The hubbub comes from Guns & Ammo's coverage of the new Taurus Curve. As is usual for any cover article in the magazine, the coverage was glowing.
It helps to get glowing coverage when cover articles can cost $25,000 or more - a well known secret in the gun industry.
GunsSaveLife.com wrote an article pointing out how bad Guns & Ammo's coverage of the gun was - that they ignored the lack of sights on the gun among other facts. When you are commenting on media and media coverage, you are allowed to use their content to show how bad is (or good, in the case of outlets other than Guns & Ammo in this case).
This is permitted under the Fair Use exemption in United States copyright law. But Guns & Ammo wants to play the big bully on the block and threaten a small website. Too bad it's going to backfire.
As for Guns & Ammo's history of glowing reviews, one need not look any further than the literary blowjob they gave the Remington R-51. We're talking about a gun that was such a turd it was recalled after just a few weeks on market and all owners were given refunds.
Almost EVERY media outlet called it a piece of crap... but not Guns & Ammo. They loved it - and it was on that expensive cover yet again.
Here's the letter they sent to GunsSaveLife.com:
To Whom it May Concern,
Regarding your website’s illegal use of our photography and slanderous statements about our publication (Guns & Ammo), you have until Nov. 21, 2014 at 8 a.m. CT to remove all content from your website that was stolen and/or improperly quoting our publication.
If the material is not removed by that time, we will seek legal action immediately.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Online Shooting Editor
2 News Plaza
Peoria, IL 61614
And here is the response from GunsSaveLife.com, which I love:
Dusty, you can call me John.
He said to call with any questions, so I did. I called him to get some specifics of how I slandered them in calling their story on the new Taurus gun what it was: a puff piece.
Dusty’s reply: “I’m going to have to defer to my publisher on that.”
Fair enough, Dusty.
Frankly, that G&A story was a disservice to their readers. I stand by what I wrote. Taurus’ new gun is dangerous and liable to get users killed or sued.
Little did I know Guns & Ammo would threaten to sue us for reporting the truth.
I told Dusty the piece wouldn’t be coming down now or tomorrow or anytime after that.
Guess I won’t be writing for Guns & Ammo anytime soon. Oh darn.