GoPro Issues DMCA Takedown Over Negative Review 232
skade88 writes "Ars is reporting that GoPro, the company that makes cameras used in extreme sports such as sky diving and swimming with dolphins has issued a DMCA take down notice on a review at DigitalRev that they do not like. See DMCA notice here. From the article: 'DigitalRev has a blog post up about the takedown, suggesting that most DMCA takedowns are "abusive" in nature. "We hope GoPro is not suggesting, with this DMCA notice, that camera reviews should be done only when they are authorized by the manufacturers," writes DigitalRev. "GoPro (or should we call you Go*ro instead?), we'd be interested to hear what you have to say" about the infringement notice.'"
IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, you can't use the DMCA for trademark infringement. They should have hired a lawyer.
Thanks GoPro, I'll check out the Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll be definitely looking into the Sony AS15 now. I've never heard about it until now.
Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, you can't use the DMCA for trademark infringement. They should have hired a lawyer.
Given that the site's host folded like a house of cards, apparently you can use the DMCA for trademark infringement... It's just that doing so isn't supported by the DMCA or anything else.
It seems like a hilariously lousy PR move(especially for a company who, let's face it, is in a market that is highly likely to be commodified pretty hard); but it(yet again) establishes that you can scribble anything you want on a 'DMCA takedown request' and find somebody in the chain who will roll over and wet themselves, no matter how risible your legal standing.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
complete nonsense implying that there was copyrighted content that digitalrev used without permission. Well, the DMCA latter doesn't even raise the issue of anything copyrighted being used illegally, merely alleged trademark law violations.
That's the first thing I noticed. The letter isn't even consistent. Here it talks about the trademarks that it believes are being used improperly:
We have a good faith belief that the Internet site found at digitalrev.com infringes the rights of the Company by using the following trademarks of the Company:
"GOPRO" Registered: 3/3/2009 US Registration# 3032989
"HERO" Registered: 12/20/2005 US Registration# 3308141
And here they threaten ISP with copyright infringement:
As you may know, if this information is not removed after notice that complies with the DMCA, the Internet Service Provider may also be held liable for the copyright infringement.
The letter doesn't even keep it straight whether they're talking about a copyright action or a trademark action.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, you won't deal with GoPro because they are being a bully and bad netizen, but you'll happily give Sony your money instead? Way to hold true to your principals there.
Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
The host is explicitly identified as http://www.softlayer.com/ [softlayer.com] in the takedown request.
Trouble is, unless you are paying rather more for hosting than the market rate, or deliberately purchasing capacity in some high-ping(relative to most of your readers) country outside the reach of the US, I suspect that your business just isn't worth enough to risk any significant legal exposure, and quite possibly not even enough to pay for a legal consultation before just obeying the takedown.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
All this tells me is that any lack of negative reviews are purely due to legal threats, therefore I have to assume that positive reviews cannot be trusted.
Now I have to decide; will I buy a product from a company that forbids honest reviews and is prone to sueing?
As a potential customer, how sure can I be that the product will do what it promises, and how will I be treated if I complain when it doesn't?
They may still offer a superior product and service or they may not. But atleast with their competitors' product, I know what I'm getting.
Safe harbor (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of the DMCA takedown notice process is that the ISP, in order to remain within the safe harbor vis-a-vis the party issuing the notice, must fold to a valid notice.
Of course, they also must fold the other direction in response to a valid counternotice from the allegedly infringing party, in order to remain within the safe harbor with regard to that party.
But the parties on each side of the notice/counternotice arrangement aren't generally in a symmetric power arrangement, so the importance of staying in the safe harbor with regard to each party isn't the same.
Re:Hilarious (Score:2, Insightful)
Its the way Business is done. Guns are passe. Anyone can afford one. The style these days is to use Congresscritters, lawyers, and litigation to force your way over your adversaries. Less mess and a cleaner kill.