecture was correct, the takedown notice would be for the images and not the article itself. That is, it can never legitimately be a way for them to 'have the article pulled.' Yes, doing something completely incorrect is easier than hiring an expert. But GoPro isn't exactly a mom and pop shop these days, do you think they use this same 'this was easier' philosophy on reporting taxes?

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

Question: Do you have to be a lawyer to send a DMCA notice? This one was sent by their "brand manager" called Patrick Hayes. I highly doubt they're a lawyer. Can anyone weight in on if this is lawful?

DanBC 14y ago
Anyone can send one. It's a legal document, made under risk of committing perjury (a serious criminal offence that carries jail time) so not getting legal advice before you send one off seems a bit silly.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  Ah ok. Thanks.