Reviewer Caught Posting Marketing Material As A Review… Uses DMCA To Takedown Site Of Guy Who Exposed Him

from the this-is-going-to-backfire-badly dept

Duncan writes in to alert us to what must be the mother of all stories of a guy caught doing something questionable online, who then goes to amazingly great lengths — including publishing private info, blocking users, changing content surreptitiously and (finally) using a bogus DMCA takedown to take down the entire site of the guy who caught him. It’s quite a story, so let’s start from the beginning.

There’s some site called BenchmarkReviews. I’d never heard of it, but apparently it recently published a review of a Herman Miller chair supposedly written by one Olin Coles, who appears to own the site. Fair enough. However, some folks noticed some… well… oddities about the review, and started discussing them in the “World of Stuart” forums, leading journalist Stuart Campbell (of World of Stuart fame) to investigate. In looking through the details, it quickly became clear that the “review” text appeared to have copied potentially large segments from either marketing material or a press release. Some of the sources of the material were found out — including a Herman Miller product brochure (pdf) and a furniture store company’s product description. As people commented on the BenchmarkReviews website pointing this out, those comments were swiftly deleted, and the users’ IP addresses were banned.

Campbell then sent Coles an email, identifying himself and asking a series of questions about the “review.” Instead of replying, Campbell discovered that Coles posted a note to BenchmarkReview’s forums, publicly naming Campbell, claiming that Campbell was banned from the site for making “anonymous… threats.” Campbell says that the forum post displayed his name, email address and phone number, though it appears to only currently show his name and IP address.

Next up, a reader of Campbell’s site contacted the furniture store in question, Smart Furniture, who claimed that they had written their own product description, suggesting that Benchmark Review may have copied it from Smart Furniture (or that Smart Furniture was lying).

Next up? Well, suddenly the text of the original review at Benchmark Review started gradually morphing, with no notice of the changes. Of course, Campbell had the originals and highlighted the ongoing changes. Oddly, the newly changed review included a whole bunch of ads pointing to Smart Furniture, the company who claimed to have created some of the text that showed up (uncredited) in the review.

That’s when things got nasty. Apparently Coles sent a DMCA takedown to Campbell’s hosting provider a company called JustHost. JustHost then totally overreacted, pulled down the entire site and seemed utterly clueless about how to properly handle a DMCA takedown notice and counternotice. In the end, JustHost would only allow Campbell’s site to go back online if he removed the “offending” material. It has been removed, but the original blog post has been reposted elsewhere, so you can compare it to what’s left.

The DMCA claim is clearly bogus — and if Campbell decides to pursue it, the DMCA does allow for sanctions against those who knowingly file false DMCA claims. Cambell’s post was clearly providing commentary on the review, and highlighting problems with it. The material was quoted in the context of highlighting the problems with the text, and certainly was not used in a manner that infringes. It’s difficult to see how much deeper a hole Coles wants to dig himself here. His activities have only served to call that much more attention to the problems of the original “review” (if you can call it that), and filing a bogus DMCA notice to take down the website of the guy who called him on his activities seems only likely to make matters even worse for himself.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: benchmarkreviews, herman miller, smart furniture

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 “Reviewer Caught Posting Marketing Material As A Review… Uses DMCA To Takedown Site Of Guy Who Exposed Him”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
68 Comments
Adrian Lopez says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

After reading the law more closely it seems to me the proper reading is that the DMCA shields service providers from liability for the removal of content unless the provider fails to carry out any of the steps outlined in 512(g)(2), one of which is restoring the allegedly infringing content in a timely manner. Thus, while the provider is not required to restore the material, it might potentially be liable for its removal. Whether a court of law would ever find a provider liable for such a thing is, of course, a different matter.

Hulser (profile) says:

Re: Confused

Am I missing something?

Well, as the AC above alluded to, it depends on how you define “valid”. I would certainly hope that it refers not just to whether you have the copyright on the material which is used by someone else, but also includes conditions on that material being used illegally. If not, copyright owners could go around issuing DMCAs without any regard for fair use. Not that this is properly taking into account in the real world, but what would be the point in defining sanctions for an invalid takedown if the definition didn’t take into account fair uses?

DH's Love Child says:

Re: Confused

“well, technically … The DMCA claim was valid? “

Except that DMCA is only for INFRINGING material. There are perfectly legal ways to post copyrighted material, and it is up to the person making the DMCA claim to ensure that they only make a claim on infringing material. This material was clearly covered as fair use, so it was not infringing.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re:

‘”It’s difficult to see how much deeper a hole Coles wants to dig himself here.”

If the pun in this sentence was unintentional, it makes it all the more brilliant.’

That’s a pun? I’m reminded of the ‘A bit of Fry and Laurie’ joke:

(Fry says something that has absolutely no pun)

Fry: ‘If you’ll pardon the pun.’

Laurie: ‘What pun?’

Fry: ‘Oh, wasn’t there one? I’m sorry.’

Ian Stalin says:

“well, technically … The DMCA claim was valid? I mean, he was re-publishing copyrighted material? Am I missing something?”

Yes, you’re missing the fact that it’s perfectly legal to reproduce extracts of something for illustrative purposes when reporting a news story about it. It’s also covered by “transformative use”, which is another legally-permissible form of copying something in this sort of context – the blog is using the text for news reporting, not its original purpose of selling chairs.

You’re also missing the fact that the material didn’t belong to Olin Coles or Benchmark Reviews in the first place – that being the point of the article – and that therefore he has no business taking any legal action over anyone else reproducing it anyway.

smitty says:

I have Pair as a service provider and they freaked out that I filed a counter-DMCA to a bogus DMCA. They told me to find a new provider since I was the first customer to file a counter complaint. Any ideas who I should go to?

I have a couple weeks left and I’m moving from country to country without much of a computer so it’s a pain in the ass to change servers.

Reggie Cowlings says:

DMCA was valid

I think TechDirt drank some Kool-Aid with this, because the review website posted nothing more than a common “about the manufacturer” statement, and used their list of features. I probably wouldn’t have used the tacky phrases that Herman Miller used to describe their chair, but two paragraphs out of an 8 page review is hardly “all press release”.

Also, the DMCA looked pretty valid. “Investigative Journalist” Stuart Campbell took the entire first page of the review website article. You can’t take images and an entire page of text without permission! That would be like someone reproducing this whole story on their website.

Once Stuart learned that the author was actually given permission to use Herman Miller text in his product review, he changed his tune and began promoting his story with a new spin. His claim now is that the DMCA was used to take away his opinion, but from the DMCA notice he posted it looks like the author just wanted his images and text taken down.

Sad play to see TechDirt promote someone like Stuart Campbell in the first place.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: DMCA was valid

Also, the DMCA looked pretty valid. “Investigative Journalist” Stuart Campbell took the entire first page of the review website article. You can’t take images and an entire page of text without permission

Actually, as part of commentary and criticism of said article it is, in fact allowed “without permission.”

That would be like someone reproducing this whole story on their website.

Um. They can do that. No problem. In fact, it’s encouraged.

His claim now is that the DMCA was used to take away his opinion, but from the DMCA notice he posted it looks like the author just wanted his images and text taken down.

The DMCA notice did, in fact, take down his whole site, and for a clear case of fair use.

Evan Kashinsky (profile) says:

Mike Masnick: biased much?

I understand what’s going on here; one site wrote a review another site called it advertising. Fighting ensues. But when did Techdirt become home to soap-opera journalism? Mike Masnick takes an immediate side to Stuart Campbell, the very same person who has built a reputation on self promoting himself on Wikipedia. Campbell is also the reason for websites established against his existence – http://worldofstuart.com/.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Mike Masnick: biased much?

I understand what’s going on here; one site wrote a review another site called it advertising. Fighting ensues. But when did Techdirt become home to soap-opera journalism? Mike Masnick takes an immediate side to Stuart Campbell, the very same person who has built a reputation on self promoting himself on Wikipedia. Campbell is also the reason for websites established against his existence

I don’t care who Campbell is or if he is a self-promoter. Who cares? What I do care about is abuse of the DMCA to take down anyone’s website, including Stuart’s.

Daniel Miller says:

Terms of use statement

“copied potentially large segments” This looks like a cautious assumption, and you should point out the exact text that was used from a press release.

You also say “The DMCA claim is clearly bogus”, but you don’t explain exactly why. As other members here have pointed out, your coveted source took the whole page of an article without permission. Browsing over the website you linked, they have a whole legal section with terms of use.

They claim “No person is authorized to use, copy or distribute any portion of the Web Site including related graphics without the prior written authorization”. So do they have a point?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Terms of use statement

You also say “The DMCA claim is clearly bogus”, but you don’t explain exactly why. As other members here have pointed out, your coveted source took the whole page of an article without permission. Browsing over the website you linked, they have a whole legal section with terms of use.

They claim “No person is authorized to use, copy or distribute any portion of the Web Site including related graphics without the prior written authorization”. So do they have a point?

Terms of use cannot take away fair use rights, as you must know. And doing commentary for the sake of exposing questionable activities within the review is clearly fair use.

Nice try “Daniel”. Or is it Tom? Or Evan? Or Dave? Or Reggie? Or who else?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

To Reggie Cowlings, Evan Kashinsky, Dave & Daniel Miller

The little icon next to your name is a gravatar, intended to show when the same person is posting repeatedly. As you are. Though under different names each time as you try to attack my credibility. Funny. Especially when you say “as other members here have pointed out,” when it appears those “other members are you. Or, at the very least, sitting in your house with you posting from the same access point.

Belm says:

Re:

Ian Stalin is clearly Stu. It’s true he’s twice had his Wikipedia page deleted. That said the reason for deletion is Wikipedia’s resistance to letting him turn it into a self promoting puff piece.

He even tried to do that via a sock puppet account insisting he was an ardent Campbell fan concerned that an accurate of Stu’s career was given.

Stu’s IP address is 83.67.217.135

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83.67.217.135

Is this relevant? Sort of. It raises questions about whether putting trust in what he says is wise move.

RevStu (profile) says:

God, is it that time again? Hello. I’m Rev. Stuart Campbell. (Please feel free to verify my identity via the public contact form on my website.)

I see you’ve already met my foaming-mouthed schizophrenic stalker and several of his imaginary friends. Try not to let him or his delusions alarm you – he’s pathetic and harmless, and is endlessly amusing, particularly when accusing other people of using sock puppets when he’s just been caught out using at least six different identities to back himself up in a single thread.

Just by the by, I live in Bath – as followers of Benchmark Reviews’ forum will of course already know. The IP address given above can easily and publicly be tracked to Oxford, which is roughly 70 miles away. I’d say more, but I don’t want anyone else getting the same obsessive treatment, obscene phone calls and general harassment that I’ve already had to involve the police in once. Olin Coles is a breath of fresh air by comparison with this odious, tragic little pondscum.

I understand people not wanting to censor their comment threads, but I think it’s a shame that so many are derailed by this swivel-eyed nutjob’s 24/7 pursuit of me and constant stream of paranoid lies in his hopeless quest to be loved. As you were, folks.

Man, that DMCA, eh?

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Try not to let him or his delusions alarm you – he’s pathetic and harmless, and is endlessly amusing, particularly when accusing other people of using sock puppets when he’s just been caught out using at least six different identities to back himself up in a single thread.”

Don’t worry; we’re used to schizophrenics here. Often they don’t even bother with more than one account. Or different posts.

RevStu (profile) says:

I think lying to your readers about being a shill is quite a big deal when it’s a *$1200* chair. That’s an awful lot of money to spend on the basis of a lie.

No pictures were copied from the Benchmark Reviews site. All illustrations were screenshots I took myself. The block of text I quoted that was used as grounds for the DMCA notice was around 5% of the article, and nowhere near the “entire page” that my beloved stalker has been talking his usual delusional bullshit about.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Let’s see now, all this over a $1200 chair that comes with a large collection of snake oil claims. The site owner objects to being called on this bans the guy reviewing the review and then sends a bogus DCMA takedown which reacts with a nervious nellie ISP shuttng the site down.

Up to now a pretty normal Techdirt story. Then the fun starts!

RevStu’s stalking troll appears who might have added something though it’s soon obvious that he has fewer functioning brain cells than TAM.

Somewhere I have no doubt Olin Coles has probably responded as an AC and one of his staff has shown up with a painfully tortured argument.

Of course, that this has managed to do it send me off to Benchmark Reviews where I’m greeted by an overly busy, 10 year old design (at best) poor even for that era where reviews read like sales pitches. Probably why I never heard of it till now. Certainly why I’ll never consider it as a reference in future.

Streisand Effect anyone? 🙂

Oh, and little baby troll. You can give up now. You’re nothing but a crashing bore. I’m missing TAM already.

runngun247 says:

Interesting find

After spending way too much time navigating the various updates on that site, I did a little research just to see what the law was. For all you armchair lawyers, take a good look at this:

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

Don’t make the mistake of reading it from your perspective, you have to read it from an unbiased judge’s perspective.

Timothy Seendal says:

Now this is rather interesting. Stuart Campbell began his crusade based on what he believed to be censorship of the truth. As it turns out, he did exactly the same thing to visitors at his website: http://flattopscotch.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/your-letters

What I found hi-larious was how he demands people call him reverend. Take a look at ‘Rev’ Stu:
http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2008/06/50th-least-hideous-stuart-campbell.html
Better version: http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/jugglersahoy_1.png
http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/jugglersahoy_6.png
And some of his own stuff:
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/biog.htm

Don’t bother to post at Stuart’s website because it won’t be posted if you oppose his view. Talk about your first-rate hypocrites!

Leave a Reply to :Lobo Santo Cancel reply

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...