You really would think, at this point, that any lawyer worth his or her hourly rate would strongly recommend to clients that they don't go ballistic in filing lawsuits any time someone says something bad about you. Hell, there have been multiple stories recently about just how badly a similar lawsuit from a towing company has backfired on the company. But, yet again, we have a story of a business suing over a negative review. This time, it's a woman in Chicago who wrote a negative review of a local cement company on the site Angie's List because it refused to even give her an estimate, saying it didn't work in her area. She was upset because the company was only based 5 miles away, and on Angie's List, said it did work where she lived. So she wrote about her experience and rated the company an "F." In response, the company, All Fields of Concrete Construction, sued her, claiming she "willingly and maliciously tried and succeeded in damaging my company's reputation." Once again, it makes you wonder: which is more damaging to your reputation? Getting a bad rating online, or suing the person who gave you that rating? It's difficult to see how the concrete company has much of a case. The "F" rating is clearly an opinion, not a statement of fact. And it's hard to show that the woman was "malicious" in her rating. She gave her opinion. But, now, thanks to the lawsuit, a lot more people know her opinion of All Fields of Concrete Construction.

There's been an almighty kerfuffle in British historian circles the last couple of weeks, after some people noticed a couple of reviewers on Amazon were talking up one historian's work while trashing books written by others in the same field. The author in question was named Orlando Figes, a professor at London's Birkbeck College. One of the pseudonyms used on Amazon was "orlando-birkbeck", so it wasn't too difficult to assume who was posting the reviews. Word started getting around and was picked up by some newspapers, leading Figes' lawyer to deny his involvement and demand corrections be run, suggesting Figes could be entitled to damages. Then, the lawyer issued a statement blaming Figes' wife (herself a lawyer) for the reviews. Not surprisingly, Figes has now admitted he wrote the reviews, and he's very sorry. This isn't the first time authors have been caught giving themselves good reviews, and generally, most attempts to do this sort of thing end badly. You'd expect by now that most reasonably intelligent people would understand that, and figure out that the potential downside of getting caught far outweighs any positive benefit the fake reviews could deliver. Then again, you'd also expect that most reasonably intelligent people wouldn't fall for 419 scams, either.

If you haven't seen Red Letter Media's excellent reviews of the Star Wars films, The Phantom Menace and The Attack of the Clones, then you might want to carve out three hours out of your day and watch them (the reviews are 70-minutes and 90-minutes long, respectively) -- they're incredible. (Warning: he does use some NSFW language occasionally.)

So, it's very sad to hear that Mike Stoklasa, the writer & director of the Red Letter Media reviews, is considering not producing any more reviews, out of fear of being slapped with a copyright lawsuit. Stoklasa says:

"The thing is, I'm no lawyer. But I had someone actually talk to a copyright lawyer, and they didn't know what to make of the reviews. It's a new thing, You can get away with using a clip from a movie for the purpose of review or commentary, but can you dissect an entire film like that? There's commentary and it's part satire [because of the character, Mr. Plinkett] and part review and part educational as well because there's elements of filmmaking insights."

Stoklasa's reviews are innovative and entertaining and take movie reviewing to a whole new level by remixing movie clips into the review itself. In doing so, they are emerging as a whole new art form. While more traditional movie reviews and satire can use clips of movies as a result of fair use, Stoklasa could be treading on new ground with his works. That said, this could be an interesting case if he were to get sued, because he would likely win, which would then redraw the boundaries for fair use, which would be a great thing. So, Mike Stoklasa, please don't let the threat of copyright lawsuits stop you from continuing to produce your excellent reviews -- to do so would be a travesty.

Over the past few years, the review site Yelp has been no stranger to controversies regarding its treatment of comments and criticisms aimed at local businesses. Negative reviews on Yelp have spurred various lawsuits, accusing Yelp of unfair business practices that have been called "Extortion 2.0" -- referring to the accusation that Yelp salespeople put pressure on companies to pay up for better ratings to appear more prominently on Yelp (and to remove the bad reviews that coincidentally seem to appear on the site when these salespeople allegedly suggest that better ratings could be bought).

In response, Yelp has explained (over and over again) that its algorithms are optimized to display the most "trustworthy" reviews of local businesses -- in a way that's completely unrelated to its sales efforts. Trying to put a friendly wrapping around its umpteenth explanation, Yelp has even created a cartoon to help educate everyone on its methods:

However, no matter how simply these explanations are conveyed, they have not been particularly convincing to small businesses who feel punished by bad reviews and see Yelp's services as a veiled threat to their livelihood. So Yelp has taken another step by announcing some changes to its services to avoid further confusion:

Businesses can no longer buy a "Favorite Review" like they could before -- so that there's no confusion over businesses being able to influence reviews by paying Yelp. This sounds like a pretty big step towards making it clear that companies can't just buy better reviews, but what does this mean for companies that formerly bought "Favorite Reviews?" Those companies are being penalized with the unexpected removal of this service, and there's still no guarantee that ratings can't be manipulated by cunning business owners or competitors. Though, the conspiracy theorists may never actually be satisfied on this point, and gaming online rating systems will likely always be a nagging concern.

Yelp is still keeping its review filtering algorithms a secret, but it will now display reviews that have been removed by its automated filters in an effort to allow users to see a bit of the reviews that Yelp deems suspicious or untrustworthy. However, Yelp is not exactly highlighting these filtered-out reviews -- just making them available to be viewed in case anyone is curious to see what kind of reviews are tossed out on a regular basis.

Yelp is adding video ads as a service for businesses -- presumably to offset the loss of its "Favorite Review" feature.

Yelp says it's created a Small Business Advisory Council for companies to give feedback to Yelp management. This is an interesting development, but it's not exactly easy to find out more information on how this council works. Granted, it was just announced, but its announcement seems to lack a bit of commitment when there aren't any obvious links about it on yelp.com (yet?).

Yelp proudly states that it's increasing transparency with these changes, allowing businesses and users to peek into what its algorithms are filtering out behind the scenes. But it's not clear that anyone really asked for that feature -- and getting that look at the filtered reviews isn't going to ease the concerns that Yelp's algorithms are inherently weighted against small businesses who don't pay up for advertising space on Yelp.

The more significant change seems to be that Yelp is shifting away from a "Pay for Placement" business model with its reviews. Replacing its "Favorite Reviews" with video ads seems a bit odd, though -- but apparently video ads were a top request from merchants. So at least Yelp is listening to its customers and responding -- and if Yelp really wants to increase transparency, maybe we'll see how Yelp actually handles feedback someday. But since Yelp doesn't allow commenting on its own blog, chime in here and tell us what you think Yelp is doing wrong or right with its approach.

This is becoming all too common. We recently wrote about the lawyer who sued a publisher over a negative review of her book. Apparently, this sort of thing is becoming more common. The producer of an independent movie called Iron Cross, Joshua Newton, is suing Variety for posting a negative review of his movie after he bought a huge advertising spread from the magazine. In trying to defend the lawsuit, Newton lays out how Variety courted him over a huge advertising deal, suggesting the magazine would help find the film a distributor and also get it into consideration for the Oscars. Of course, nothing in that meant that the magazine's reviews should be compromised. Newton's argument isn't exactly going to win him much support:

I'm not suing them over a bad review. The problem we had was the timing. Robert Koehler, the critic, could have put it on his own website. If he'd have written it for TheWrap it would have just been one of those things. The problem was that Variety should have waited until the campaign was over. They completely destroyed the campaign that they sold us.

Basically, he seems to be suggesting that because he bought hundreds of thousands of ads from Variety, the magazine isn't allowed to post an honest review of the flick. Fascinating.

Newton, by the way, goes on to suggest that the business side at Variety knows it made a mistake, and that the recent firings of Variety's in-house movie critics is to more easily "control" movie reviews, so that Variety doesn't run reviews that trash movies that have paid lots of money to advertise with Variety. If true, of course, that would basically destroy whatever credibility Variety has left. Even so, though, suing over a bad movie review -- just because you bought ads in the magazine -- doesn't make much sense.

See update below. Well, well, well. You may recall back in 2008, when EA used annoying DRM on Spore, consumers revolted by giving the game one-star reviews on Amazon. There was some controversy when Amazon deleted some of those reviews -- but it claimed it was just a glitch (the algorithm treated so many rapid one-star reviews as an attack of some kind). However, it's now become quite popular when someone selling books or games does something stupid, for people take to Amazon to express their displeasure in one-star reviews.

So what's happening with Assassin's Creed 2 -- the Ubisoft game that is using incredibly annoying DRM and has had trouble keeping its servers up. Well... reader Aaron points out that for the PC version of the game Amazon appears to be showing no reviews at all. Either it deleted them or has proactively blocked the reviews. Of course, the reviews somehow are magically working for the PlayStation3 and Xbox versions of the game... Funny how that works.

Update: Some are pointing out that since the PC version isn't officially released until tomorrow, that could explain the lack of reviews on Amazon. They also note that elsewhere, such as in the UK, there are numerous angry one-star reviews...

It's amazing how some people seem to think that basic criticism is defamatory. We recently wrote about how the editor of a journal that published a review of a legal book is now facing a defamation lawsuit in France, even though the book review was just a typical book review (and only slightly negative). Now, Robert Ring points us to the news of a "horror" blogger who wrote a somewhat critical "open letter" to the horror magazine Gorezone, complaining about the apparent grammar and spelling problems in the magazine combined with what the blogger felt was rather sexist content. Frankly, the open letter isn't even that critical. It's one blogger's opinion with some constructive criticism.

In response, however, after the blogger's comments were flooded with angry responses (allegedly a bunch all came from the same IP address, which is connected with Gorezone), Gorezone threatened legal action for both defamation and copyright infringement. Apparently, this would be in the UK, where (as we know all too well) defamation laws are pretty ridiculous. Even so, it's difficult to see how anything in the original post is libelous. As for the copyright infringement, the blogger had used (but has since taken down) an image of a recent cover of Gorezone to prove his point. It's difficult to see how this would be considered infringement as well, as the blog post was clearly commenting on the image, and certainly wasn't competing with Gorezone. Of course, again, this is UK law, but there is the concept of fair use/fair dealing in the UK, and it's difficult to see how this wouldn't be covered.

As the link above suggests, this sounds like a SLAPP situation, where the magazine doesn't like the criticism it's received, and its response is to threaten the blogger to try to bully him into taking down the content. We see this all too often, and it's why the world needs more anti-SLAPP protections and laws.

Last month we pointed out what a bad idea it was for book publishers to go against the market's wishes and to delay the release of certain ebooks, hoping to drive more people to the (higher margin) hardcover versions of the book. This is incredibly anti-consumer thinking and assumes, incorrectly, that people will happily accept the format the publisher gives them. Not surprisingly, consumers are starting to rebel. Apparently some of the books are getting hit with one-star reviews on Amazon as punishment. For example, HarperCollins -- one of the leading supporters of these silly "windowed" releases -- is discovering that its well-hyped book Game Change is filling up with one-star reviews. Going against what your consumers want is almost never a good idea.

Just a couple weeks ago, we wrote about the ridiculous story of Monster Energy Drink trying to stop a small Vermont brewery from offering Vermonster beer, claiming trademark infringement. The whole thing seemed ridiculous, but now we have a clue as to what's going on. Against Monopoly alerts us to yet another, but even more questionable trademark complaint by Monster Energy Drink -- this time against a beverage review site. Writing a review of a product is not trademark infringement. However, the Against Monopoly writeup focused on the organization "representing" Monster Energy Drink and its parent company (Hansen's) -- and we immediately recognized the name from an earlier story. Continental Enterprises is a firm that gets big brands to give it the right to "represent" them in trademark issues -- and then goes hunting for anything that it can claim is trademark infringement, even if the use is clearly not infringing (such as a review site). According to reports, CE works (at least in part) on a commission basis -- where it gets a cut of whatever money it squeezes out of others. So it has little incentive to make sure the infringement is real. It just wants to get as much money as possible. I have no idea if the Vermonster dispute also involves Continental Enterprises, but going after a beverage review site is pretty ridiculous. This can't be doing good things for the Monster Energy Drink brand.

Mark Helprin, the well-known American author of many popular novels which are reasonably beloved, has painted himself into something of a corner, and now he seems to be lashing out at, well, everyone. You may recall that he wrote a silly, uninformed and downright ignorant op-ed piece calling for infinite copyright, a couple years ago. Of course, now he claims he wasn't calling for any such thing, but the original piece shows otherwise. He was so upset that tons of people showed up to prove him wrong, that he ended up writing an entire book on the subject. Yet, his real complaint in the book wasn't so much to push for infinite copyright (which, again, he insists everyone misread in his original column), but to smack around some silly commenters on blogs that made fun of him. He actually spends a lot of time dissecting anonymous comments right here on Techdirt in his book -- carefully selecting some of the more idiotic ones, while taking others completely out of context. He used that to support his thesis that those calling for weaker copyright laws were idiotic digital barbarians. Yet, of course, anyone could pick and choose some idiotic comments from copyright supporters and make the same silly argument.

Besides, there were many other problems with Helprin's book. It came across much worse than many of the commenters he attacked. It was filled with ad hominem attacks against these "digital barbarians" and repeatedly got basic facts wrong. Amusingly, considering he spends so much time mocking people for not understanding what he really was saying, the most incredible thing is that he does the exact same thing to almost everyone he criticizes. But, in the end, the biggest problem with Helprin's book was that it just wasn't very good. He gets so focused on his own use of language, that he fails to make a very strong point. And... nearly every single review of the book found exactly that.

But, Helprin is apparently not one to back down. Rather than respond to any of the complaints against his book -- including the massive factual errors -- Helprin has written up a 2,400 word screed slamming everyone for the poor reviews of his book. You see, it wasn't that the book was bad, but that, once again, no one actually understood what he was writing. And why? Well, according to Helprin, because every publisher assigned the book to the very "barbarians" he was trying to insult with the book. And, since we're all so clueless and inbred, of course we couldn't understand it:

Nearly every publication, left, right, and center, assigned the book, with digital in its title, to a resident digeratus, a member of the very tribe I provoke, and thus it was that I came to sell rosaries in Mecca.

Again, he fails to respond to a single point raised by any of the reviews. Instead, he just whines that people thought he was clueless, but he insists he's not. How could he be clueless? He quoted famous people!

It is why in making my argument I cite, and count as allies, Churchill, Thomas Hardy, Flannery O'Connor, Shakespeare, Yeats, Montaigne, and even Charles de Gaulle, among others.

But, the most ridiculous part of Helprin's whiny defense of how every single reviewer got his book wrong is his reference to one particular passage that many reviewers pointed to:

It would be one thing if such a revolution produced Mozarts, Einsteins, or Raphaels, but it doesn't. It produces mouth-breathing morons in backwards baseball caps and pants that fall down; Slurpee-sucking geeks who seldom see daylight; pretentious and earnest hipsters who want you to wear bamboo socks so the world doesn't end; women who have lizard tattoos winding from the navel to the nape of the neck; beer-drinking dufuses who pay to watch noisy cars driving around in a circle for eight hours at a stretch; and an entire race of females, now entering middle age, that speaks in North American chipmunk and seldom makes a statement without, like, a question mark at the end?

This bit of luddism provoked a bunch of responses, suggesting that Helprin was reaching the "get off my lawn, kids!" stage of life. However, the real problem wasn't just Helprin being an old fuddy-duddy, but the fact that he's flat out wrong. Mozart, Einstein and Raphael did what they did without copyright for the most part. Mozart's best works were actually highly derivative and he created his music at a time when copyright did not cover musical works. Raphael lived in a time before copyright. And Einstein's works had nothing to do with copyright at all.

Perhaps there's a simpler explanation for why no one liked your book, Mr. Helprin: it's just no damn good.