4 ms·

The important part: “The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review. Obviously, we welcome editorial review

The important part: “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. As part of our program – we ask merchants who are selling our product to use authorized images. That is why DigitalRev was contacted. But – our letter did not clearly communicate this and that is something we will correct.”

jeremysmyth 14y ago
Nice bit of spin from GoPro. If you read the DMCA takedown, you'll see that it refers specifically to the URL of the review, not to any other URL, and certainly not to the location of any product sold on any e-commerce site. In fact, their e-commerce site still contains GoPro products. http://www.digitalrev.com/search?t=pro&q=gopro http://www.digitalrev.com/search?t=pro&q=gopro In short, either GoPro are lying through their teeth, or their legal team engaged in a monumental cock-up. In either case, this looks like a clear-cut misuse of the DMCA, a claim that can easily be supported by GoPro's own words, if you take them at face value. I don't.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  If you look at the DigitalRev website you'll see the product widget in the side bar[1], this lists the products they have for sale relevant to the article. Why would a GoPro employee be looking at digitalrev.com? Probably to look at reviews of their products. If they were on that review page and spotted the GoPro being sold with unlicensed images (or whatever the problem is) they're likely to link to the page they were looking at when contacting their lawyers, correct? This seems like an unfortunate oversight; the person that "discovered" the GoPro licensing issue linked to the page they saw it on, not considering the potential confusion because they're linking to an article about GoPro. Seems like an easy mistake to make. [1] Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/PWJp2BU.png http://i.imgur.com/PWJp2BU.png
  - jeremysmyth 14y ago
    That logic might be acceptable if the DMCA takedown mentioned the images. It doesn't. It specifically references the trademarks "GoPro" and "Hero". Their "clarification" isn't.
    - yasth 14y ago
      It should be noted that there is no such thing as a DMCA takedown for trademark infringements. http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID569 http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID569 So yeah pretty much nothing holds up.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    You just went to the DigitalRev website. What actually happened?
  - analog 14y ago
    The takedown notice specifically cites the review page, not the product pages, and the product pages are still up [1]. GoPro are lying. [1] http://www.digitalrev.com/product/gopro-hero3-black-edition/MTAwMjE4Nw_A_A http://www.digitalrev.com/product/gopro-hero3-black-edition/...
glimmung 14y ago
The /most/ important part would seem to be "That is why DigitalRev was contacted" - because it seems that they were NOT contacted, but rather SoftLayer were. An obnoxious use of an obnoxious piece of legislation, followed by a smokescreen. More likely cock-up than conspiracy, but leaves a nasty taste.

jeremysmyth 14y ago

Nice bit of spin from GoPro. If you read the DMCA takedown, you'll see that it refers specifically to the URL of the review, not to any other URL, and certainly not to the location of any product sold on any e-commerce site. In fact, their e-commerce site still contains GoPro products. http://www.digitalrev.com/search?t=pro&q=gopro http://www.digitalrev.com/search?t=pro&q=gopro In short, either GoPro are lying through their teeth, or their legal team engaged in a monumental cock-up. In either case, this looks like a clear-cut misuse of the DMCA, a claim that can easily be supported by GoPro's own words, if you take them at face value. I don't.

citricsquid 14y ago
If you look at the DigitalRev website you'll see the product widget in the side bar[1], this lists the products they have for sale relevant to the article. Why would a GoPro employee be looking at digitalrev.com? Probably to look at reviews of their products. If they were on that review page and spotted the GoPro being sold with unlicensed images (or whatever the problem is) they're likely to link to the page they were looking at when contacting their lawyers, correct? This seems like an unfortunate oversight; the person that "discovered" the GoPro licensing issue linked to the page they saw it on, not considering the potential confusion because they're linking to an article about GoPro. Seems like an easy mistake to make. [1] Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/PWJp2BU.png http://i.imgur.com/PWJp2BU.png
- jeremysmyth 14y ago
  That logic might be acceptable if the DMCA takedown mentioned the images. It doesn't. It specifically references the trademarks "GoPro" and "Hero". Their "clarification" isn't.
  - yasth 14y ago
    It should be noted that there is no such thing as a DMCA takedown for trademark infringements. http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID569 http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID569 So yeah pretty much nothing holds up.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  You just went to the DigitalRev website. What actually happened?
- analog 14y ago
  The takedown notice specifically cites the review page, not the product pages, and the product pages are still up [1]. GoPro are lying. [1] http://www.digitalrev.com/product/gopro-hero3-black-edition/MTAwMjE4Nw_A_A http://www.digitalrev.com/product/gopro-hero3-black-edition/...

glimmung 14y ago

The /most/ important part would seem to be "That is why DigitalRev was contacted" - because it seems that they were NOT contacted, but rather SoftLayer were. An obnoxious use of an obnoxious piece of legislation, followed by a smokescreen. More likely cock-up than conspiracy, but leaves a nasty taste.