Video Professor Sues 100 Anonymous Critics 261
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.
Calling all lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Anybody smell a class action lawsuit?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
instructions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anybody smell a class action lawsuit? (Score:3, Funny)
I predict the class will be awarded a voucher for a free credit report courtesy of freecreditreport.com.
Re:Calling all lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have thought that the issues raised by this are a lot more important (especially given that he has shut down blogs belonging to MP's, a candidate for Mayor of London [guardian.co.uk] etc.), but Slashdot is too US centric to care about what happens across the Atlantic (even though you can be sued for libel in the UK, if just one person in Britain views your website based anywhere in the world - so slashdot better not libel me!).
That's interesting stuff (Score:2)
Re:Calling all lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about the stupidest thing that Video Professor could do. They just got some PR that they didn't need.
I don't know... sometimes any publicity is good publicity. Really. In America today, there are so many lawsuits that most people won't remember who or why Video Professor sued, but they'll remember that Video Professor does computer training videos!
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to screw (Score:2)
Re:The right to screw (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The right to screw (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The right to screw (Score:4, Informative)
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.)
Re:The right to screw (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The right to screw (Score:4, Funny)
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.
read the complaint, please. (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:read the complaint, please. BEWARE! (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, let's assume she was actually guilty and the fine was appropriate.
Is it really fair to saddle her with such a disproportionate level of compensation that she'll never be able to repay?
What about the reverse, wherein the little old lady is incapable of protecting her IP from being stolen by a larger organization because of millions of dollars of stalling and diversionary tactics?
No, what we need is a "stupid pays" system. Where an omniscient overlord assigns legal costs to the party that acted stupid or maliciously.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I think those shows (her, and Wapner, et. al) actually pay the parties out of a kitty based on judges ruling, then whatever is left over is split between them...
Re: (Score:2)
(Only because you assumed she was guilty in your example).
Maybe the stupid laws should be attacked rather than a defense based on personality/person. I don't want to see little old ladies becoming hitmen just because society deems them immune from the law.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Man, I do! Or, at least, I want to see the movie. Finally, a good reason for a Golden Girls reunion! (And, yes, they are all still alive, though Estelle Getty is apparently in extremely poor health.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if a big company sues an individual, and wins, the loser is only liable for as much as they themselves spent on the case. I think it would encourage parties in a lawsuit to spend amounts more equitably, unless one side is absolutely convinced they will be successful.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try my product (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(which, by the way, there is no plural for the word 'PRODUCT' either)
--
Learn the computer.
In 20 easy minutes,
three times a week!
Disproving the notion... (Score:2, Funny)
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Movies, sure, some kids shows on DVD, but no broadcast/cable/sat tv.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't claim to watch no TV at all but I do see very little relative to most people I know. There aren't any shows on at present that I specifically take the time to watch and I only flip the thing on when I'm bored, which isn't often.
This keeps me from bringing up the subject of TV very often, and in the few cases where other people do I tend to just nod and agree. Once in a while people will want to know if I saw a particular episode of a particular show: "Did you see
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just using a small sample size to argue post factum supporting your own preconcieved notions and intellectual pomposity.
Whatever you're doing to avoid TV doesn't seem to be any better.
Re: (Score:2)
bittorrent, of course! the good part is those nice pirates cut the commercials out for you.
I hope their lawyer . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We don't have time for a handjob right now, Joe.
It's not just about the "free" CDs either. (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't sound like a company I'd do business with. Ever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
those are great to defend (Score:3, Insightful)
hawk
Hey, Doctor... (Score:5, Funny)
The countermeasure: disposable credit card numbers (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb (Score:2)
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
I wonder if (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Please.... (Score:3, Funny)
don't try my product.
Only on TV Adds. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look online for reviews?! (Score:3, Insightful)
OK let me get this straight... (Score:2)
this is why we have tort law (Score:3, Informative)
"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)
Re:this is why we have tort law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:this is why we have tort law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
logic flaw much? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Does anybody really think that's an improvement?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:this is why we have tort law (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I also never complain about war, crime, poverty, disease, or dictatorships. If it's old, it must be good!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
SLAPP (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
"I am CowboyNeal!"
"I am Sparticus!"
"Psst... it's 'CowboyNeal.'"
"Oh... right. I am CowboyNeal?"
"And I'm his friend Jesus!"
(groan)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks slashdot (Score:2)
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.
I've neard not so good things about them (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Is the USA legal system broken? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
His next DVD (Score:3, Funny)
Video Professor Software May Contain Malware (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The actual software was not developed or copyrighted by Video Professor. When I originally encountered the problem, I had the impression that Video Professor got a good deal on a truck load of buggy CDs that had been scrapped by the original supplier because of the problems I described. That's why they were giving it away. In this case, Video pr
Worse yet (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like somebody needs to ... (Score:2)
Confusion about their core business (Score:2)
go back to law school (Score:2)
I seem to remember (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying I like the sales technique, just that it is common and it should go without saying that a compan
Ahh, the memories. (Score:2)
He needn't worry (Score:5, Funny)
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).
Identity (Score:2)
Trademark Infringement? (Score:2)
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