And here is a response to the DCS response
https://forum.headphones.com/t/dcs-response-and-story/23779
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
- ...
- 90 posts total
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, |
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.
My response to your Hong Kong example was pretty clear:
|
- 90 posts total