Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Internet News

Video Professor Sues 100 Anonymous Critics 261

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the sco-business-model dept.
Techdirt is reporting that the Video Professor Company is suing 100 anonymous critics of their company. The Video Professor is known for their television ads hawking DVDs that teach you various skills like how to use your computer. Most of the complaints center around how their "free" product offering automagically signs you up for a subscription. Instead of addressing the concerns the Video Professor has decided to take the litigious route.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Professor Sues 100 Anonymous Critics

Comments Filter:
  • Calling all lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:53PM (#20731691)
    This is about the stupidest thing that Video Professor could do. They just got some PR that they didn't need.

    Anybody smell a class action lawsuit?
  • Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ls -la (937805) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:53PM (#20731699) Journal

    Instead of addressing the concerns the Video Professor has decided to take the litigious route.
    That's pretty much the standard nowadays. Who is going to spend time and money making things better when you can just sue the whiners for complaining?
    • Yeah, I guess that everybody has the right to take advantage of the public without being outed as a borderline fraud. That would be in-line with the rest of the corporate-friendly political environment, you know, the one that enacts legislation to protect horrible business models.
      • by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:36PM (#20732363) Journal
        There's no fraud here. This is just like the book clubs, the CD clubs, and the movie clubs. Pay a penny, get 6 free books, and every month, unless you say otherwise, you buy two more. This business model has been around for ages.

        If there are suckers who don't bother to read the print and take the steps necessary to opt out, and they go around telling people that the company is engaged in fraud when they aren't, those people should be sued. It's libel to make false statements like that, and there really isn't anything else that can be done to put a stop to it.
        • by RobertLTux (260313) <robert@lauren c e m a rtin.org> on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:50PM (#20732657)
          the problem is VP ads trumpet the "free cd" thing and do not mention that you will be paying for a subscription for X cds in this case the "fine print" is written on a stone tablet in the middle of the african jungle in an obscure dialect of sanscrit. (you ltierally only get the details after you have your "free disc")
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Belial6 (794905)
            Huh, That isn't the scam I thought they were running. Since you can mail three disk for less than a dollar, I thought their scam was to "give" you the disk, but make $6 per sucker in "handling" charges. Maybe they are more devious than anyone thought. Get publicity about how you are being crooked by signing people up for a subscription, then when you apologize, and offer all future disks for $6.95 a pop without the subscription, people don't even realize that they are paying $6 for a "free" disk.
        • by muindaur (925372) * on Monday September 24, 2007 @02:40PM (#20733419) Journal
          I've read all the fine print on the CD order page and the User Agreement page and if some of the complaints linked to are true then it isn't just a case of not reading the fine print.

          Some of the complaints are the inability to cancel the subscription. Being billed a few days after the trial and not getting a refund once they sent the discs back in. If you read the fine print on the CD oder page you have 10 days and only have to send in one disc to get the money back. The problem is they don't specify 10 days from order or receipt. This is important if it's sent via the postal service. I have had packages take 12 days to come in via that method. It also doesn't mention on that page that you will be subscribed to subsequent versions.

          When I was younger I used the Columbia music club. They clearly stated the terms and conditions and I had no problem meeting them. I always had the option to write "refused, return to sender" if I forgot to tell them not to send me the current months CD picks. If I remember all I had to do was buy 6 CDs at regular price.

          So no, this is not like the CD and book clubs because the terms they are holding people to are: not spelled completely disclosed. they aren't completely honoring the ones they do, and they aren't giving people the same time frame to return subscription shipments(Columbia was 30 days unopened.)
        • by ChaoticLimbs (597275) on Monday September 24, 2007 @07:05PM (#20736809) Journal
          Yes, true, but the point is that his advertisements are deliberately deceptive or misleading and his business model is supported entirely upon the backs of those you mention. I've seen his ads and not one of them even suggests that you will receive merchandise you don't ask for and will be billed for them. Most honest and intelligent people, when faced with the absolute truth of the subscription model, would not choose his services. If he believed otherwise, he would not put the truth in tiny print.

          This is the epitome of a scam business. If you cannot tell potential customers the truth about what your product is and how it's delivered, and still expect that they will say "yes", then your business does not deserve to survive in the free market.

          Many businesses thrive on a customer base that is uninformed about the actual state of their product or the method used to sell the product. Were it not so, then sweepstakes would not lead in their sales pitch with tiny print that says "if you have and return the winning number" followed by huge text that says YOU HAVE WON TWENTY BAZILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

          Anyway, if he WAS an honest and legitimate business worth spending money with, he would attempt to remedy the problems of the past instead of litigating with SLAPP lawsuits to prevent people from criticizing his company. Obviously he has no concept of free speech, and doesn't realize he'll get his ass handed to him for filing a SLAPP.

          Maybe his product works. Maybe it's real videos that help, maybe they're retarded- I don't know. However, logic tells me that when a dissatisfied customer is sued by the business in order to silence them, it is not a business I would allow to have my money.

        • by tsm_sf (545316) on Monday September 24, 2007 @09:53PM (#20737965) Journal
          If there are suckers who don't bother to read the print and take the steps necessary to opt out, and they go around telling people that the company is engaged in fraud when they aren't, those people should be sued. It's libel to make false statements like that, and there really isn't anything else that can be done to put a stop to it.

          I'm simply swinging my fists and walking forward. If there are siblings who don't bother to get out of my way, and they go around telling mom that I'm hitting them, those people should be spanked.
    • That's pretty much the standard nowadays. Who is going to spend time and money making things better when you can just sue the whiners for complaining?

      No. If you read the original filing, they're complaining that it is possibly another company posting comments in a campaign against them AND that the reviews contain false information.

      Given that legal action is fairly expensive, I presume that they had enough evidence of both claims to at least satisfy themselves it was worth the expense, risk of counter

      • "Won't chu buy my product? Please?" (Begging?)

        How many people buy from a company that is basically BEGGING you to use its product?

        I have a friend who ordered one of TVP's computer training videos. He felt he could have taught himself BETTER. So, he or people like him forget about this product due to other things on their mind. They often don't return the material.

        His mistake was in NOT returning it before the trial period ended. IIRC, HE has to pay for the disc/box set or for its return. Either way, it's N
      • SCOX (Score:3, Insightful)

        by macdaddy (38372)
        iven that legal action is fairly expensive, I presume that they had enough evidence of both claims to at least satisfy themselves it was worth the expense, risk of countersuit(s), and potential fallout (ie negative publicity and such.)

        Insert obligatory reference to SCO here. Clearly no company would dare sue if they didn't have enough evidence to support their claims and risk the expense, countersuits or potential fallout.

    • by sdnoob (917382)
      so, are they (vidprof) upset over the alleged defamation and trademark violations or are they just pissed off that their scam has been exposed on the interweb and their business model is now and forever ruined?

      too bad they don't have one called "public perception and the power of bloggers".. their business is hosed unless they can get their hands on "ethical and legal selling practices of tutorial videos".
  • Try my product (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JoelKatz (46478) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:55PM (#20731723)
    That guy uses the word "product" more times in a minute than most people do all month. God, I hate that guy! Now I have one more reason.
    • by Applekid (993327)

      That guy uses the word "product" more times in a minute than most people do all month. God, I hate that guy! Now I have one more reason.
      Could be worse. Instead of product, he could have said SKU.
      • by texaport (600120)
        Almost as many times as a 30 minute infomercial for "hair product"
        (which, by the way, there is no plural for the word 'PRODUCT' either)

        --
        Learn the computer.
        In 20 easy minutes,
        three times a week!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...that all publicity is good publicity. "We're video professor. Some people think our products aren't very good. We want those people to shut the hell up."
  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by kbob88 (951258) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:56PM (#20731739)
    Anything to distract them from producing more of those really annoying TV ads! Hopefully the lawyers will suck up their entire marketing budget for the next few years!
  • by rev_sanchez (691443) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:56PM (#20731743)
    got his or her legal education from a series of DVDs.
  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:56PM (#20731747) Homepage Journal
    One guy, from this link in TFA [infomercialscams.com], says that he tried to order the Quickbooks tutorial from the Video Professor. The website gave a confirmation page that listed some product other than what he ordered. Then, they start sending me other tutorials, but he never requested those. On top of it, he tries to order the Quickbooks tutorial again a couple months later, but this time he calls them. They tell him he already ordered that one, but offer to send him is order for free, since it was supposed to arrive back in March. In the end, he never got the product he actually ordered.

    Doesn't sound like a company I'd do business with. Ever.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bobartig (61456)
      This sounds like the herbal supplements scams where you order free a bottle of "Memory Enhancer" or what have you, then they sign you up for a $300 supplement subscription for the next year and you spend two years trying to get your money back. ...except they're doing it with tech tutorials? Genius! What I really mean is, this is just bizarre, but at least now I understand their scam.
      • by hawk (1151)
        Who are you going to believe is describing this conversation from months ago correctly--us, or this guy that claims to remember ordering memory enhancers. :)

        hawk
    • by XanC (644172) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:09PM (#20731951)
      My, uh, "friend" has this problem, see. What should I^H he do about it?
    • by KWTm (808824) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:48PM (#20732617) Journal
      Regarding the parent post, and also the sibling post that says:

      This sounds like the herbal supplements scams where you order free a bottle of "Memory Enhancer" or what have you, then they sign you up for a $300 supplement subscription for the next year

      Looks like they get your credit card number when you sign up, promising not to charge you for the "free" service or something, and then later charge you because you forgot to cancel their subscription.

      Several credit cards now let you generate disposable credit card numbers on the fly --just go to the web site and you can have a new credit card number with your specified credit limit and date of expiry. I'd like to see how they handle that! Maybe they'll send a message: "Dear Sir, your credit card number is no longer valid and we were unable to pull that scam on you. Please go to the following web page and enter your new credit card info, so that we can scam you."

      In fact, something similar happened to me. Near the end of the tax year, I decided to make a donation to a charity, and figured out how much would be best given my tax situation. I donated through a web site using a disposable credit card. Somehow, they ended up charging only about 40% of the amount I said I would donate.

      Fast forward to three months later, well into the new tax year, I get a phone call from the charity saying that my credit card wasn't working. I said,
      "What are you talking about? You're not supposed to be charging my credit card."
      "Yeah, we are --you made a donation."
      "But that was last year! You charged it already!"
      "But we didn't charge enough."
      "So you tried to just charge more now and have some bill randomly show up on my credit card bill? If you want the rest of the donation, send me a receipt backdating the donation to the previous tax year."
      "I'm sorry, we're not allowed to backdate receipts."
      "Well, then, too bad. I offered my money and you screwed up. Next time charge the correct amount. And don't make unannounced corrections to your mistake a few months after I've reconciled my finances."


      • Looks like they get your credit card number when you sign up, promising not to charge you for the "free" service or something, and then later charge you because you forgot to cancel their subscription.


        Probably when they tell you that "you only pay shipping and handling".

        Yeah, creating a single-use card with $10 on it would be the way to get back at these tards.

        ~Will
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:57PM (#20731765) Journal
    November's DVD of the month is "how to create your own legal pleadings" with Video Professor's MS-Office accessories training 'product' ?
  • Please.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by m93 (684512) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:58PM (#20731771)


    don't try my product.

  • Only on TV Adds. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer (103300) * on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:01PM (#20731815)
    It would seem that for a company such as Video Professor who does its sales primarily over the phone without selling to stores, they would be better served if they worked to improve their image. Something about their adds gives me the cheaps, Almost as much as the Cash Now guy. Companies in there type of sales need to work hard to show their credibility. History shows us that Sueing your customers just doesn't work. If you address the problems people will forget, Sueing them they will make sure they will never recommend the product and discorage people from doing so causing bad Word of mouth to be passed, which is normally more damaging then a bunch of anonymous posts. Who could be from one disgruntling poster.
    • by pimpimpim (811140)
      I think that TV ads are comparable to spam. They have no need to work on their image, they just sell based on statistics. If enough people see their show, there will be a big enough group of (sorry to say this) dumb people buy their product, and their scheme is succesfull. How many people who watch these TV ads and are inclined to buy stuff from it will look it up on the internet before they buy?
  • by Valiss (463641) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:06PM (#20731923) Homepage
    As someone of TFA site commented, if you know how to look for reviews online, do you really need video professor?
  • A guy is whining (to courts, but still whining) because some guys are whining about him? Someone please give him a Video tutorial on "how to plummet your sales" starring the SCO execs. Sheesh.
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:09PM (#20731949)

    "Instead of addressing the concerns the Video Professor has decided to take the litigious route."

    No, they brought their claims to civil court under tort law. Tort exists precisely for the purpose of settling claims like this.

    The original complaint [typepad.com], which is buried (thanks to linking to a blog, which links to a blog, etc...why can't you people cite original sources? Christ), asserts that customers, or a competitor, are maliciously posting reviews (ie, reverse astroturfing) with false information.

    It's not up to a bunch of yahoos on the interbutt to decide if they meet the burden of proof in a civil case (which is much lower than a criminal case) on these two issues. The court decides whether to give them a court order seeking records on their posters.

    It's also up to Video Professor to prove that the posts are false. If they are, guess what kiddies! That's libel, and yeah, shockingly, it is NOT legal to public false information maliciously.

    In short, stop bitching and let the judiciary do their job, which is to dismiss the lawsuit if it is frivolous, or let it proceed to discovery, etc. Do any of you realize how stupid you sound complaining about tort law, which has existed as a key part of societies for several centuries, almost the world over?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Flarg! (265195)
      Hey, now! Stop trying to wreck our fun with your logic and your grubby little facts! :P
    • by pokerdad (1124121) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:30PM (#20732251)

      It's not up to a bunch of yahoos on the interbutt to decide if they meet the burden of proof in a civil case

      Not sure how the ramblings of us yahoos interferes with that. Sorry, but I always get a little miffed when it is implied that a discussion online (or elsewhere) is somehow obligated to grant the same rights as the court, or somehow is interefering with the court.

      Also, you might want to check on the meaning of the word litigious before getting mad at how other people are using it.

    • by snarkh (118018) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:43PM (#20732495)
      Let me guess, are you a lawyer?

      The problem (as you must be aware) is that too many companies are using the law as their weapon,
      to litigate legitimate opponents into bankruptcy and use legal actions to cover their own
      shortcomings.

      I have some unfortunate opportunities to observe such actions myself as some people I know were
      intimidated by a real estate management company, which managed to extort a significant amount of money from them, threatening legal action. In all likelihood the claims would have been dismissed by a court, but they were too scared.

      • by afabbro (33948)
        Let me guess, are you a lawyer?

        Unlikely. A real lawyer would have better things to do with his time. More likely, someone who took business law in community college and is desperate to show off his knowledge.

      • I have some unfortunate opportunities to observe such actions myself as some people I know were intimidated by a real estate management company, which managed to extort a significant amount of money from them, threatening legal action. In all likelihood the claims would have been dismissed by a court, but they were too scared.

        Do you see the logical flaw in your post? You rail against entities using the legal system as their weapon, yet, the example you cite is an example of somebody NOT fighting back.
        • by snarkh (118018)

          Do you see the logical flaw in your post? You rail against entities using the legal system as their weapon, yet, the example you cite is an example of somebody NOT fighting back. In other words, the very legal system you rail against -- was not used. Instead, your people rolled over and paid up "because they were scared".


          Dude, chill a bit. I do not rail against the legal system at all. I am unhappy with its use to intimidate people. The problem is that many people do not have time/money to fight frivolous c
      • by taustin (171655)
        If it's illegal to file bogus lawsuits, there has to be a committee of government bureaucrats appointed to decide what's bogus, and what's not. You and I will not be invited to participate.

        Does anybody really think that's an improvement?
        • by snarkh (118018)

          I think that the courts should be far more willing to dismiss frivolous lawsuits quickly and
          award court costs to the parties against whom such lawsuits were directed.

          Then the companies may think twice before suing hundreds of people.
    • by afabbro (33948) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:47PM (#20732585) Homepage
      Do any of you realize how stupid you sound complaining about tort law, which has existed as a key part of societies for several centuries, almost the world over?

      That's why I also never complain about war, crime, poverty, disease, or dictatorships. If it's old, it must be good!

      • by ScentCone (795499)
        That's why I also never complain about war, crime, poverty, disease, or dictatorships. If it's old, it must be good!

        No, what's "old," here, is the technique of bad-mouthing/slandering your competition. I'm sure there was inter-witch-doctor FUD in neolithic times. Much, much more recent than that is having a legal framework for some recourse. If there are people posting BS complaints just to run down the company's reputation, then they deserve exactly what they get. If that's NOT what's happening here, th
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drfireman (101623)
      You write:

      Tort exists precisely for the purpose of settling claims like this.

      and then later: stop bitching and let the judiciary do their job You should take your own advice. Instead of asserting that this is a legitimate use of tort law, how about you let the court system sort it out. A lot of Slashdot readers obviously believe that, contra your assertion, this is going to turn out to be a flagrant abuse of the tort system, not (as you claim) the kind of thing for which tort law was created. Nobody's complaining about tort law, that I've seen. I have seen many commen

  • Perhaps one of the more legally-minded folks here will know: Does this sound like a strategic lawsuit against public participation? Do SLAPP-back rules apply even when it's not about a public issue?

    In any event, I hope Video Professor gets their a$$es handed to them.

    • by Firethorn (177587)
      Considering that they're suing over bad reviews, it certainly sounds like SLAPP applies.

      • by arth1 (260657)
        The problem with SLAPP is that you have to have the time and money to take the SLAPPers to court and fight them. In other words, the exact same thing that the original lawsuit encumbered you with, and you shouldn't have to go through.

        And, as in most any other litigation, the best you can hope for is a Pyrrhic victory, where the only real winners are the lawyers on both sides.
        • by Firethorn (177587)
          If you're being sued in the first place, you should have a lawyer. Given the correct details, there are many lawyers willing to work on contingency in these cases as a reward is very likely given even a little work, as filing a SLAPP countersuit would be a standard legal maneuver.
    • It depends on a couple of things. For one, they are supposedly suing on the basis that certain reviews were posted maliciously. If that turned out to be the case, then SLAPP might not apply. If they were not malicious, then SLAPP could very well apply.

      Possibly more telling, though, is that they are also suing over misuse of trademark. If their suit is unfounded (i.e., it becomes clear that the reviews were not published in a deliberately malicious manner), then that would almost certainly qualify for SLA
  • IANAL, but,,, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mr_mischief (456295) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:17PM (#20732065) Journal
    It isn't defamation in most places unless it's a) untrue and b) used to harm the subject's reputation unfairly.

    It isn't trademark infringement to include the name of a product you review in the review, although it's a good idea to include the proper marks and note that the marks and the product belong to a particular owner. The nature of a review should make it clear, I think, that no claim of ownership is being made by the reviewer. This is especially true of a negative review, I'd think, because who would expect a negative review from the product's vendor?

    As always, law is stranger than common sense suggests, so nothing is certain. Hell, not even all lawyers can agree on things, or we wouldn't have lawsuits.
  • by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:18PM (#20732073) Journal
    Judge: "So who are you suing exactly?"
    Video Professor: "Anonymous."
    Judge: "Uh, clerk, who exactly is 'Anonymous?'"
    Clerk: "Well Your Honor, I read slashdot and the only 'Anonymous' I know are cowards."
    Video Professor: "They certainly are!"
    Judge: "Would 'Anonymous' please stand and be recognized by the court."
    One soul stands...
    Clerk: "Please sit down CowboyNeal."
    • by _Sprocket_ (42527)
      "I am CowboyNeal!"

      "I am CowboyNeal!"

      "I am Sparticus!"

      "Psst... it's 'CowboyNeal.'"

      "Oh... right. I am CowboyNeal?"

      "And I'm his friend Jesus!"

      (groan)
  • For linking to a blog that linked to a blog that linked to the actual complaint.

    Once I finally got to the pot of gold at the end of the blog rainbow, it looks to my non-lawyer eye as if he has no case. Seems like just another SLAPP suit to me. Is he really claiming that a company can become immune to criticism by simply trademarking its name? Come on.

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:24PM (#20732161)
    Did some research to see about getting some video tutorial stuff for basic computer use for elder family members. I knew about them from the ads but I didn't know about the bad until I started googling the name. Just take a look at the wiki entry on them:

    For CD-ROM lessons, Video Professor uses a continuity sales model,[5] similar to the model for mail order book clubs. The subscription is started when a customer orders a tutorial on a subject of their chosing. This tutorial is often free except for shipping and handling. The customer then periodically receives other tutorials on subjects chosen by Video Professor automatically, until the subscription is cancelled. The cost ranges from $60-90 per tutorial.

    For online lessons, the same lessons are provided to the customer through streaming media. These lessons are billed on a per-month basis; access to all lessons is available for a monthly subscription fee of approximately $30.

    The company has been criticized[6] for its CD-ROM sales and advertising practice. Some complaints center on an alleged lack of clarity regarding the nature of the continuity sales model and the "free" CD-ROM, and in perceived difficulty in contacting the company for refunds. Others are based on the lack of choice the customer has in subsequent offerings. The company says that such complaints are rare, and promptly resolved. As of September 2007, the company has a "Satisfactory" rating by the Better Business Bureau.
    Reading between the lines here, you can see how badly such a system can be abused. The online accounts I read about their business practices marked them as quite worrisome.
  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:26PM (#20732207)
    Let's suppose VP sued you, and you fought them, and you won. As far as the USA legal is concerned, everything is just fine - you won, justice was served. Nevermind that the time, cost, and inconvenience of the lawsuit is far more the lawsuit was worth - the US legal system does not take that into account.

    This is why SLAPP suits are so popular. Major corporations know that average citizens don't have a chance against them in court - it's just a matter of money. This huge loophole also makes extortion essentially legal for companies like scox. This also makes it easy for companies like msft to abuse the system for the "chilling effect."

    It seems to me that as long as the legal leaves the doors wide open to such abuse, the the abuses will continue. The current system is like manna from heaven for lawyers, and vexatious litigants.

    • by Firethorn (177587)
      Personally, I think part of the 'you're out of legal fees' is a deterent to needing to use the court system, as everybody loses if they have to go there.

      Unfortuantly, we have a sue-happy culture here, many other countries can afford to be much nicer as their citizens are indoctrinated not to pursue suits unless absolutely necessary. This is present on both sides - the violating company or individual pays voluntarily because they know they're at fault.

      Still, award of legal fees is often part of any settleme
  • by LM741N (258038) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:26PM (#20732209)
    How to sue 10000 anonymous critics from Slashdot.
  • by Junior Samples (550792) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:28PM (#20732235)
    My wife installed some Video Professor software on my computer. The software would not uninstall normally with "Add/Remove Programs". I tried to remove the piece of crap manually, but some of the files wouldn't delete. The OS hasn't been acting the same ever since. I will probably end up reinstalling the OS to get the machine working properly again.

    So be warned, Video professor software may contain malware or even a root kit. Symantec AV and Ad-Aware didn't find anything, nevertheless, a problem still remains.
  • Worse yet (Score:5, Funny)

    by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:29PM (#20732241) Homepage Journal
    ...Video Professor isn't available in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I mean really, what's up with that?
  • SLAPP [wikipedia.org] the professor up side of the head with a PR/legal cluestick.
  • I remember someone (I think it was John Dvorak on TWIT) saying that these guys are not primarily in the technical education business. Their core business is assembling and selling mailing lists.
  • My daughter knows more about the legal system than Video Professor does, and she's three and a half.
  • That is says like pretty much everyone else, in their commercial something to the effect: "try a free lesson, you will receive other lessons every month on such topics as ... . If you don't like the trial lesson, simply return it free of charge." The singlar on the free should imply that this is a subscription and the rest will cost you. Just like magazines, time life music collections, etc, etc.

    I'm not saying I like the sales technique, just that it is common and it should go without saying that a compan

  • Anyone else remember the adds where the mustachioed Video Professor guy used to come on the screen saying "Just use my CD RAM and you'll be on your way," all the while holding up a CD ROM containing his course? I used to think, is he ignorant? Is that a crazy accented pronunciation of "ROM"? WTF? I've never known anyone who's used one of these either. Interesting.
  • by mhollis (727905) on Monday September 24, 2007 @02:50PM (#20733587) Journal

    The Video Professor ought not to worry about his reputation. People who need his videos don't know how to get on the Internet to read the reviews in the first place.

    On his front page, he has a link on how to learn the Internet (2004!) [videoprofessor.com] for the people who are so confused that they actually used the Internet to find out how to learn the Internet. Of course he's prepared to show you the Internet of three years ago because the new, modern Internet might be too much for his clientèle to handle (sarcasm intended).

  • Anonymous is Ted Danson
  • The company's lawsuit claims that the griping posters violated federal trademark laws by saying negative things about the company,

    There's no trademark law that says people cannot say negative things about your company or products if you register a trademark. A trademark simply reserves the trademark for your commercial use. It is also restricted to an area of business. Someone does not violate trademark law unless the products can reasonably be confused with another product. This prevents some jerk f

A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do. -- Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...