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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, exposed, marketing, olin coles, reviews, stuart campbell, takedowns
Companies: benchmarkreviews, herman miller, smart furniture
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
to-do list
2) Repost material
3) Pursue claim for fun
4) ???
4) Profit.
Yes, I did this tired old joke. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to-do list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to-do list
Kudos to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"knowingly false"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "knowingly false"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "knowingly false"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confused
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confused
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than a bit ironic...
Take down stolen content
$99 to remove your stolen content from the internet Guaranteed
www.DMCA.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More than a bit ironic...
False advertising! Everyone knows that copyright infringement isn't theft. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More than a bit ironic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone is very wrong here, and deserves to be hurt, but we're probably looking at some middle-ground settlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the pun in this sentence was unintentional, it makes it all the more brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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! 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA was valid
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick: biased much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick: biased much?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick: biased much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick: biased much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terms of use statement
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Terms of use statement
de-sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Reggie Cowlings, Evan Kashinsky, Dave & Daniel Miller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Reggie Cowlings, Evan Kashinsky, Dave & Daniel Miller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Reggie Cowlings, Evan Kashinsky, Dave & Daniel Miller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's marginally on-topic, and since it's easy to debunk the guy doing the posting, might as well leave them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMAO! The same Stuart Campbell who has twice successfully requested that his Wiki entry be *removed*? That one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't worry; we're used to schizophrenics here. Often they don't even bother with more than one account. Or different posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=83.67.217.135&meta=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions
But seriously, a chair? Slow news day, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: games
Look away, kids, it's a disgusting spectacle when they actually get to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rev's IP Address
What a liar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look Forward To Final Outcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting find
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your point is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]