DCS Sending Legal Notice To Reviewer (Golden Sound) Over an Old Review of Their Bartok DAC

Dcs will lose a lot of customers because of this. I saw Cameron's video, heard his comments and saw the communications from the lawyer. Dcs are making themselves look foolish. Anyway there are hi end dacs that are better value than Dcs around.

@laoman, whatever happens in this case will happen, but my point is beyond this case. I think it's high time that there needs to be some standard guidelines set for reviewers and manufacturers.
Because of the lack of regulation a manufacturer can pressure the smaller reviewers in not publishing the negative reviews. Or vice a versa big reviewers can threaten small boutique manufacturers into asking for money else they will be threatened with bad reviews.

Both manufacturers bullying & threatening reviewers and reviewers asking for money & not disclosing it is very much prevalent in the industry. As the end consumers we want honesty from manufacturers and reviewers alike.

Regards,
Audio_phool

Wow if a reviewer tries to extort a manufacturer it would seem the manufacturer could document the extortion attempt and put it out there.  The loss of credibility would end that reviewing career.

  And I suppose the reverse is true.  The reviewer documenting an intimidation attempt by dCS would be enough to forever cross that manufacturer off of my list.  They must be desperate.  Their gear is stratospherically priced but given the fast development of digital technology much lower priced gear can yield similar results 

speaking of "professional" reviews credibility as part of hi-end audio...

There is problem with both parties (I am not talking about DCS vs Golden Ear case), manufacturers and the reviewers. Such incidents is just showing the issues with big manufacturers.

Whats about the reviewers/review sites offering rewards to to each and every product they review or whatever they review is the best thing thing they have heard till date?

Regards,

Audio_phool

audio_phool

... there needs to be some standard guidelines set for reviewers and manufacturers.
Because of the lack of regulation a manufacturer can pressure the smaller reviewers in not publishing the negative reviews. Or vice a versa ...

What would you do, dilute the First Amendment? There is already a process in place for dealing with things like this.

So-called professional reviewers is just an unnecessary leeching layer to the industry. They all naturally driven by free buck and indeed have no credibility.

What would you do, dilute the First Amendment? There is already a process in place for dealing with things like this.

First amendment is applicable only if both manufacturer and the reviewer are in US. So for a lot of cases it is not going to be applicable e.g. what if the reviewer was in Hong Kong in that case do you think first amendment is going to be even applicable?

That is why a framework is needed which then could be agreed and imposed upon both manufacturers and reviewers, just like your various standards e.g ISO.

Regards,
Audio_phool

So-called professional reviewers is just an unnecessary leeching layer to the industry. They all naturally driven by free buck and indeed have no credibility.

But these manufacturers are also happy to feed such reviewers who in turn provide glorious reviews which definitely provide provide them the required attention & sales. It's a manufacturer and reviewer nexus if you may call it, so just blaming one is not the solution for sure.

Regards,
Audio_phool

audio_phool

First amendment is applicable only if both manufacturer and the reviewer are in US.

That is completely mistaken. If you live in the U.S. and publish in the U.S, you are protected by the First Amendment.

... what if the reviewer was in Hong Kong ...

Hong Kong is a whole different kettle of fish. Good luck to you though if you want to work towards passing any special protections in HK.

@cleeds I think you missed what I was getting at, you are going to have manufacturers and reviewers all over the world, so just talking about the first amendment is irrelevant. That's why we need some sort of standards which would be adhered to by both manufacturers and reviewers which are specific to Audio Industry

Regards,
Audio_phool

@laoman + 1 - I wrote to dCS, told them that I buy expensive gear (a lot of MSB stuff, for example), and told them what I think of companies that sue reviewers over reviews they don't like, especially when the company says he got facts wrong and never explained to him what those facts were so he could correct them.

I thanked them for helping me by giving me one less company to have to choose from for future purchases. 

audio_phool

I think you missed what I was getting at, you are going to have manufacturers and reviewers all over the world ...

Good luck to you in solving the world’s audio reviewing problems.

... just talking about the first amendment is irrelevant ..

It may be irrelevant to you, but the First Amendment is anything but irrelevant. As I noted, it protects those publishing in the US, notwithstanding your claim to the contrary:

First amendment is applicable only if both manufacturer and the reviewer are in US.

Those enjoying First Amendment protection would be foolish to compromise any of it by entering into any sort of agreement that would seem to appeal to you.

The First Amendment has no bearing here as this issue is between two private parties.  This amendment applies only to government restrictions on speech, specifically Congress shall make no law infringing it.

@Cleeds you are not talking about anyone outside US, what’s your solution there?

Besides how can be sure that if any such standard formation happens it would be detrimental to people in US? Do you even know what those standards would be even before they are formed? You are just being paranoid to the seed or the idea of such standards.

Regards,

Audio_phool

Can't wait for manufacturers to start suing members here for what they say about their products. This is beyond silly. dCS needs to take a chill pill.

Now I am just waiting to see the response from dCS...that will shade more light on this whole matter.

Regards,

Audio_phool

So dCS MD David Steven has responded on the dCS forum. Here is the link.

https://dcs.community/t/a-response-to-recent-claims-regarding-dcs/6722

Regards,
Audio_phool

jastralfu

The First Amendment has no bearing here as this issue is between two private parties.

The First Amendment is very much at issue here, and can certainly be invoked in cases of libel or slander. That is, what I publish is protected by the First Amendment notwithstanding your private (non-governmental) objections. Of course, the First Amendment is not an absolute shield against a claim of libel, but it’s a big hurdle to overcome.

audio_phool

Cleeds you are not talking about anyone outside US, what’s your solution there?

I understand you’re concerned with what could transpire in Hong Kong but that isn’t really a concern of mine. I’m ok with leaving that for you to resolve.

jastralfu

This amendment applies only to government restrictions on speech, specifically Congress shall make no law infringing it.

There is much, much more to the First Amendment than that. It actually has five major pillars.

Step a)

Don’t buy dCS junk.

Step b)

Might as well put that doughboy Goldensound (low IQ) on ignore too.

audio_phool

dCS MD David Steven has responded on the dCS forum. Here is the link.
https://dcs.community/t/a-response-to-recent-claims-regarding-dcs/6722

Thanks for sharing, @audio_phool. As a matter of public relations, this looks like one of "shared blame" and that the goldensound and headphone.com people are milking it for all of the drama and excitement that they can. After all, it's good for clicks.

@cleeds 

There is much, much more to the First Amendment than that. It actually has five major pillars.

 True, my comment was worded poorly, but the point is that it only applies to government restrictions not private parties.  And in this case we’re specifically talking about speech not religion, the press, assembly or redress of grievances.

jastralfu

... the point is that it only applies to government restrictions not private parties ...

That is simply not true. The government cannot make any law that impinges on freedom of speech. For example, it can’t pass a law that says you can’t criticize Audiogon. That would be restricting your First Amendment rights.

(Strictly speaking, the government could pass a law saying you can’t criticize Audiogon. But such a law would be unconstitutional and would not withstand scrutiny in the courts.)

And in this case we’re specifically talking about speech not religion, the press, assembly or redress of grievances.

A YouTuber opining on the Internet is, functionally, the press. He’s protected under the First Amendment. But even if it were your post - a random, one-time post - you’d still be protected.

Of course this doesn't apply outside the US. As Americans, the First Amendment is a precious gift.

@cleeds not sure what the disconnect here is.  I’ve stated that the first amendment only applies to government restrictions not private parties.  What you responded with seems to agree with that statement. 
 

The government cannot make any law that impinges on freedom of speech. For example, it can’t pass a law that says you can’t criticize Audiogon. That would be restricting your First Amendment rights.

this is exactly what I stated.  It does not apply to private parties, e.g. Audiogon can remove any post it wants and there is no legal redress or violation of first amendment rights.

i vehemently disagree that any YouTuber should be, by default, considered press just because they have content.  Creating content and being press is not remotely the same thing.

But even if it were your post - a random, one-time post - you’d still be protected.

only against government restrictions.  YouTube can remove anything it wants for any reason.

jastralfu

Audiogon can remove any post it wants ... YouTube can remove anything it wants for any reason.

Of course.

The First Amendment has no bearing here as this issue is between two private parties.

The First Amendment offers multiple protections for actions taken against you by a private party.

@cleeds if you are referring to libel or slander then yes you have first amendment protections against private party suits assuming what you wrote or said is demonstrably true.  
I finally see the disconnect we were having, I was speaking within the context of, for example, a forum removing any content it wants.  Within the context of dcs and goldenear and claims of libel or slander, goldenear certainly has protections as long as what was posted/written is true (or at least not libel or slander, I don’t think it is)

And here is a response to the DCS response

https://forum.headphones.com/t/dcs-response-and-story/23779

Yeah

Watched the video. Not that I was ever going to buy Dcs gear anyway, but certainly would never consider it now. 
 

Reviews are opinion pieces. Unless, as Dcs claims, there were factual misrepresentations of the product, they did not disclose what those misrepresentations were. 
 

Looks to be some pretty petty actions by Dcs if this indeed is the case. 

As an attorney in practice for over 38 years, I offer the following:

1. The First Amendment applies only to government prohibition or regulation of speech. It is inapplicable to disputes between private parties.

2. Defamation claims typically have short statutes of limitation depending on the State (i.e., 1 to 2 years from the date of the defamation). So, depending on when the alleged defamatory statement was made, dCS might be time-barred from asserting such a claim.

3. If dCS is determined to be a corporate "public figure," then the alleged defamatory statement must have been made with "actual malice" for there to be a recovery (monetary or otherwise), which is a fairly high bar to overcome.

All of the guys who are discussing the First amendment need to know that neither dCS is an American company nor Golden Sound is an American Resident, so First Amendment is not applicable in the first place. Hence I was talking about a framework which would be laid down for manufacturers and reviewers. I tried to explain this to cleed by givig an example of Hong Kong but he is not able to understand that which is ok.

Regards,
Audio_phool

audio_phool

... neither dCS is an American company nor Golden Sound is an American Resident, so First Amendment is not applicable in the first place.

Quite so. I didn’t know where Golden Sound was based. I didn’t bother to watch the 30-minute video. I thought the issue involved headphones.com, which appears U.S. based.

I tried to explain this to cleed by givig an example of Hong Kong but he is not able to understand

My response to your Hong Kong example was pretty clear:

Hong Kong is a whole different kettle of fish. Good luck to you though if you want to work towards passing any special protections in HK.

It's always unfortunate when these types of situations take place.  They tend to detract from what is an otherwise wonderful hobby.

This particular situation regarding a reviewer of the dCS Bartock dac , Cameron, is not unique.  High End audio companies that have the financial resources to pay for ads in the audio magazines that review their products have always maintained an advantage over those companies that do not have such resources. 

Case in point.  Several years ago (before the advent of the Internet and Internet commerce) I had a conversation with  the owner of  a small audio company that manufactured dac's.   At the time I had asked him why it took so long for him to get a review of his product in a well known Hi-Fi magazine like The Absolute Sound.  

His reply was simple.  He said that it was nearly impossible for him to get an audio product reviewed unless he paid to advertise in an audio magazine.  And that given that his company had a  very limited advertising budget, he found it difficult to compete  with larger and better  known audio companies like Mark Levinson and Krell; whose advertising budgets greatly exceeded his own. 

  The Headphone Company's stance in regard to the dCS situation is a refreshing change.  Especially since The Headphone Company has been selling dCS products, and has now decided to part ways with them over this particular situation with the audio reviewer, Cameron.

In a day and age where almost every audio review is positive, it is nice to see reviewers like Cameron, who give a truthful appraisal of a component, describing both its positive and negative attributes.  And it is equally encouraging to see a Hi-End Audio dealer like The Headphone Company coming to the defense  of an audio reviewer, who is just trying to do his job. 

It’s really a convoluted I said you said.  Having read the dCS response I would note:

1) they admit that they sent intimidating emails

2) the make many references to demands made by their legal counsel, and deadlines set to meet those demands.  They seem to duck the issue of what they would do if those demands are not meet.  Their disclaimer at the beginning that they didn’t use the word litigation is disingenuous.  Having a Lawyer issuing demands with deadlines attached is clearly threatening. 
3) dCS seems greatly perturbed that the reviewer did not have a dCS rep set up his system.  I would argue that this is more representative of what a real world user would be doing 

4) imo the correct policy for dCS to pursue would have been to issue a statement correcting what they perceived as factual errors in the review and left it at that 

No clue about this case, but I have been vacillating between a DCS Vivaldi Apex and other DACs.

This action makes it easy; I will never touch a DCS product.

"would not stand scrutiny by the courts."

Have to voice some skepticism there.

@rib61 The bar for defamation is lower in other countries, so it depends on where the suit is filed.

@jimmyblues1959 + 1

@mahler123 + 1

@dogeardeaudio ... I was referring solely to an action or proceeding commenced in the United States.

I was thinking about a DCS - but I wouldn't touch it after this.

Now all the drama has ended, dCS has released their statement apologizing for the entire fiasco.

https://dcs.community/t/goldensound-headphones-com-dcs-an-update/6740

Regards,

Audio_phool

bullies usually win, regardless of the laws

No bullies with deep pockets usually win. I doubt DCS has deep pockets.

I don’t get it to a large degree. Any device merely exists as a thing for anyone to check out and offer thoughts on it. Reviews are mostly subjective based on opinion or in a very few cases based on electrical or acoustic measurements. [Erin’s Audio does both.]

But a review is mostly just "opinion". So how can they be sued?

If I get say a Ford Mustang and I think it is a dog compared to a Dodge Charger, that is my opinion, take it or leave it. Ford can’t sue me for saying what I think, right?

From above @mahler123: "4) imo the correct policy for dCS to pursue would have been to issue a statement correcting what they perceived as factual errors in the review and left it at that."

Indeed.

Well I dont think that a manufacturer can object if they send a product to a reviewer for review. Now, as is the case with some/many ASR reviews, a product is sent to the reviewer from a member that may be a different situation. 

@audition_audio but who even cares/reads ASR reviews!

Well I certainly dont, but others do. I visited this site the other day and was flabbergasted. 

moonwatcher

... If I get say a Ford Mustang and I think it is a dog compared to a Dodge Charger, that is my opinion, take it or leave it. Ford can’t sue me for saying what I think, right?

They could sue you, although it would arguably be frivolous and it's highly unlikely they'd prevail. But anyone can be sued at anytime by anybody for just about anything.

Remember Monster Cable's threats against Blue Jeans Cable? That makes this DCS matter seem trivial.

the willingness of parties to sue for some financial gain and to destroy someone's life is astonishing. Only in America.