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


I saw this You Tube video which was posted by Headphones.com which at the beginning talked about the site taking the side of Golden Sound (GS) & then GS himself going through the details of what happened (his side of the story).

https://youtu.be/R7NxRFT6FiI

While I am not taking any sides until DCS comes out with their story publicly. While we all are aware that many times companies force reviewers to remove the criticism of their products by employing different ways. But what should be the way forward about the reviews for reviewers and companies?

Can we as the end consumers and as a community come-up with the framework around reviews?

 

Regards,

Audio_phool

128x128audio_phool

The vocal minority who are apologists for dcs I suspect are comprised mostly of owners or industry professionals, both of which have vested interests.

The whole trope about the products being great and that those who criticize the actions of the company would never buy the product anyway is an attempt at deflection.

No one has criticized the quality of dcs excellent products, though some have said that the sound quality is not to their taste, and certainly no one has called for a boycott.

And who is, or is not, a potential buyer of the products is again a deflection. Can one only have an opinion of a company’s management if one buys, or intends to buy, their products? Likewise speculating on their demise seems both ridiculous and unlikely. These things blow over, the company does damage control, and life goes on. Deflect, deflect deflect.

IMHO, the discussion centers on the attempt to influence a reviewer, nothing more.

@cleeds, perhaps I should have been clearer . . . I meant if DCS had the lack of common sense to actually file suit, I would happily defend Cameron for free. I don't appreciate the attorneys posturing and making baseless threats solely to use the threat of litigation to browbeat someone into submission -- in other words, I am happy to even the playing field for the little guy in this instance.

No one is treating this as an "international crisis" as you put it.  Rather this is extremely poor conduct by a well-known manufacturer, caught in the act of threatening a reviewer over a negative review, making frivolous threats and then denying that any threats were made because the word "litigation" was not used in their attorney's letter to the reviewer.  That type of conduct should not be tolerated.  I don't think that is an "international crisis," but I do think that it should be well-publicized and there should be ramifications for that type of improper conduct.

This is tragic mistake and an unforced error by dCS. 

Here at FutureAudiophile.com we've mistakenly bailed others out of anti-free speech issues such as Eric Alexander at Tekton Design. He foolishly attacked a YouTuber who measures some of his speakers. He laid empty threats on him and at the same time off-put his direct-to-the-customer clientele. Ouch. dCS did the same here.

If anybody would study Bose Vs. Consumer Union, we would know that there is a strong Supreme Court First Amendment precedent set that you can a) buy gear and review it and b) that doesn't remove your right to share your opinions. 

I know the VP of Marketing of dCS from his days at Wilson Audio and even before that. He should have known better.

In the event that there are any people here who don't understand the power of their vote this fall - your rights are being taken from you by a political party and a "dictator on day one" (his words not mine) is the end of your rights like free speech. The good news is that we aren;t dead yet. Vote to protect your rights because if you don't, you wont have any. 

Jerry

I gotta call BS Jerry.

Those aren’t his words.

If you want the truth, you can easily find transcripts of the exact conversation.

Something tells me you’re not interested in the truth…

First amendment ONLY applies to the government trying to limit free speech.

Listen to the lawyer who spoke earlier.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment right to free speech.