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

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.