Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GoPro Issues DMCA Takedown Over Negative Review

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the how-to-come-off-wrong dept.

Censorship 232

skade88 writes "Ars is reporting that GoPro, the company that makes cameras used in extreme sports such as sky diving and swimming with dolphins has issued a DMCA take down notice on a review at DigitalRev that they do not like. See DMCA notice here. From the article: 'DigitalRev has a blog post up about the takedown, suggesting that most DMCA takedowns are "abusive" in nature. "We hope GoPro is not suggesting, with this DMCA notice, that camera reviews should be done only when they are authorized by the manufacturers," writes DigitalRev. "GoPro (or should we call you Go*ro instead?), we'd be interested to hear what you have to say" about the infringement notice.'"

cancel ×

232 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hilarious (5, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240029)

Issue BS DMCA notice, get negative PR and lose millions. Maybe the system works after all... though in my vision it has a reliance on the media.

Re:Hilarious (5, Funny)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240307)

I called them and let them know that they won't be getting any more business from me. Easy peasy. They already had some sort of a ridiculous pre-scripted answer -- complete nonsense implying that there was copyrighted content that digitalrev used without permission. Well, the DMCA latter doesn't even raise the issue of anything copyrighted being used illegally, merely alleged trademark law violations. Personally, I want them to apologize, and they better be quick about it. I've had lots of fun recently with Sony Alpha cameras, and I may just get a SONY HDR-AS15 out of spite. It is a slower camera than Hero 2, but hey, Streisand effect FTW :)

Re:Hilarious (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240361)

complete nonsense implying that there was copyrighted content that digitalrev used without permission. Well, the DMCA latter doesn't even raise the issue of anything copyrighted being used illegally, merely alleged trademark law violations.

That's the first thing I noticed. The letter isn't even consistent. Here it talks about the trademarks that it believes are being used improperly:

We have a good faith belief that the Internet site found at digitalrev.com infringes the rights of the Company by using the following trademarks of the Company:

"GOPRO" Registered: 3/3/2009 US Registration# 3032989

"HERO" Registered: 12/20/2005 US Registration# 3308141

And here they threaten ISP with copyright infringement:

As you may know, if this information is not removed after notice that complies with the DMCA, the Internet Service Provider may also be held liable for the copyright infringement.

The letter doesn't even keep it straight whether they're talking about a copyright action or a trademark action.

Re:Hilarious (5, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240371)

Wait, you won't deal with GoPro because they are being a bully and bad netizen, but you'll happily give Sony your money instead? Way to hold true to your principals there.

Re:Hilarious (4, Informative)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240677)

The "won't GoPro (pun intended), so you MUST deal with Sony" thing misses on one point. There are more than two players in the "ruggedized camera" market. For example, Nikon, during the film era, was synononymous with dive cameras, in the "Nikonos" line, and Hasselblad has cameras so rugged that they can literally fly to the moon (Apollo's cameras were all Hasselblads). Both Nikon and Hasselblad have digital cameras, and they're rugged, but neither of them has one rugged enough to claim that it's up to their exacting standards yet. Canon also makes ruggedized cameras, and even lowly Vivitar has a digital in their "sea and ski" line. As a prosumer videographer, I wouldn't touch Sony if you paid me anyways, they invariably tend to have just slightly crappier CCD/CMOSes than the rest of the market, and they want to push you toward their crappy bundled tech (memory stick, I'm looking at you). If they made a Nikonos digital, I'd break limbs to be the first to mortgage my soul to get one

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43241061)

Yeah Dude. You should strap a Hasselblad on your head.

Re:Hilarious (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240429)

I was interested in a GoPro as well, but I just can't give money to Sony. Looks like I'll need to find something else.

Re:Hilarious (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240543)

I was interested in a GoPro as well, but I just can't give money to Sony. Looks like I'll need to find something else.

"Action cameras" are an increasingly crowded segment. Heck, Monoprice, the guys who sell reasonably-priced HDMI cables and such, have released a house-branded one. That's part of why GoPro courting bad PR seems so insane: Right now, they have a pretty dominant brand; but it isn't as though shoving some cellphone parts into a ruggedized case is exactly a proprietary super-secret lost art of master craftsmanship. It seems... foolish... to squander a lead by looking like total dickheads in public.

Re:Hilarious (5, Informative)

TechNit (448230) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240833)

Contour is a great option.

http://contour.com/ [contour.com]

Re:Hilarious (3, Informative)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241211)

and I may just get a SONY HDR-AS15 out of spite.

Find another camera. Sony hates you even more than GoPro does.

Re:Hilarious (1)

digitig (1056110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241417)

But they like his money. Heck, we're /. users, it's about the best we can hope for.

Re:Hilarious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240335)

nah they come from that mysteriously popular school that thinks that if you abuse customers and they dislike you, then abuse them some more so that they will hate you, and if you keep abusing them the whole situation emerges from the far side of the black hole and then sales magically go up and they win.

Re:Hilarious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240391)

I was about to purchase a couple for my motorcycles. Not going to happen any more.

They can DMCA themselves out of business as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Hilarious (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240447)

All this tells me is that any lack of negative reviews are purely due to legal threats, therefore I have to assume that positive reviews cannot be trusted.
Now I have to decide; will I buy a product from a company that forbids honest reviews and is prone to sueing?
As a potential customer, how sure can I be that the product will do what it promises, and how will I be treated if I complain when it doesn't?
They may still offer a superior product and service or they may not. But atleast with their competitors' product, I know what I'm getting.

Re:Hilarious (5, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241281)

I own a GoPro, a version 1, the Hero 960.

I've taken it diving and biking. It was down deep enough that I am undergoing continued health problems from that dive. (looong story) but the camera did fine. Diving cameras and housing start around $600, so the 960 was about half that price when I got it.

The problem with the camera is that it shows you what happened, but not in a lot of detail. You can't get really close to stuff and it's always fish-eyed. The basic models don't have an LCD display so you don't know what you've filmed.

The interface is also totally stupid (I've used worse, but only for weirdly specific electronics). They fixed that on the newer versions apparently. Same with the case, there was a chance it would pop open when surfacing. Workarounds exist but again, it was fixed in the 3.

The Hero2 suffers from too much heat, so taking it diving can make it foggy. That'll ruin a day's photos. Turns out you can cut up a tampon and that will do enough of a job dessicating the case that you can get a good day's shots.

Check out the threads on Scubaboard. They don't pull punches anywhere on that forum.

Would I get another one? No. It's great to have as a fun toy, but for getting really good pictures I'm going to have to spend double or more compared to what the GoPro sells for.

Re:Hilarious (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241041)

Issue BS DMCA notice, get negative PR, make millions. Any kind of PR is still free advertising...

Re:Hilarious (1)

mikeiver1 (1630021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241295)

My thought exactly. You know I was thinking of getting one of the GoPro cameras in the next couple of months, not any more. Given the option of Sony or GoPro anyone will win out first... Congrats GoPro, you have just been lumped in with Sony on my super shit list for scum bag companies. If I were DigitalRev I would simply re-post the review again. There needs to be legal and financial ramifications for misuse of a DCMA take down like this. This is a total pile of steaming pile of BS. GoPro=Scumbag.

Re:Hilarious (3, Funny)

2fuf (993808) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241323)

> Issue BS DMCA notice

BS, as in Barbara Streisand

False DMCA penalty (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240037)

Isn't there some sort of purjury thing for filing false DMCA claims?

Re:False DMCA penalty (2)

Wookact (2804191) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240049)

I would like to see that enforced, as far as I can tell though it is never enforced.

Re:False DMCA penalty (2)

hand_of_lixue (1142555) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240113)

(I am not a lawyer)

The penalty only applies if you claim to represent someone you don't. So, I can't file a DMCA notice claiming I represent Microsoft, but I can claim pretty much anything else.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Re:False DMCA penalty (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240133)

Really? That's fucked.

Re:False DMCA penalty (2)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240323)

It's worse than that. The claim is not that you do represent them, but you believe you do. Plus perjury is a criminal act so has a high standard of proof.

The penalty only applies if someone else can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you knew you don't represent them.

Re:False DMCA penalty (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240159)

Isn't there some sort of purjury thing for filing false DMCA claims?

Lenz v. Universal [wikipedia.org] suggests that there are theoretically penalties for bad-faith filing of false claims; but that particular result also took on the order of five years of litigation(only possible if you are an EFF test case or made of money), and didn't actually include any punishment for Universal, so practice suggests that there are no penalties whatsoever.

Re:False DMCA penalty (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241119)

Fair use is for the courts to decide though. You're not going to be done for perjury it you own the trademark or copyright and someone is using it without your permission. If their defense is fair use, they can counter the DMCA take-down request with that as their reason.

Re:False DMCA penalty (4, Interesting)

Spazmania (174582) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240171)

Welcome to the 21st century version of a SLAAP.

Re:False DMCA penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43241039)

SLAPP

Re:False DMCA penalty (1)

suutar (1860506) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240299)

There is. If it can be proven that you were acting in bad faith, then you can be dinged for damages and court costs. However, being stupid is not the same as bad faith, so you pretty much have to have documentation of the filer saying "yeah, we know it's BS but it'll get them offline for a while".

Frost (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240065)

I love me a frosty one.

IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (5, Insightful)

HaeMaker (221642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240093)

As far as I know, you can't use the DMCA for trademark infringement. They should have hired a lawyer.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240129)

At least part of the problem is DigilRev isn't much smarter on the law and bent over on the DMCA when they didn't have to.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (4, Informative)

HaeMaker (221642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240157)

Their ISP may have given them no choice.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (1)

jest3r (458429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240957)

If you own a Review Website ... time to move the hosting outside of the USA.

Why does the hosting provider have to get involved anyways? Isn't the content of the website the responsibility of the domain owner? Someone please explain why the hosting company would have shut the entire website down if they didn't remove the page?

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (2)

MaxiCat_42 (711203) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240449)

They issued the DMCA notice to their ISP - not DigitRev. The ISP folded immediately.

Phil.

Safe harbor (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241277)

They issued the DMCA notice to their ISP - not DigitRev. The ISP folded immediately.

The whole point of the DMCA takedown notice process is that the ISP, in order to remain within the safe harbor vis-a-vis the party issuing the notice, must fold to a valid notice.

Of course, they also must fold the other direction in response to a valid counternotice from the allegedly infringing party, in order to remain within the safe harbor with regard to that party.

But the parties on each side of the notice/counternotice arrangement aren't generally in a symmetric power arrangement, so the importance of staying in the safe harbor with regard to each party isn't the same.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240201)

As far as I know, you can't use the DMCA for trademark infringement. They should have hired a lawyer.

Given that the site's host folded like a house of cards, apparently you can use the DMCA for trademark infringement... It's just that doing so isn't supported by the DMCA or anything else.

It seems like a hilariously lousy PR move(especially for a company who, let's face it, is in a market that is highly likely to be commodified pretty hard); but it(yet again) establishes that you can scribble anything you want on a 'DMCA takedown request' and find somebody in the chain who will roll over and wet themselves, no matter how risible your legal standing.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (1)

UdoKeir (239957) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240291)

So GoPro are dicks, and the hosting company are idiots because they can't tell the difference between copyright and trademark.

The hosting company needs to be outed. They clearly aren't very good.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240435)

The host is explicitly identified as http://www.softlayer.com/ [softlayer.com] in the takedown request.

Trouble is, unless you are paying rather more for hosting than the market rate, or deliberately purchasing capacity in some high-ping(relative to most of your readers) country outside the reach of the US, I suspect that your business just isn't worth enough to risk any significant legal exposure, and quite possibly not even enough to pay for a legal consultation before just obeying the takedown.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (4, Informative)

SQL Error (16383) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240855)

SoftLayer have a history of being very aggressive on DMCA takedown orders - you may get as little as four hours to remove the content or have your server taken offline. Even if it's a shared server hosting many accounts.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43241103)

time to troll the livechat reps at said site.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241117)

The hosting company may not necessarily be idiots. They just don't want to be hauled into court and have everything on the line when they were just the middle man supplying a service. Even if the DMCA notice is wrong, it is extremely expensive to try and prove this. Maybe there's a chance that the judge will agree and further require GoPro to pay all legal costs, but that is a high risk. Even if all legal costs are paid (ha!) you still have to deal with loss of work time from employees who have to go deal with the courts.

Besides the better result is the huge amount of publicity that's going on here.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240349)

Given that the site's host folded like a house of cards, apparently you can use the DMCA for trademark infringement... It's just that doing so isn't supported by the DMCA or anything else.

This could be an excuse from the editor. Let's face it, DigitalRev is loving this. They get to publicly humiliate someone for using a DMCA takedown notice, and getting heaps of publicity for it. The longer this is drawn out the better.

Re:IANAL: DMCA and Trademark Infringement (1)

hguorbray (967940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240375)

yeah this seems pretty weak -but they are probably looking at the examples of people like Oracle and MS who prohibit customers from running and publishing benchmarks on their software.

However, that is probably part of the licensing agreement and not something that one would expect to apply to a piece of off-the-shelf consumer gear

hopefully they'll get bitch slapped for this in the courts as well as in teh court of public opinion

-I'm just sayin'

Thanks GoPro, I'll check out the Sony (3, Insightful)

thomasdz (178114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240103)

I'll be definitely looking into the Sony AS15 now. I've never heard about it until now.

George Hotz (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240139)

I'll be definitely looking into the Sony AS15 now.

Sony has copyright bullying skeletons in its own proverbial closet. Search keywords: Lik Sang; George Hotz

Re:George Hotz (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241145)

Then the ultimate result of digging into past misdeeds is that no one can buy any product from any company.

How do I forgave Sony? (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241317)

Then the ultimate result of digging into past misdeeds is that no one can buy any product from any company.

To me, such digging has two limits. Forgiveness of misdeeds is possible if a company repents and openly embraces pro-user policies. Otherwise, forgiveness comes through decay as members of management on whose watch the misdeeds occurred leave the company. Let me know when either applies to Sony.

Re:Thanks GoPro, I'll check out the Sony (2)

ethan0 (746390) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240443)

I think Sony is not an improvement in terms of supporting evil. It could be argued that their divisions have little to do with each other, and the evils of Sony Music (rootkits, etc.) or Sony Computer Entertainment (playstation, dropping promised linux support, exposing customers with disregard for security), or any other scandals shouldn't reflect on their cameras. But, I think similar mentality seems fairly consistent through their corporate culture. I've written Sony off entirely.

for a comparable alternative, I have a couple of Contour cameras I've been quite happy with.

Re:Thanks GoPro, I'll check out the Sony (3, Interesting)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240527)

So, to avoid a company with a single DMCA abuse issue, you go to a company that's name is synonymous with DMCA abuse. Sounds legit...

Re:Thanks GoPro, I'll check out the Sony (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241167)

Sony is a conglomerate though. The different divisions are related only in name and a few shared board members I think. Do the makers and marketers of the camera have anything whatsoever to do with the people who deal with music?

Wacky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240123)

Surely their lawyers must be able to tell the difference between a trademark and a copyright?

Re:Wacky (1)

SarcasticTester (586529) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240251)

DigillRev should have ignored the DMCA just based on the fact that it states something about a trademark. They didn't even bother to read the intro on the WikiPedia page on the DMCA or they would have understood there's no way this letter means anything.

Re:Wacky (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241383)

Of course they do.

They just know the ISP doesn't know you can't use trademarks in DMCA take-down notices.

Wasn't over review according to GoPro (4, Informative)

loteck (533317) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240151)

According to their response on Reddit, it was a disagreement over how their products appear in DigitalRev's "ecommerce section." http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/a_lesson_from_gopro_dont_mess_with_reddit/ [salon.com]

Re:Wasn't over review according to GoPro (5, Interesting)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240191)

The letter they sent completely contradicts that though. There's really nothing in that statement that aligns with the DMCA notice.

Re:Wasn't over review according to GoPro (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240363)

A.K.A. FUD. A classic.

Re:Wasn't over review according to GoPro (2)

loteck (533317) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240389)

except GoPro claims their DMCA notice listed several other sites as well that were scrubbed by DigitalRev's posting of the letter... https://twitter.com/GoPro/status/314467226898006016 [twitter.com]

Re:Wasn't over review according to GoPro (2)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241047)

That doesn't make it any better - for one, they can't send a DMCA request for a trademark issue. The responsible thing would be to contact the site owner, not the web host, and not with a legal document. Not that any of their claims are valid to begin with.

Re:Wasn't over review according to GoPro (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240271)

Yea, I read that, except the DMCA notice listed the url for the review, not the ecommerce section.

They screwed up, then they lied about it.

Official Memo (1)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240489)

Hey Karl,
I need to you to file a DMCA take down for some stuff on DigitalRev. Be a sport and get right on that.
Thanks



Karl: Let's see, google site:DigitalRev "GoPro"
Bingo

Oops

Yawn! (1)

Thrill Science (2845693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240199)

I'll ignore any commentary (including _this_ one) that isn't from an actual Lawyer.

Re:Yawn! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240263)

I'll ignore any commentary (including _this_ one) that isn't from an actual Lawyer.

So in theory, you're going to forget you posted that, meaning you're going to just keep posting the same thing over and over again until you complete law school?

Re:Yawn! (1)

anglico (1232406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240865)

just posting to undo a mistaken mod.

Re:Yawn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240971)

I don't see where GP stated that the base case was being fulfilled.

GoPro sucks (5, Interesting)

Archon-X (264195) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240229)

This beahviour is sadly is very typical of GoPro.

1. I bought a GoPro HD Hero a few years ago, to take video and stills on a car trip from Paris to Mongolia. We were shooting timelapse of the entire trip, to be compiled at the end.
However, when we were in the middle of Kazakhstan, one day, the camera stops working. I poke around, and see that the filenames havd gone up to DCIM_9999.jpg - and worked out that they had never engineered them to loop back to zero, so the unit had a buffer overflow, and wouldn't work.

We finally got phone access to call a friend, who saw similar threads on their forum. GP refused to acknowledge the bug - they said you had to take out the battery for at least 12 hours, and then it would work. Naturally, this didn't work. Their suggestion was: "If you believe" your unit is faulty, you can send it back to GP in the USA, but you will be liable for freight both ways, and customs import again upon reception."

I emailed them, expecting that because they put such a customer-oriented public face forward, that they'd be decent guys. They were absolutely not.
Finally, 6 months later, they released a firmwire upgrade that fixed the issue. The fix wasn't mentioned in the CHANGELOG.

2. Friend driving across the USA, his unit started recording everything in a deep magenta, for no reason, with no fix.

3. Fast forward to this year, doing an enduro motorbike race across africa. Two friends have the new GP3 cameras - which constantly bug. Out of 15 days of riding, they managed to get about 3 hours of video. The unit would power on - when switched to 'video' mode, the screen would freeze, the unit would suck down power, and empty the battery in 20 minutes. This happened on both units, on the latest firmware.

I have been constantly amazed that a company that tries to push an 'extreme' image hates their customers - and the very people that are trying to do 'extreme' stuff. You have the impression they're just guys making hardware for people doing amazing stuff, and they love what they do. This isn't at all the case, as this latest episode only goes to further illustrate.

Re:GoPro sucks (4, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240437)

4. GoPro traveled back in time to save Hitler from temporal assassins.

Re:GoPro sucks (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241049)

2. Friend driving across the USA, his unit started recording everything in a deep magenta, for no reason, with no fix.

That's just America. You've heard of purple rain, right? Combine that with rose colored glasses and you get magenta.

Re:GoPro sucks (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241197)

I have been constantly amazed that a company that tries to push an 'extreme' image hates their customers

Well here's one amusing way [27bslash6.com] of dealing with it.

Re:GoPro sucks (1)

sdguero (1112795) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241429)

I posted my experience with Hero3 cameras below. It is a deeply flawed product that never should have been shipped. I feel for your friends as I ahd a similar terrible experience that messed up a trip to Mexico. GoPro should be ashamed of themselves...

Not surprising. (5, Interesting)

sidragon.net (1238654) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240233)

GoPro easily produces one of the worst products I've ever had the misfortune of using. The HERO3 I received shipped with a barely working wireless feature, which a software update disabled, then a following update bricked the device. After over one month of going back and forth with technical support, they finally got around to issuing a replacement. The replacement had a bad lens. At last, I finally got one that works! But now more than two months had passed since my initial order. Alas, the video quality is poor, it can no longer be made to record 1080p wide video, and the battery gives me about 30 minutes of recording time. Their product design and engineering is laughably sloppy, and I'm eagerly awaiting the day we see some competition move in and offer decent alternatives.

Re:Not surprising. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241365)

Thanks for the review. I was considering purchasing one. No way in hell now.

Does DMCA apply to trademarks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240247)

Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Not DMTA.

Comments from GoPro ?... (0, Redundant)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240257)

I saw these comments from the linked story, copy/pasting them here. (I am not someone who knows what's going on concerning this story)...

Rawlston Shamik says:

22 hours ago

_GoPro Sends Reviewer A DMCA Takedown Notice, Internet Explodes — But Wait! It Was An “Unfortunate Miscommunication”_

Hey all- I’m out at X Games Tignes right now with the Director of PR for GoPro. I showed this to him as soon as I saw it (it had 3 comments). He dropped everything to address this issue, and it’s an unfortunate miscommunication. Below is the blurb he just wrote out for my favorite GoPro community.

Thanks for the heads up on this issue. The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review. Obviously, we welcome editorial reviews of our products. This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store. As part of our program – we ask merchants who are selling our product to use authorized images. That is why DigitalRev was contacted. But – our letter did not clearly communicate this and that is something we will correct.

Like

George Aggelis says:

Yesterday

Very very very very bad on behalf of Go Pro. Wouldn't recommend them to anyone, especially after this pathetic of an excuse reply. Funny thing, I was thinking of buying one based on the impressions of former reviews in DigitalRev.

Like

Seoirse Brennan says:

Yesterday

Official GoPro response

""The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review. Obviously, we welcome editorial reviews of our products. This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store. As part of our program – we ask merchants who are selling our product to use authorized images. That is why DigitalRev was contacted. But – our letter did not clearly communicate this and that is something we will correct.""

Like - 1 like

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-doesn-t-like-their/ODUyNjU2ODc_A [digitalrev.com]

Re:Comments from GoPro ?... (4, Informative)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240339)

Thanks for the heads up on this issue. The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review.

That explains why their DCMA request clearly pointed to the URL of their online store:

Accordingly, we hereby demand that Softlayer.com immediately remove or disable access to the Infringing Material at:

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-hero-3-vs-sony/Njk3MDQ3MDg_A [digitalrev.com]

Yup. Nothing to do with the review here...

Re:Comments from GoPro ?... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240359)

except the takedown notice explicitly mentions the review URL, not a product for sale.

Re:Comments from GoPro ?... (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241219)

what's worse it that hey think they can tell you to only use "authorized" images, authorized reseller or not. it'd be akin to getting ebay to cancel your auction of the gopro because you took your own pictures.

Swimming with dolphins? (2)

Pubstar (2525396) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240259)

I had no idea swimming with dolphins was an extreme sport!

Re:Swimming with dolphins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240367)

Well, some of them can turn a little rapey....

Re:Swimming with dolphins? (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240473)

Oh, yeah. The extreme part is when one of the dolphins decides it wants to have sex with you. Then, the swimming gets extreme in a hurry. You want to turn your GoPro off for that. It's a little TOO extreme.

NoPro NoGo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240261)

Not professional, I'll make sure to let anyone I know who is considering a NoPro that it is a NoGo.

I can see it now (1)

rolytnz (1769750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240287)

Imagine reviews of anything where you are not allowed to name the product for fear of alleged copyright infringement. That would be hilarious. Cue "Streisand Effect" for GoPro (oops, I just infringed)

Sad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240297)

Gopro needs stop doing "damage control" and issue an immediate apology before they dig themselves in to a hole.
Obviously they spend a lot of time building their brand image and some pencil dick middle manager over there thinks it's more important to defend the perception of their products than act legitimately to criticism.

This really is too bad, because the devices themselves are impressive little gadgets and are extremely well engineered. They pack a lot of impressive hardware in to a tiny rugged package and they perform quite well considering how inexpensive they are. (As compared to real "pro" video gear)

There are a lot of youtube teardown videos of the little devices, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1nsYd3lG60
It's really neat to see how they packed all that in to a tiny cube.

Anyway, maybe they're feeling the pressure from competitors now that they've established the market. After all, they are just using a reference implementation cpu/chipset/sensor/lens from another maker. It would not be hard to make a similar(Although not quite as good) device that's cheaper.

It's not even a good product (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240325)

It's clunky, bulky, and doesn't even take very good video. The dynamic range sucks, and panning video tears badly when shooting video at the highest resolution.

Don't like it, GoPro, come sue me. Your product sucks, and is not worth the plastic it's made of. Fuck you.

Re:It's not even a good product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43241069)

Wow! That told them! They won't release another product in hurry now will they?

Don't Be Sony (1)

Geste (527302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240385)

Amazing. The review article compares their product with a Sony, which on principle I would never buy, but now these folks have cast themselves in the same vein. OK, maybe that haven't popped a rootkit on your computer, but seems like the same kind of crappy we-know-best attitude.

So, Go*ro does really stupid thing, generates lots of negative exposure with people who might be likely to buy their stuff, but who will now maybe look for something coming down the road that isn't a Sony or a Go*ro

Fine business minds.

Re:Don't Be Sony (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240641)

Is the asterisk in the name to minimize how many times the web crawler sees the brand name in question? Or are you just doing a M$?

Patrick Hayes, here ya go: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240445)

http://www.edd.ca.gov/jobs_and_training/experience_unlimited_local_information.htm

frist Psot! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240455)

myse7f. Thisj isn't

No GoPro, no Sony AS15, what's #3 for sports? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240515)

Oh bother. So now I'll be boycotting GoPro, and I already had Sony boycotted so their AS15 is out of the picture. What's the next best option?

Technical companies all seem to be directed by lawyers and doing moronic things these days, it's really sucking.

Re:No GoPro, no Sony AS15, what's #3 for sports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43241207)

Contour.

Where's the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240525)

They took the review down anyway. Anyone have a copy of it? I was looking into buying one of these cameras and put it off for a few months. Glad I did.

But But - his own website does reviews! (1)

TheTerseOne (2447418) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240589)

According to this troll's LinkedIn profile, he's a "Creator/Producer" at Nerdlocker.com. A site that reviews (and has images) of video games, movies, and comics. So - what gives Patrick?

Go*ro (1)

mestar (121800) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240681)

What does the * stand for in Go*ro?

GoBro?

It would be nice if there were consequences.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240695)

... for stuff like this.

I think the main reason there wasn't ever penalties imposed for false DMCA takedowns is because they didn't want to harshly penalize what actually could have simply turned out to have been an honest mistake (not that I believe for a second that an honest mistake is what actually happened here... or for that matter, most of the other ridiculous abuses of the DMCA, although bringing up the notion here does bring to the forefront of my mind that I don't really know how they would ever be able to tell, objectively, whether the act was intentional or not to adjudicate an appropriate penalty).

Not a problem... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43240701)

I read the take down notice and they are correct. Everything the reviewer said about the products in
question is/has been 100% verified and accurately portrays the products in question/mentioned in the review.

The problem was that the reviewer failed to get permission before mentioning the products by name; it's a simple
consumer mis-step -- but the law is the law. Once the consumer get the required authorization, notarised by the
Pope himself, approved by D. Cheney and Bush, and signed off by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the
site can remove the DMCA take down notice and potential customers can once again, gleam from his/her wisdom.

He's obviously new at the game as I've been doing it for years and gotta tell you getting Bush to hold the crayon steady
is no simple matter, but I digress. The trick is to tell him it's an artist's brush...

Anyway, best of luck to the chap!

Name change? (2)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240871)

I think "GoPro" should change their name to "GoPoo"!!!

additional information (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43240959)

It turns out that the original review was actually written by Barbara Streisand. What a coincidence!

Sad truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43241283)

Here's the sad truth about review sites... If they don't give good reviews, the companies stop giving them their stuff for reviews. Good reviews mean sales. Anything that might put a dent in sales gets swept under the carpet. This is also very rampant in the video game sector. When was the last time you saw a video game get a rating under 5? Or even 7? A 9.9 means you keep your job.

My GoPro story... (5, Informative)

sdguero (1112795) | about a year and a half ago | (#43241373)

I surf, and ride motorcycles, so my girl decided a gopro would make a cool xmas gift this year. We went to New Zealand in December so she gave it to me early...

Strike 1:
So before we left on our trip, she ordered a Hero3 silver from gopro's website, which advertised "ships by Nov 30th" when she placed the order. After hearing nothing for 4 business days, not even an order confirmation, but having her CC charged $300+tax, she checked the website again and it said the Hero 3 cameras were on 14 day backorder. She then attmpetd to call GoPro. Big mistake. It took 54 minutes to get a live person on the phone. They stated that they could not guarantee when the camera would ship, and could not cancel the order. She gave up, called her Credit card company and disputed the charge, then she went to Best Buy and bought the camera off the shelf there for the same price. The camera from the gopro website never showed up and she got a cryptic email two weeks later from a manager saying the order was cancelled.

Strike 2:
Fast forward two weeks. We used the camera in New Zealand while enjoying our trip, and I was learning to use the camera etc... It seemed ot work OK but had really bad battery life but not a huge deal as I ordered the extended battery pack along with several other accessories, totall around $120. Then we went on a road trip to Baja for New Years. While driving south the GoPro locked up. At that point it wouldn't record at all, evena fter removing the battery and memory card and reinsterting. When we got back I found out it had corrupted the memory card so badly that I couldn't get any videos from that trip off of it. I then followed gopro instructions to reset the camera, and the website said there was a known issue and directed me to update the firmware, but I already had the most recent. Long story slightly shorter, I spent several hours messing with the camera, was hung up on after waiting on hold for 45 min by gopro support, and bought another SD card ($20), before returning it to Best Buy and getting a replacemnet camera.

Strike 3:
Now I have my new camera #2 all updated with the same FW (12/15/2012) and new memory card (which I have two of now) and it seems to work. Yay! So I start recording my commute to work on my motorcycle. After a couple weeks, this camera starts doing the EXACT same thing as my last one. Locks up, corrupts memory cards, factory reset/FW flash/Card reformat doesn't help for more than a few videos. This took about 30-40 videos to start happening, just like the first camera. This time I email gopro support hoping fro better luck. I didn't hear back for 9 days, when I got an email telling me to do all the things I had already tried (and I ahd told them I tried in my first email) and suggesting that I had bought a substandard memory card, which is the same thing their website says (I bought two class 10 san diesk cards along with teh class 10 best buy gave me with the camera). So, I took this camera back to Best Buy as well and complained heavily to their staff about GoPro and the camera. They urged me to try one mroe camera so I did.

Strike 4 (yes there are more than 3):
GoPro Hero3 camera #3 seems to work, jsut like #1 and #2. I start recording videos on my motorcycle and in my truck and what do you know... After about 2 weeks and 25 videos, it locks up, same symptoms as the first two. I waste another 2 horus messing with camera #3, then give up and take it back to Best Buy. They refuse to give me a full refund and I end up with store credit instead. I really can't blame then since it took me 2 1/2 months to ask for my money back after replacing two of them already.

Strike 5 (poosibly another gopro strike):
I write a review of the camera on Amazon and state my experience. Within 2 weeks my review is removed, no word from Amazon about it. I also noticed that sevveral other negative reviews had been taken down (all with the same problems I had) and the camera's rating had actually increased from 2 stars to three. It seems that gopro was actively complaining about negative reviews to Amazon and likely using the "spiteful" clause in Amazon's review process to get them taken down.

As far as I'm concerned the Hero3 is a broken product and most people simply haven't used them enough to find out. It has an issue with the memory card controller that corrupts them over time, and I think it may be related to power loss events occurring while it is recording but I'm not sure. GoPro is handling things very very poorly, posting silly messages on their support site about users belonging to a tribe etc, but they aren't even answering the phones. I really believe this company is headed down the toilet, and fast. I'm still out about $120 for the accessories I got for that POS, and I honesltly wish the worst for that company. It was a horrible experience.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>