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

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.