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

Mon, Jul 26th 2010 9:43am — Mike Masnick

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

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

paperbag (profile), 26 Jul 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. :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
paperbag (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 26 Jul 2010 @ 10:03am

Re: Re: to-do list
5 is totally overrated.
Kudos to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Corsale, 26 Jul 2010 @ 10:21am

Confused
well, technically ... The DMCA claim was valid? I mean, he was re-publishing copyrighted material? Am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 26 Jul 2010 @ 10:26am

Re: Re: Re:
PS - See § 512(g)(2)(C) for the relevant text.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 26 Jul 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian Stalin, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 26 Jul 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's Love Child, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
imbrucy (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Weigel (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
smitty, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian Stalin, 26 Jul 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...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rich, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reggie Cowlings, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 26 Jul 2010 @ 11:45am

The DMCA: when you really, really have to nullify that pesky First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evan Kashinsky, 26 Jul 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/.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ted, 26 Jul 2010 @ 11:49am

see worldofStuart.com for more on this 'journalist'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ted, 26 Jul 2010 @ 11:49am

see http://worldofStuart.com for more on this 'journalist'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ted, 26 Jul 2010 @ 11:49am

see http://worldofStuart.com for more on this 'journalist'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 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...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel Miller, 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian Stalin, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 26 Jul 2010 @ 12:36pm

Chair
Everday, the BS grows, everyday....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian Stalin, 26 Jul 2010 @ 12:41pm

Mike: does the spamming of the Campbell hate-site address belong in these comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian Stalin, 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Belm, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sexyface mother, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Megore, 26 Jul 2010 @ 1:32pm

Good times :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RevStu (profile), 26 Jul 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 26 Jul 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
StuFan, 26 Jul 2010 @ 1:52pm

Stu when we kiss like this it's like fireworks going off in my pants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon, 26 Jul 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=
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rebelye11, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RevStu (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eh, 26 Jul 2010 @ 2:33pm

Well that wasn't us (read: US) but think what you like flatto
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Korrosive, 26 Jul 2010 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: To Reggie Cowlings, Evan Kashinsky, Dave & Daniel Miller
OMG. How embarrassing. That guy just got malowned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thegamespeopleplay, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 26 Jul 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.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whoops, 26 Jul 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2010 @ 9:42pm

Re:
Yeah, I think you've posted enough there, Shari Lewis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2010 @ 9:45pm

Re: Re: Mike Masnick: biased much?
And I'm an idiot for not realizing it was already addressed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 26 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 27 Jul 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 ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
runngun247, 27 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 27 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Timothy Seendal, 28 Jul 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]