Rotolight Uses DMCA To Censor Review They Didn't Like, Admits To DMCA Abuse For Censorship

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Remember how a copyright maximalist was just claiming that it’s simply ridiculous that anyone would ever use copyright to censor? We pointed out a pretty long list of examples of how that’s bogus, but here’s another one, via BoingBoing. It seems that a guy named Den Lennie did a video review comparing the Rotolight Anova to a competing product, the Kino Flo Celeb. Lennie’s review showed that the Kino device was better, and apparently Rotolight took offense. So what do they do? They send a completely fraudulent DMCA complaint to Vimeo, who shamefully took the video down without doing even the slightest check to see if it was actually infringing.

Even worse, when Den posted about this, Rotolight flat out admitted to a fraudulent DMCA takedown, noting that they “did not feel the test was fair or representative” and thus they used the DMCA to take it down:

In other words, they’re admitting to out and out abuse of the DMCA takedown process for censorship purposes. As others have noted, the DMCA can only be used for copyright claims, and yet Rotolight admits there was no copyright claim in making their DMCA takedown request. Even if they were arguing a trademark claim, that is also bogus. First, the DMCA cannot be used for trademark claims. Second, doing a review is not trademark infringement. Finally, having the company outright admit that it issued the takedown not because of any legitimate claim, but merely because they didn’t like the test, shows that they intended for it to be used to censor Den’s speech.

But, no, we’re told, copyright law is never used for censorship…

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: rotolight

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Rotolight Uses DMCA To Censor Review They Didn't Like, Admits To DMCA Abuse For Censorship”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
44 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Someone get this man a lawyer

Even in a ‘mild’ case like this, where the company filing the DMCA claim like this doesn’t seem to be doing it maliciously, merely anti-competitively, such a clear-cut case of ‘DMCA abuse as censorship’, helped along enormously by the fact that the company has admitted it had nothing to do with copyright or trademark law, but was merely to silence a critic, could provide an excellent precedent for future cases like this,

Anonymous Coward says:

We're so sorry

We can’t help being douchebags – we hope you can forgive us, and oh – your testing sucked, we want you to do it again in OUR facility, where we can control the process and your perceptions. No hard feelings, sorry your speech was censored with an illegal takedown request – we’re really really sorry that happened and we promise it wasn’t our intention to paint ourselves quite so douchey. And hey, kudos to Vimeo for supporting our asshattery!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The sad fact of the matter is: none of us should ever hope that the DMCA is overturned.

If it is, they would have to replace it with something else to retain the same safeguards. I do not trust a single person in congress or the senate to not make the resulting bill many times worse than what the DMCA already is. It would be ProtectIP but on a scale that would destroy the concept of service providers.

I’m convinced the DMCA is a necessary evil, it’s not perfect, however the possible alternatives are far worse.

out_of_the_blue says:

Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

You have an isolated incident, while nearly every file of PETABYTES on Megaupload was infringing. Your only consistency is that you STILL defend Megaupload and use this to attack copyright.

Tell ya what: take the admission and prosecute to fullest extent of the law. I’m all for curtailing abuses by corporations.

jameshogg says:

Re: Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

MegaUpload’s piracy was caused by copyright law.

There is a reason why when you repress what the public believes to be true through legislation, whether it be the war on drugs, alcohol or prostitution, it turns ugly through black-market monopolies.

If we started funding creativity and not creations, and started backing the crowdfunding revolution and copyright abolition instead, we would have none of these problems.

Automatic Grammatizator says:

Re: Then you need to do more research.

You only think this is an isolated incident because you’re only just now starting to wake up and realize how copyright is pretty much an obsolete invention in this day and age. If you looked a little harder, you’d find many more examples reaching back through history.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

PETABYTES on Megaupload was infringing.

The problem, Mr Blue, is that there is literally no proof of that, MU followed standard DMCA procedures as far as we can tell and therefore was entitled to all the protection of safe harbors whether you want to kick and scream about pirate-havens or not.

Typically we tend to assume innocence until proven guilty. Anecdotes and hearsay have no place in the realm of justice and guilt (maybe someone should tell our government this, they seem to have forgotten).

Maybe if that fine, upstanding government’s incompetence had not resulted in the deletion of all those PETABYTES of evidence you claim was 100% against MegaUpload, there could have been a wide-ranging study on the data to determine the actual percentage of infringing content. Unfortunately that never came to be, so I guess your baseless conjecture has very little standing, no?

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

You have an isolated incident

No, we have another company, organization, or person thinking they can get away with using the DMCA as a censorship tool ? or did all those examples in the column about people using the DMCA as a censorship tool slip your mind?

(And remember: because government grants people copyright through the law, using the DMCA in this way counts as government-sponsored censorship. Someone really oughta sue someone who uses the DMCA as a censorship tool on those grounds.)

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

It’s no wonder that the copyright lobby has been working to make sure the Megaupload servers get wiped. There is too much evidence that “nearly every file of PETABYTES on Megaupload was infringing” is flat out false. We routinely used megaupload to move around large files we were using on various projects, and not one bit of it was infringing. We were not alone. Even the DOJ was using it.

Also, this DCMA takedown is hardly an isolated incident. In fact they are pretty standard. Corporations like Roto Light aren’t even embarrassed to admit that they are breaking the law.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

while nearly every file of PETABYTES on Megaupload was infringing

This has been proven to be false already especially due to the fact that a huge percentage of the files in their servers were never downloaded suggesting people were using it as backup means. I’ve used Megaupload several times in the past to share huge geographic data such as maps and referenced databases among several peers. The biggest file I’ve worked with at the time had over 2Gb so it’s clear that it had legit usage as a tool for distributing content. And of course the US never let Megaupload dig the servers to build any defense so there isn’t much evidence other than studies and polls.

I’m all for curtailing abuses by corporations.

And yet you are fine with the abuses the MAFIAA and the US Government are engaged into in this case. Carry on little brainless parrot.

Anonymous Coward says:

Every time something comes up that doesn’t fit ootb’s zealot religious stance on copyright, it’s always an anomaly or an isolated incident. After dozens of times, it’s still a rare event, being used more and more.

Have another report vote ootb for not being able to stay on topic and not being able to see the truth when it smacks you up beside the head.

Nena says:

Mr Roto Light is abusing Terms of Service with his FB account

I looked up his Facebook account since his image is embedded in this article, and Roto Light is abusing Facebook’s terms of Service by creating a fake profile with a business name, rather than a page or group for his business.

He should be reported to Facebook.

Anonymous Coward says:

it doesn’t make matters any better when, from what i read elsewhere, the report was on Vimeo, who obliged by taking obeying the removal request. apart from the obvious, desperate need of penalties for abuse of the DMCA (which should be in line with those when the DMCA really is abused) brought in by legislation, there should be a process whereby, in this case, Vimeo should be able to check the claim before removing it and not held liable for not removing the item while it investigates.

You Missed Something BIG! says:

Rotolight Founder is a HUGE UK Music Producer!

You missed a HUGE Part of this Story, Rod Gammons, Founder of Rotolight is one of the Very Largest Music Industry PUBLISHERS in the UK and the Founder Owner’s wife WROTE A COMPREHENSIVE BOOK on Copyright Law! NO KIDDING! http://www.scribd.com/doc/125580288/The-Art-of-Music-Publishing-An-Entrepreneurial-Guide-to-Publishing-and-Copyright-for-the-Music-Film-And-Media-Industries-Helen-Gammons
LOOK at his Linked in Profile! He knew EXACTLY what DMCA is used for! http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=121492491

Paul says:

Not so simple

A bad effect of this news hysteria has been a unilateral presumption that online video streaming service providers have no legal obligation (and no internal policy) to respect trademarks — no less, claims to invasion of privacy/invasion of publicity/commercial libel. In fact, they do, and they act upon, these grounds not only as a matter of law but within their own terms of service. The D.M.C.A. is just one tool in the toolkit of managing rights, focused upon copyright law, but there are others.

I’m sure people will keep ignoring this nuanced reality, though, to their detriment (because it’s much more fun to crow about fighting the powers that be)…

out_of_the_blue says:

Study: Megaupload closure boosted Hollywood sales 10%

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/08/megaupload_piracy_study/

Just for the permanent record, since the usual Techdirt ankle-biters above are denying results of a study that even Mike had to admit was sound.

Visitors: The ankle-biters sole tactic here is to wear you down by repeating the same FALSE claims over and over. Just read theregister item and compare with comments above. These kids are in their own little walled garden.

out_of_the_blue says:

Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

[Just repeating mine at #8 since I now see the little censors have hidden it. Yes, folks, THIS is what upsets them:]

You have an isolated incident, while nearly every file of PETABYTES on Megaupload was infringing. Your only consistency is that you STILL defend Megaupload and use this to attack copyright.

Tell ya what: take the admission and prosecute to fullest extent of the law. I’m all for curtailing abuses by corporations.

Anonymous Howard, Cowering says:

Re: OOTB #41 Well, you guys say was no infringed content on Megaupload...

You might want to publish an OOTB-English dictionary/translator. Many of the terms you fling about with wild abandon have a different meaning outside your vernacular.

“Censor,” in English, does not mean “reported by the community and hidden from the initial display, but available for reading with a single click.”

Hey, put it online behind a paywall, sit back and watch the millions roll in!

Rotolight (user link) says:

Rotolight upgrade Rotolight ANOVA

Rotolight have announced a new Range of Rotolight ANOVA V2 LED EcoFlood’s. Recently tested out on a shoot by BBC Lighting Cameraman/DoP Mark Langton here’s the video shot with a Sony F5 Camera on a controlled set and used with mixed traditional tungsten bulbs. goo.gl/dstsEU
Den Lennie checked out the New ANOVA’s at IBc 2013 and said “New @Rotolight ANOVA V2 is V impressive. Great Colour output. Look forward to using it. G8 upgrade for existing V1 Owners too”

Den Lennie and Hollywood DoP Rodney Charters will be testing them out shortly. Check out Rodney Charters interview discussing the recent publicity and the new ANOVA’s goo.gl/qXXyaj

Find out more about the Rotolight ANOVA upgrade programme http://www.rotolight.com/upgrade

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...