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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    paperbag (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 9:58am

    to-do list

    1) Find new host, ASAP
    2) Repost material
    3) Pursue claim for fun
    4) ???
    4) Profit.

    Yes, I did this tired old joke. :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    paperbag (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 9:58am

    Re: to-do list

    And in my failure, I also seem to enjoy the number 4. Here is to anyone who has ever hated the number 5.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:03am

    "In the end, Justhost would only allow Campbell's site to go back online if he removed the 'offending' material."

    Aren't hosting providers required by law to restore any material that's subject to a DMCA infringement claim when presented with a properly drafted counter-notice?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: to-do list

    5 is totally overrated.
    Kudos to you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:05am

    Re:

    Nope.

    Technically, they can pull anything they want. They don't even need a reason.

    But as far as the DMCA, they are only 'required' to pull down content to avoid liability. There is nothing that requires they put it back up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:08am

    "knowingly false"

    Does the "knowingly false" DMCA claims penalty apply to "knowing it's fair use" or just to claiming you own the copyright on something you know you don't?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Richard Corsale, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Confused

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re:

    According to Chilling Effects, when a counter-notice is filed and "the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network." Perhaps they've misspoken?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    PS - See ยง 512(g)(2)(C) for the relevant text.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:33am

    More than a bit ironic...

    It is superbly ironic that this story features a DMCA ad in the Google Ad region...

    Take down stolen content
    $99 to remove your stolen content from the internet Guaranteed
    www.DMCA.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:34am

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:37am

    Re: More than a bit ironic...

    "$99 to remove your stolen content from the internet Guaranteed"

    False advertising! Everyone knows that copyright infringement isn't theft. /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:40am

    Seems like he has a slew of counter-claims here, including libel.

    Someone is very wrong here, and deserves to be hurt, but we're probably looking at some middle-ground settlement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:48am

    "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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Ian Stalin, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:49am

    "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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:52am

    Re:

    Bah. I'm with AC on this one. Screw the middle ground settlement--skip straight to "Someone is very wrong here, and deserves to be hurt" and let the hurting begin!

    ; P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    DH's Love Child, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:58am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    imbrucy (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Technically, they are a private business and aren't required to put it back up. I believe what you quoted is correct from the DMCA, but they aren't actually required to ever put things back up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Christopher Weigel (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:08am

    Re: "knowingly false"

    Amusingly, in this case I believe both statements are accurate. He was fully aware it was fair use and, further, the salient point of the discussion is that the content was, in fact, plagiarized... meaning he didn't own the copyright on it by definition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    smitty, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:15am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Ian Stalin, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:25am

    "Campbell says that the form post displayed his name, email address and phone number, though it appears to only currently show his name and IP address."

    The original version can be seen here: http://wostest.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/benchmarkforum.jpg

    Looks like Mr Coles is still digging away, trying to bury the evidence...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    rich, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:32am

    Campbell is an absolute dick. He's well known in games circles for crusading against easy targets then pretending he's a hero. This is just a little...sad and pointless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Reggie Cowlings, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:33am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    The DMCA: when you really, really have to nullify that pesky First Amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Evan Kashinsky, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    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/.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Ted, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:49am

    see worldofStuart.com for more on this 'journalist'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Ted, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:49am

    see http://worldofStuart.com for more on this 'journalist'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Ted, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:49am

    see http://worldofStuart.com for more on this 'journalist'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    Re:

    It certainly appears that Mike may have sided with a rather glossy chum. If anything, the worldofstuart.com website is an example of how far he's pushed people. There seems to even be a following there - look at the comments for this story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: "knowingly false"

    Well, he presumably owns the copyright on the version updated to remove the plagiarism, so the question stands...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Daniel Miller, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Tom, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:23pm

    I don't understand why someone would write a review that was so positively promoting a product when they don't sell anything or link to any retailers. It's as if he just likes the chair, which I suppose he should considering how much he paid. Meh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Ian Stalin, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    LOL!

    The person posting those messages is doubtless the same deranged stalker who has been pursuing Mr Campbell all over the internet with his creepy blog for some time, desperate to be noticed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    Chair

    Everday, the BS grows, everyday....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Re: To Reggie Cowlings, Evan Kashinsky, Dave & Daniel Miller

    And, let's add "Tom" to the list as well. How many more times will you post under different names before realizing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:39pm

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Ian Stalin, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    Mike: does the spamming of the Campbell hate-site address belong in these comments?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    Re: More than a bit ironic...

    haha good luck paying $99 over and over again as the stolen content reappears in different places

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Ian Stalin, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:49pm

    "Stuart Campbell, the very same person who has built a reputation on self promoting himself on Wikipedia"

    LMAO! The same Stuart Campbell who has twice successfully requested that his Wiki entry be *removed*? That one?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

    Re:

    Mike: does the spamming of the Campbell hate-site address belong in these comments?

    It's marginally on-topic, and since it's easy to debunk the guy doing the posting, might as well leave them up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Belm, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:00pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    sexyface mother, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:26pm

    Will you all shut up and take this to my site already? We appreciate all comments good or bad, unlike stu who has a history of deleting difficult questions people leave on his blog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Megore, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

    Good times :D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    RevStu (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Terms of use statement

    How come Daniel, Tom, Evan, Dave and Reggie all have pretty snowflakes, but I don't!?!? I slipped and posted anonymous the other day and got a beige snowflake all pixelated. What about my right to a fair and representative flake!? I'm gorgeous.
    de-sarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    StuFan, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:52pm

    Stu when we kiss like this it's like fireworks going off in my pants

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Simon, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:58pm

    For an IP address that isn't Stuart's it does seem strangely attracted to him

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=83.67.217.135&meta=

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    rebelye11, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

    Questions

    I wonder if the copyright claim could be considered valid because of the images? There might be too many words taken to be considered fair use, but the images could still favor his defense.

    But seriously, a chair? Slow news day, I guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    RevStu (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 2:13pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    eh, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

    Well that wasn't us (read: US) but think what you like flatto

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Korrosive, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: To Reggie Cowlings, Evan Kashinsky, Dave & Daniel Miller

    OMG. How embarrassing. That guy just got malowned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    thegamespeopleplay, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 3:39pm

    games

    This seems a little too much like both sides are playing games to get some publicity/attention. While this WOULD be a good point, this story should be buried, it's a bunch of guys who got bored with their MMO and decided a little controversy would get them some limelight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 3:53pm

    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.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 4:10pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 9:29pm

    Re: Mike Masnick: biased much?

    I think it's worth noting that "Evan" here has the same identicon (which is produced based on where you're posting from) as "Reggie" up there. Sockpuppets ahoy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Whoops, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 9:29pm

    Rev's IP Address

    Is Stu really denying that 83.67.217.13 is his IP address on the basis on notoriously unreliable ip geolocation?

    What a liar

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 9:42pm

    Re:

    Yeah, I think you've posted enough there, Shari Lewis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 9:44pm

    Re: games

    "Both sides"... the mating call of the mushy-middle golden mean fence-sitter.

    Look away, kids, it's a disgusting spectacle when they actually get to it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 26th, 2010 @ 9:45pm

    Re: Re: Mike Masnick: biased much?

    And I'm an idiot for not realizing it was already addressed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jul 26th, 2010 @ 10:33pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 2:37am

    Look Forward To Final Outcome

    I look forward to an update on this post if there is a follow up. Good post ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    runngun247, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 8:47pm

    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/l egal/liability/defamation

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Jul 27th, 2010 @ 8:52pm

    Your point is?

    So what? Either Stuart screwed up by having too much text and images to be considered fair use, and his ISP screwed up by not researching the claim. Either way, he sounds like a trouble maker and the website did a boring review of a chair.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Timothy Seendal, Jul 28th, 2010 @ 1:19pm

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This