Video Professor Sues 100 Anonymous Critics

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.

Comments

Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Calling all lawyers

[b1gk1tty]

My Aunt got one of these video's once. She returned it after a couple of weeks... she could figure out how to put it into the computer. I didn't come with any instructions.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't come with any instructions, either.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

"She returned it after a couple of weeks..."

At least she got one. I ordered the Stage 1, Gentoo version of Video Professor and it never arrived!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

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? Oh, you are so going to be sued!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Sczi]

Are you joking? Do they really make a gentoo video?! I thought it was all ultra basic? Bah, bevermind, I looked it up.. heh, now I see what you did there!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[feed_me_cereal]

You should seriously consider returning you.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[the_womble]

They just got some PR that they didn't need.

Just like Alisher Usmanov just found out, in Britain, when hundreds of bloggers posted the story he was trying to suppress.

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 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!).

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Dekortage]

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!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Only against people using the word automagically. It's not barely even a vaguely cromulant word.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[dissy]

snip ... so slashdot better not libel me! /me libels the wombie

take that!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Jello B.]

I'm still compiling it!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[VGPowerlord]

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!

You know, I'd probably just ignore any summons you send me if I'm not a citizen of the UK and my website is hosted in a country other than the UK.

You see, since neither myself or my web host are located in the UK, we're not subject to the UK's laws.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, look how well it's worked out for SCO!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[thatnerdguy]

I don't need any instructions to come, I can do it all by myself!

Alright, alright, I will now go sit in the corner while my karma takes a nose dive

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a vagina. It says there is no need to buy your product, nor The Video Professor's. Besides, who needs a computer for entertainment or to make a living, if you have one tool that does both.

I dare their lawyers to sue my vagina for defaming the Video Professor. I mean, how are they going to swear it in? "Please put your right flap on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth!" Doomed to failure, doomed, I tell you.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[angus_rg]

This sort of thing happens all the time. I should sue the idiots who fell for this. Thing is, a lack of response does not justify a bill. I got a free, 3 month subscription for play boy, with the whole, send back a note to cancel. I ignored it, got about 9 issues total, followed by a bill which I happily wrote it is illegal for you to send me a bill for something I did not consent to and guess what, I never heard from them again. Don't quote me that it is illegal, however, there is no way they will litigate for 15 bucks. And if they send it to a collection agency, and you say, I never told them to send it, they wasted their money.

Saddly, I didn't get any more magazines, which did make me rethink my strategy.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[angus_rg]

Oh yeah, I only read Play Boy for the articles.....

Re:Calling all lawyers

[blast3r]

holy crap. what a totally dumb ass move on VP's side. he needs some new lawyers and advisors. that is going to be a nightmare to his future sales!!!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

You did consent to it, dumbass. They didn't start sending you a pornographic magazine out of the blue. You had to specifically respond to an offer to receive those three free issues which told you you would be billed if you had not canceled before your three issues were sent. The reason they didn't pursue it was only because the amount of money was so small it wasn't worthwhile. Not because they were in the wrong, you were.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[MuffinSpawn]

All we need to know about your country is whether it is nationalizing it's oil industry, and whether it is strong enough to repel an invasion force so we can replace your federal government with puppets (Muppets would be better, but Paul Bremer clones are cheap). Then the "free" press in this country can tell us how much of a threat your country is so we all buy into military action...and then go shopping.

If we got the news directly from your country, how would we ever be able to keep the military industrial complex over here going? That's what keeps us rich, stupid. I mean, duh!

You silly Doctor Who loving Brits (did you see David Tennet on Graham Norton the other day? That was hilarious!). Always trying to stick a monkey wrench into our crony capitalist society. Just remember, we still have some Indians and poor people left over from the first time that we can use to kick your asses again if you start something up in here!

Re:Calling all lawyers

[J0e3gan]

Yes, Video Professor's response is unlikely to work; but reserve "stupid" for the whiners who ordered Video Professor's products. I've ordered Video Professor products for small-business clients who needed help using Office apps; and misunderstanding that a first order starts a subscription for more courses is impossible, barring serious fatigue, intoxication etcetera. ...no different than BMG's or Columbia's CD, VHS, or DVD subscriptions; and, similarly, there are always idiots who whine that BMG or Columbia "entrapped" them too. Verdict: Video Professor is fine, and idiot whiners pervade.

Re:Calling all lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue is important to consumers! This is a draconian attack on the very foundation of the First Amendment Speech. An entity or a person with 'deep' pockets believes he can suppress Free Speech through financial intimidation is no different than a foreign junta or a dictatorial regime arresting their opponents for their expression of free speech through military or police action.

Can you imagine where this would lead? Let's warp this ahead in time and say that Video Professor is successful in his suit against the defendants in this case. According to an article in the Denver Post, he promises to take this all the way up to the Supreme Court. Would this not have a chilling effect on every negative review of a product, movie, politician, corporate business practice, restaurant, movie etc.? Could not this open the legal floodgates for anyone who has received a negative review claiming the same cause for libel and defamation? I would lead you to another similar celebrated case being fought against a book review at various places on the web.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1546,PZ-Myers-sued-for-a-negative-review-in-a-blog-post,Boing-Boing or

Here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/20/writer-sued-for-a-ne.html.

Here:

http://www.angiegotsued.com/

Would this not suppress every critic out there or limit their comments in a fog of possible litigation?

The bottom line is this. Can a person or a corporate entity who has unlimited financial and legal resources be able to use the judicial system to suppress the Free Speech of outspoken critics who he KNOWS does not have access to those same resources? Litigation in the court system is expensive.

A lawyer can bury the other side in paperwork with legal tactics and strategies using depositions, interrogatories, subpoenas, delays, appeals etc. There is no way that the average consumer has the economic resources to legally fight such a strategy and they knows this. So in effect, they are able silence their critics by De Facto litigation. However, the chilling aftermath of all this is a suppression of the basic First Amendment Rights and Consumer Advocacy.

In the W. R.Grace & Co in the Woburn case and in Libby, Montana, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/grace03.shtml. Didn't Jan Schlichtmann's Law Firm end up in bankruptcy?

These cases do not merit the free speech dicussion above but only shows how corporations and individuals can use the legal system to advance or protect their business practices from consumers.

Of course

[ls -la]

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?

Re:Of course

[jrmcc]

Here is another example of why we need a "loser-pays" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loser_pays system in US courts.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

'Here is another example of why we need a "loser-pays"'

I wonder if settling a case before judgment counts as a loser for one of the parties in this system? What if some Mega-Corp goes after some Small-Fry and by pure wealth is able to get Small-Fry to concede or they go bankrupt. That would be even more incentive for Mega-Corps to go after Small-Frys. Free litigation.

Re:Of course

[zippthorne]

That's ridiculous. Suppose some large IP-holding organization sues a sweet old lady for copyright infringement, and manages to, through sheer force of millions of dollars in lawyer-time, convince a court that she's guilty of a couple thousand dollars in infringement?

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:Of course

[sdnoob]

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".

Re:Of course

[jellomizer]

Of course there are also trade offs. Because there are a lot of people with legit grievances but still still end up loosing the case. There is the intent of the law and the words in the law, many times they are in confect with loopholes in the wording that allows people to follow the law exactly as written but not as how it was meant. Also there is often room for interpretation of the Law. Or circumstances in the law that makes it invalid or unfair. So if someone wanted to sue someone for a legit reason and after a lot of debate you loose. Having you pay the other sides Legal Fees isn't always fair because the outcome really isn't cut dry.

Also by removing fees from winner can cause a negative repercussions where people can use legal battles to hurt people far more then what is legally considered fare. For example say a man mugged me or a company failed to pay me for quality work, I press charges hire the most expensive lawyers as possible just so after I win the case because I was 99.9% sure I would win I could financially devastate my opponent, just perhaps because he was stupid enough to loose some paperwork.

Re:Of course

[Time_Ngler]

We just need a little old lady exception clause, and we're fine

Re:Of course

[Algorithmnast]

Oh. Well I'm an omniscent overlord.... </humor>

Re:Of course

[i.r.id10t]

Judge Judy!

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:Of course

[rolfwind]

Let's say a little old Lady kills someone. Is it really fair to prosecute and throw her in jail where she'll die alone instead of being free and with her friends/family?

(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:Of course

[a-zarkon!]

The problem is that anyone with common sense enough to be qualified for the Omniscient Overlord position would wisely not want any part of that job. I'm pretty sure that type of gig would probably draw the same ilk that seem drawn to politics and law.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome you.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Where an omniscient overlord...

Hail, Bush!

Re:Of course

[jrmcc]

IANAL but isn't that the current strategy of many current deep pocket organizations? (MAFIAA?) Loser pays makes weak cases less attractive to bring but strong cases less attractive to defend against. There needs to be consequence when any person or organization tries to misuse the judicial system to punish competition or opposition.

Re:Of course

[Anarke_Incarnate]

RMS? You DID come. I knew if I built a hideous brown themed slashdot area, you'd finally arrive.

Re:Of course

[Babbster]

I don't want to see little old ladies becoming hitmen just because society deems them immune from the law.

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:Of course

[rabbit994]

One would hope that it would be "reasonable" lawyer fees only. If you sued me because I screwed and I knew it and you got some high priced attorney, I would quickly settle to minimize fees. Also, if I knew you could do that, I'm likely to work with you when you bring original claim to my attention before you go get the lawyers.

Re:Of course

[A nonymous Coward]

I would guess that who pays is part of the settlement negotiations.

Re:Of course

[LindaMack]

For someone not from the US, the last sentence in the parent sums up what's one of the biggest flaws in the US legal system. IANAL but as far as I know, most of the industrialized countries have indeed the "stupid pays" system, and there you see much less of the "evil corporation spends millions to crush opponent with litigation costs". For the simple reason that in these countries an evil corp would just be shooting itself in its foot.

Re:Of course

[debrain]

No, what we need is a "stupid pays" system. Where an omniscient overlord assigns legal costs to the party that acted stupid or maliciously. Many jurisdictions have this in the form of costs. As the loser is likely to have to pay the costs of opposing counsel's litigation, it discourages frivolous or vexatious litigation, and encourages more efficient, non-judicial resolution.

Re:Of course

[sgt scrub]

Personally I welcome the new omniscient stupidity assigning overlords.

Re:Of course

[Toonol]

My favorite version of 'loser pays' is that the loser is liable for legal fees, up to the lesser of the amounts either party paid.

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:Of course

[Hoi Polloi]

We already do this with children. We have different standards for kids in court. I don't see us being overrun with pint-size hitmen (except for a very angry Gary Coleman).

Re:Of course

[fwarren]

More like if you bring a suit and lose, you have to pay the other sides costs. Possibly at a judge or juries discrestion.

Re:Of course

[redcaboodle]

You can get around this by standardising lawyers fees.
In Germany there is a catalogue - mainly written by the lawyers association - on how much a lawyer may take for a particular action. Court costs in civil courts depend on the agreed value of whatever is at stake.
Since last year, attorneys and clients may agree to different fees but the court does not have to grant more than standard fees without compelling reason.

Re:Of course

[Algorithmnast]

Ah - no. I'm not RMS. I was really trying to be funny with the omni-scent pun (many-smells).

Oh well... not my year to be funny. Well it wasn't last year either, but statistically I'm much closer to saying something funny!

I'm sure to be funny by the time Arthur C. Clarke's frozen man is found! Shame I'll be dead by then...

Re:Of course

[Mr Z]

That actually makes some amount of sense, then. Otherwise, whoever has the most expensive lawyers puts up even a larger barrier to being sued, as so many others have pointed out.

I guess if you just want to weed out frivolous lawsuits, you could go halfway to a plaintiff-pays-if-he-loses type of system.

--Joe

Re:Of course

[Sj0]

Actually, there are lots of bad apples who know full well they won't be held accountable for their actions and thus rain hell upon unfortunate innocents.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800077580/info

Re:Of course

[Pollardito]

My favorite version of 'loser pays' is that the loser is liable for legal fees, up to the lesser of the amounts either party paid.

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. it seems like it would also encourage lawyers to file even more frivolous lawsuits on behalf of themselves. "oh, i paid myself nothing, sorry"

Video Professor sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the worst company at whatever it is they do. Seriously, they suck balls.

Re:Video Professor sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

now that is a scary image.

please... try my balls.

Try my product

[JoelKatz]

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.

Re:Try my product

[Applekid]

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.

Re:Try my product

[texaport]

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!

Re:Try my product

[Anonymous Coward]

(which, by the way, there is no plural for the word 'PRODUCT' either)

Were you trying to type gibberish on purpose?

Re:Try my product

[gangien]

Your use of the letters J, O, K, A, T, Z in your name, causes me to hate you :P

Re:Try my product

[UbuntuDupe]

It's part of the whole trend to make products and ideas sound more complicated than they really are. See: the tendency of people to say "price point" instead of "price", regardless of the lack of additional information it provides.

When it comes to the term "product", I'd say the most annoying offenders are lenders. (eek, rhyme) They can't talk about the different mortgages they offer -- no, that would be too appropriate to the simplicity of what they do. They have to talk about the different "loan products" they sell. Not a loan, nay, a loan product. (And don't even get me started on their bastardization of the term "interest rate", which they equate with "payment rate".)

Re:Try my product

[JoelKatz]

There's this radio ad I manage to hear at least 18 times a day. It's for a mortgage, which is bad enough by itself, but it contains lots of ponderous phrases designed to do nothing but make the speaker sound more important.

"If you were aware of a financial instrument that permitted you to lock in low rates but still retain the ability to modify your payment schedules if your financial circumstances were to change, wouldn't you want to take advantage of that financial instrument?"

The other thing that annoys me are ads that don't tell you the price of the product. This comes in two basic forms:

1) The car ad. "Just $199 per month for 36 months with $2,447 due at signing." No interest rate is ever disclosed. Okay, so how much is the car?

2) The salad shooterish late night TV ad. "Just $29.99 plus postage and handling, send your check or money order to ..." Umm, okay, how much do I make the check or money order out for? The P&H is never disclosed.

Anyway, now I have two new reasons to hate the "try my product" guy. First, he's trying to use legal means to silence people who don't like his business practices. Second, he's selling a product that nobody has any use for. Does anybody need random educational CDs sent to them at full price? "Oh, great, an introduction to Powerpoint. Too bad I don't have Powerpoint." "Look, it's 'Windows Paint and You'. Too bad I'm a whiz at Photoshop."

Re:Try my product

[complete loony]

That guy uses the words "that guy" more times in a single post that most people do all month. God I hate that guy!

Oh wait...

Re:Try my product

[Copid]

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.

What's even creepier is watching any documentary that shows food manufacturing (snack foods, etc.). The manufacturing people are conditioned to refer to whatever they're creating as "the product" which is a little upsetting when you consider it's something for people to eat.

And of course, there was our recent company meeting when one of the senior executives from corporate came down to give us a pep talk and tell us what a great job we were doing and kept referring to us as "resources." Nothing says "we value you" like being referred to the same way people refer to office supplies.

Disproving the notion...

[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!

[kbob88]

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!

Re:Great!

[DogDude]

You should consider turning off your TV. I did years ago, and I haven't seen a single TV ad ever since! It's better than adblock! Not only does it "block" the ads, but it also "blocks" all of the shit that passes for TV programming these days!

Re:Great!

[D'Sphitz]

*clap* i'm really happy for you. If you haven't watched tv in years, how do you know all tv programming is shit nowadays? (as opposed to 10 years ago when it was all great, or what?)

Re:Great!

[giorgiofr]

Oh it's easy, he does just like me, he hears all about it from the boring people around him.

Re:Great!

[networkBoy]

You wouldn't believe the weird looks I get from co-workers when I tell them I don't watch TV.
Movies, sure, some kids shows on DVD, but no broadcast/cable/sat tv.
-nB

Re:Great!

[DogDude]

Like the other guy says... sheeple are always talking about what kind of crap they watched recently. Also, even supposedly decent online magazines, like Slate, are just filled with TV reviews. I know it's there. I even know what's on. I just choose not to watch it.

Re:Great!

[eln]

I'd imagine the weird looks they give you probably translate to something like "oh great, here comes that pretentious ass who always hovers over our conversations waiting for a chance to mention he doesn't watch TV."

Re:Great!

[Dionysus]

You're this guy, aren't you?

Re:Great!

[Hijacked Public]

Actually, the reverse is true for me.

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 the Seinfeld where the guy couldn't find his pants?". When I tell them I haven't they'll ask about the week before, and before that, and when they are met with negative responses to all of those they assume I'm some kind of pretentious ass who thinks I'm better than them because I don't watch much TV.

You people are the ones who bring it up.

Re:Great!

[giorgiofr]

Heh. I am not pretentious about not watching TV, especially because it is not some moral high ground or anything, I simply prefer going out with friends or doing just about anything else than watching TV and I find nothing interesting is ever on. If I want some quality cinema I can simply use a DVD. But really, when you stop watching TV you realize that so many people spend so much time not only watching but even discussing it and it seems to be such a big waste to me. Anyway I keep quite a low profile about this, sometimes I am left out of the conversation and that's it. OK, in those cases I feel some smugness.
Some time ago a coworker asked me about some piece of hardware to watch TV on his notebook while away camping. I mean, come on.

Re:Great!

[djdavetrouble]

*clap* i'm really happy for you. If you haven't watched tv in years, how do you know all tv programming is shit nowadays? (as opposed to 10 years ago when it was all great, or what?)

bittorrent, of course! the good part is those nice pirates cut the commercials out for you.

Re:Great!

[jedidiah]

That's no good. Boring people watch boring TV.

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:Great!

[rastoboy29]

I used to think they might have some useful purpose, but now I'll warn my clients that if they use them, they'll get sued if they criticize the product in public.

True enough, isn't it?

I hope their lawyer . . .

[rev_sanchez]

got his or her legal education from a series of DVDs.

Re:I hope their lawyer . . .

[GungaDan]

I got mine at the Costco.

Re:I hope their lawyer . . .

[zerocool^]

We don't have time for a handjob right now, Joe.

It's not just about the "free" CDs either.

[morgan_greywolf]

One guy, from this link in TFA, 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:It's not just about the "free" CDs either.

[Bobartig]

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.

Re:It's not just about the "free" CDs either.

[Andrewkov]

That happened to me, but I don't remember ordering the damn pills in the first place!

Re:It's not just about the "free" CDs either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't sound like a company I'd do business with. Ever.

Make that 101 critics being sued.

Well...

[RealGrouchy]

If they didn't have a bad experience with Video Professor before, they sure will now!

- RG>

I wonder if

[zappepcs]

November's DVD of the month is "how to create your own legal pleadings" with Video Professor's MS-Office accessories training 'product' ?

Re:I wonder if

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, maybe SCO would still have been in business if Darl had that DVD...

The right to screw

[Skreech]

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.

Re:The right to screw

[ShieldW0lf]

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.

Re:The right to screw

[RobertLTux]

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:The right to screw

[muindaur]

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.)

Re:The right to screw

[muindaur]

Minor correction: at the end of the second to last sentence the wording should be "not completely disclosed." I forgot to remove "spelled" after I changed the wording and missed it in the preview.

Re:The right to screw

[plover]

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.

Don't you think the circumstances are somehow different when it's an education company aimed at selling their product to complete and total idiots? I mean in order to buy one of those discs, you've pretty much ducked under the sign that reads "YOU MUST BE --THIS STUPID-- TO ORDER". So given that his clientèle has already demonstrated an inability to read the large print, there's virtually no chance they'll be able to read the fine print. Isn't this akin to swindling vulnerable adults?

Re:The right to screw

[Epistax]

I say fraud. I got suckered in by the freecreditreport.com people. TV ad--hell even the URL make it implicit that you will not be charged. Of course the fine print reversed that but I do not think that should be allowed.

I am tired of asshole marketing. I think that implying something untrue, uncertain, or untested in an advertisement should be extremely illegal. I don't see it as being any different than straight lying.

Re:The right to screw

[slazzy]

Personally, I think the fine print should be on all their advertisements (which it's not) and they should also have it in large, easy to read print for those visually impaired on the order page. If not, it should be considered fraud. However, that is my opinion, not the law...

Re:The right to screw

[ChaoticLimbs]

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.

Re:The right to screw

[ChaoticLimbs]

Something I could point out is that you're saying his business is legitimate because it's like a record club, about the worst and least popular businesses ever conceived on this planet. You might as well compare him to gypsy fortune tellers, who are infinitely more popular and much more honest about their services. Most of those subscription based scams require you to cancel, but post no phone number on their correspondence and when they do, it's never answered and has no voicemail. This has been argued numerous times in court over numerous businesses' practices. Many are magazine subscription companies and record clubs.

Re:The right to screw

[ShieldW0lf]

Don't know what you're going on about.

I was in the book club when I was a teenager, and I got a ton of good hardcover books for next to nothing. Still have them on the bookshelf behind me. They were really, really good deals.

My cousin signed up for the CD club 3 times, once in his own name, once in his girlfriends name, and once in his mothers name.

He made out like a bandit... get the freebies, pay for the ones you need to buy at a fair and reasonable price, send them a letter saying you want to cancel, then they send you a better offer than the original signup deal to entice you to stay. They used to do that 3 times per person before they would decide you weren't worth keeping on as a customer and stopped offering sweetheart deals.

If you were too lazy and irresponsible to actually be involved in the process, you might end up buying things you didn't particularly want, but that's no one elses fault.

Re:The right to screw

[tsm_sf]

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.

Re:The right to screw

[Belial6]

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.

Re:The right to screw

[darthsheep]

I have a personal experience with Video Professor (don't ask, let's just say it doesn't involve trying to learn anything on the computer). I asked for my TWO! free videos on two separate occasions. Neither of them reached my apartment. In trying to cancel my membership (they took over a month so I called), they stated that they could not cancel it until I received my discs and could then send them back to the company. They made sure my address was correct, it was. They then extended my free viewing trial by a month each. They still didn't arrive at my apartment in the newly extended trial period. I was then subsequently charged $65 for each disc when that period was up. That adds up to $140 with the S&H for two discs I never received. It took about 6 calls to video professor to get my charges returned back to me and an upwards of 45 days from the time they charged me for the money to appear in my account. That's not to mention all the charges my bank account charged me because of that $140 I did not have in the account and then not being able to use my account for those two months. Thanks Video Professor! Great experience! Would recommend to everyone! A++++ tl;dr Don't defend them. Other companies with those same trial offer models were SO much easier to cancel. It seems like they were trying to get money out of me they knew they wouldn't get.

Re:The right to screw

[Tweekster]

Unless you have a 1080p with HDTV signal you can't even read the fine print.

They are fraudsters, they should be nailed under rico (hiding behind an organization to commit crimes)

Re:The right to screw

[tehcyder]

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

Was the tablet in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard"?

Re:The right to screw

[tehcyder]

I mean in order to buy one of those discs, you've pretty much ducked under the sign that reads "YOU MUST BE --THIS STUPID-- TO ORDER". So given that his clientèle has already demonstrated an inability to read the large print, there's virtually no chance they'll be able to read the fine print. Isn't this akin to swindling vulnerable adults?

It's people chucking around phrases like this which is the problem, though. In the UK, this would be criminal libel (not sure about the US).

It's one thing to say that a company is sneaky/duplicitous/unethical/Microsoft, quite another to say they are committing actual fraud.

Of course, if you can prove that what you say is true, you're OK.

Re:The right to screw

[plover]

My understanding of UK libel laws (which came from a London friend, not from any actual education or experience) is that it's still OK to "ask" the question, as I did above. I did not say they are swindling vulnerable adults. I asked if what they were doing was the same as swindling vulnerable adults. And as far as I can tell, questions on whether or not someone is breaking a law is pretty much the reason the legal system exists.

Of course, what I did do was unfavorably compare their customers to vulnerable adults. If their customers feel like suing me they might have a case, except for the part where I didn't personally identify any of them. It's really no different than claiming people who voted for Candidate X are stupid: not likely to win me friends or influence people, but hardly illegal.

Re:The right to screw

[tehcyder]

questions on whether or not someone is breaking a law is pretty much the reason the legal system exists

Don't forget the UK libel laws are a lot stricter than in the US.

It wouldn't be a great idea here to write, for instance, "I wonder if the rumours are true that [insert senior politician's name of choice] spends his weekends raping and murdering babies?" unless you had pretty conclusive evidence that it was true. The fact that you posed it as a question wouldn't be much of a defence.

Please....

[m93]

don't try my product.

Anybody smell a class action lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

I predict the class will be awarded a voucher for a free credit report courtesy of freecreditreport.com.

dirty lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I signed up for a video professor episode on how to secure my computer, and it signed me up for a bunch of gay porn filled with malware. :(

Only on TV Adds.

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:Only on TV Adds.

[pimpimpim]

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?

Shades of tSCOg

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem to be following in the path of tSCOg. Litigation for success! Wonder when the bankruptcy occurs?

In Soviet Russia..

[The Breeze]

in Soviet Russia, Video Professor sues YOU! - er, wait. That's what they're doing here. Oops. I guess the US *IS* Soviet Russia now.

Why put people in gulags when you can just bankrupt them if they foolishly insult respectable corporations?

Re:So sue me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hold back. Let's hear your real opinion.

Look online for reviews?!

[Valiss]

As someone of TFA site commented, if you know how to look for reviews online, do you really need video professor?

OK let me get this straight...

[Spy der Mann]

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.

this is why we have tort law

[SuperBanana]

"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, 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:this is why we have tort law

[Flarg!]

Hey, now! Stop trying to wreck our fun with your logic and your grubby little facts! :P

Re:this is why we have tort law

[pokerdad]

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.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[snarkh]

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.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[afabbro]

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!

Re:this is why we have tort law

[ScentCone]

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, then those same people should enjoy every bit of the punitive proceeds they can extract in a counter-suit handled by lawyers working for a cut.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[drfireman]

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 comments complaining about what looks like it could be an egregious abuse of tort law. I don't know which it is, but your post doesn't provide either evidence or argument, just a very hollow claim.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[afabbro]

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.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[kc2keo]

Mod offtopic... So easy a caveman can do it!

Re:this is why we have tort law

[iminplaya]

The court decides whether to give them a court order seeking records on their posters.

I hope you're not saying that the ISPs, bloggers, etc. should be forced to keep logs.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[taustin]

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?

Re:this is why we have tort law

[snarkh]

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

[nomadic]

Unlikely. A real lawyer would have better things to do with his time.

Ha, you'd think, huh? But yet I still find time to post on slashdot every day.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[taustin]

Courts are very willing to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. You just don't see it in the news because that kind of story doesn't sell advertising. As for awarding costs, it's generally meaningless, because filing frivolous lawsuits is usually an act of desperation by a company that's been bankrupt for a long time, and doesn't want to admit it. You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there was inter-witch-doctor FUD in neolithic times.

And you have personal experience to back this up?

For someone who wants a bunch of preciseyness (yes, it's a word, starting today), you sure seem to have a pretty loose-ass way of backing up your own argument. Bet you couldn't prevail on that statement in tort court, assuming a neolithic witch doctor were to come forward with a claim of libel.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[ScentCone]

>>I'm sure there was inter-witch-doctor FUD in neolithic times.

And you have personal experience to back this up?

Why yes, yes I do. Some of my relatives are neolithic witch doctors, you insensitive clod.

Re:this is why we have tort law

[tehcyder]

It's not up to a bunch of yahoos on the interbutt

Best short definition of /. I've ever seen.

Hey, Doctor...

[XanC]

My, uh, "friend" has this problem, see. What should I^H he do about it?

Re:Hey, Doctor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from your ^H there, I think you need my Video Aggressor's "Shit, This Ain't vi?" video. So when you're untangled with that dude's stuff, try MY product!

SLAPP

[Orange Crush]

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:SLAPP

[Firethorn]

Considering that they're suing over bad reviews, it certainly sounds like SLAPP applies.

Re:SLAPP

[Jane Q. Public]

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 SLAPP, since reviews are a perfectly legitimate use of trademarks, so that would be an abuse of the law on the part of Video Professor in order to stifle comment.

Re:SLAPP

[arth1]

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.

Re:SLAPP

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:SLAPP

[ChaoticLimbs]

But it IS a public issue. Consumers have a right to tell one another of their experience with retailers, manufacturers and service providers. It's called Reputation. If VPI thinks their reputation has been harmed, they are indirectly acknowledging that people talk about businesses, and that it's a key part of success in business. They're saying they don't like their "reputation" and seek court relief from the fact that some of their clients are dissatisfied. That is ridiculous.

read the complaint, please.

[SuperBanana]

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 countersuit(s), and potential fallout (ie negative publicity and such.)

Even if you sue someone, the court isn't going to just hand you a big check because you say "they made up shit about us!"; you have to prove that the claims were false and malicious to qualify for libel.

Re:read the complaint, please.

[keraneuology]

Given that legal action is fairly expensive

Legal action is disproportionately less expensive when you have an on-staff attorney who isn't billing you by the hour than when you can't afford such a luxury and have to contract out the work.

As for the "potential fallout (ie negative publicity and such)", corporations commonly don't care. Their goal is to WIN the case, pyrrhic victories being not only acceptable but bonus/raise/promotion worthy to boot.

IANAL, but,,,

[mr_mischief]

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.

Interesting...

[Capt James McCarthy]

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."

Re:Interesting...

[_Sprocket_]

"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)

Re:Interesting...

[slacktide]

Anonymous is Legion, and Anonymous does not forgive.

Re:Interesting...

[sconeu]

I'm CowboyNeal and so's my wife!

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

nor do we forget.

Re:Interesting...

[antonymous]

Wow, that was a close one...I thought these guys were taking it to the next level - suing me via slashdot!

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clerk: "You there, in the tuxedo and afro wig. I sure hope that's your daughter."
Anonymous: "Tits or GTFO."

Re:Interesting...

[darkmeridian]

http://www.abovethelaw.com/anthony_ciolli/

The administrator of a law student forum was sued by two Yale Law School students who claimed they were harassed and defamed by posts on the site. The problem is that none of the posters aside from the administrator had a real name. Furthermore, it looks like the site never kept IP logs except to stop mass-postings so there is nothing to subpoena. There's a real question as to whether the law can require websites to maintain IP logs and whether there is a right to online anonymity.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

this thread needs more desu

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous has the attention span of a drunk 5 year old.

jus saying..

Thanks slashdot

[Mr. Underbridge]

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

[jollyreaper]

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.

Is the USA legal system broken?

[walterbyrd]

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.

Re:Is the USA legal system broken?

[Firethorn]

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 settlement where the defendent was particularly bad.

His next DVD

[LM741N]

How to sue 10000 anonymous critics from Slashdot.

Video Professor Software May Contain Malware

[Junior Samples]

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.

Re:Video Professor Software May Contain Malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Update: Video Professor Sues 100 Anonymous Critics and Junior Samples.

Re:Video Professor Software May Contain Malware

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds exactly like the type of FUD that these lawsuits are trying to put back in the bottle...

Can you prove your statement, or are you simply being libelous?

Expect to hear from lawyers......

{captcha unjust}

Re:Video Professor Software May Contain Malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Um....can you please post your address so that my lawyers can sent the subpoena to you?

Thanks,
Video Professor

Re:Video Professor Software May Contain Malware

[djdbass]

I'm sure the entire slashdot-reading computer-illiterate community shall heed your warning.

Re:Video Professor Software May Contain Malware

[Junior Samples]

I have the original Video Professor CD, and the computer that's been compromised. I also have a lawyer and will likely $profit if they want to pursue the matter.

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 professor appears to be a reseller of outdated or defective software, and not the author.

Worse yet

[British]

...Video Professor isn't available in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I mean really, what's up with that?

Re:Worse yet

[stevesh6]

It is, however, available on 5 1/4 floppies.

You are bastards, sue me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours AC.

Sounds like somebody needs to ...

[the_rajah]

SLAPP the professor up side of the head with a PR/legal cluestick.

Confusion about their core business

[tetranz]

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.

go back to law school

[amrust]

My daughter knows more about the legal system than Video Professor does, and she's three and a half.

Re:go back to law school

[Anonymous Coward]

My daughter knows more about the legal system than Video Professor does, and she's three and a half. :-)

amrust, it seems your daughter has gained unauthorised access to your slashdot account and is using it to fling insults around.

Spammity spam, wonderful spam!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ! Multi-level blog spam - pure genius! Digg must be green with envy. How long before there is actually no story, just spam?

Gotta love spam:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5627694446211716271

VIdeo 'master'?

[my_left_nut]

It sounds like our video "professor" is acting more like the video master. Can I get sued for saying that?

Anonymous Critics?

[rcrush]

If they are Anonymous how is Video Professor going to sue them? I must be missing something.

Re:Anonymous Critics?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be under the mistaken impression that anonymity exists on the Intarweb. Typically, unless you've gone to considerable length, even "anonymous" postings are quite traceable with blunt legal instruments.

Re:Anonymous Critics?

[91degrees]

You sue them, and discover who it is you're actually suing in discovery. You can subpoena the website to provide logs, then get the names behind the IP addresses from the ISP. But all this requires a lawsuit upfront. Something liek that anyway. IANAL.

I seem to remember

[ILongForDarkness]

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 company will charge you somehow for their services. Plus, if the customer is dumb enough to give them their credit card number for something they thought was free, they don't pass the "reasonible individual" test that litigation requires.

Re:I seem to remember

[UnCivil Liberty]

>> Plus, if the customer is dumb enough to give them their credit card number for something they
>> thought was free, they don't pass the "reasonible individual" test that litigation requires.

I'd presume the guise they use to get your credit card info is for payment for the shipping and handling of the "free" first disc, then they charge that card for additional discs.

Re:I seem to remember

[ChaoticLimbs]

Our company is really quite similar. I'm an involuntary anal sex specialist. We lure the customer in with our amazing pitch. It goes like this:
Free handjob! That's right, one free handjob, all you have to do is buy our specialist one drink! Every month thereafter, you'll receive a new sex act. If you don't like it, we will refund your money. Just call our 1-900 number to cancel, wait forty minutes on the phone listening to the phone ring while we party out back in our swimming pool filled with cash, and if you successfully cancel, Little Tony won't anally rape you dry anymore.

Re:I seem to remember

[RCourtney]

I've seen advertisements for this guy too many times to count and yet I've never seen anything that says you will be automagically signed up for more products. Closest he comes is saying something to the affect of 'Why am I giving you a CD for free? Because I'm so sure you'll like my product that you'll come back for all your other computer learning needs.'

Re:I seem to remember

[ILongForDarkness]

I think your right now that I think about it. He does say that he thinks you'll come back for service. Also, isn't he the one that offers to give you $10 if you don't like it?

If there was truth in advertising

[Kierthos]

Their commercials would be:

"Are you a moron? Did you buy a computer and then say 'Now what?' Have you been known to sit in front of the monitor, drool and say 'nuuuuurrrrrr'? Then we have just the material for you! We will happily sell you DVDs of basic knowledge that you could get from any 12-year old with a functioning brain stem, but we charge you an arm and a leg for it! Come on, you obviously bought a computer for no freaking reason, so we're hoping you're just as clueless to buy our software!

Act now and we'll keep siphoning money from your bank account in easy monthly payments of $24.95!"

Ahh, the memories.

[u-bend]

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.

The countermeasure: disposable credit card numbers

[KWTm]

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."

Who needs these classes?

[Anonymous Coward]

My other question would be, who the hell needs their classes? My local library teaches computer basics in the library computer lab for free. Hell, I used to be one of their teachers.

And we never charged anyone a dime for anything related to the class.

Re:Who needs these classes?

[cayenne8]

"My other question would be, who the hell needs their classes?"

There are a LOT of stoned, drunk and/or stupid people up late at night watching infomercials.

People at that time of night and mindset....will apparently buy just about anything.

Ok..so, VP isn't just a late night ad, but, it does seem to be a product at that as that same level....

Re:Who needs these classes?

[beckerist]

oh...so THAT'S where that damned BOWFLEX came from!

Re:Who needs these classes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, Bowflex: The world's most expensive clothes hanger.

Re:Who needs these classes?

[EricTheO]

"oh...so THAT'S where that damned BOWFLEX came from!" _____________________________________________________________ Reminds me of the time Costco carried a BowFlex in our local store. When I saw the price I realized why they never tell you what it costs in the TV commercials... WAY over priced. The quality of the construction was pretty bad too. BowFlex is an example of a product where the manufacturer depends on people being to lazy to return the product once they see how overpriced and poorly made it is. You know what they say.... "If it looks to good to be true it probably is!"

Re:Who needs these classes?

[null.account]

I've never seen on in person, only on commercials/infomercials. Just out of curiosity, how much was it ?

Re:Who needs these classes?

[ckaminski]

A bowflex revolution is $1800-2400 US. An older original bowflex from $1500-$2000.

At that price, getting yourself a decent set of free weights, an incline bench and a chin-up bar is far better ROI. I have to admit though that the selectec weight system looks intriguing, but at $400, I think I'd rather have a rack of steel.

Re:Who needs these classes?

[EricTheO]

IIRC: $1,000.00 - $1,500.00 It was 2-3 years ago, so the exact details are fading. You can get a "Universal Gym" plate and cable type setup for far less, that does much more for you in a just slightly larger footprint

... Some You Tube references:

[Zymergy]

VIDEO PROFESSOR CONFESSOR - video remix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVSUtX79Og0 Here is the Demographic the products are probably aiming for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8bRdUmxWK8

How about really free multimedia learning?

[mha]

I mean free as in freedom, although the few things there are free as in beer too right now.

I started a project to build multimedia learning content. I'm actually overreaching, as you can see when reading the "About" section... anyway, here's the link: http://letexa.com/

Not sure I want any comments, there are only few courses right now and I think I have to create some more stuff for others to see what I truly want. The idea is to jointly create multimedia content, so far so good, but where it gets a little crazy is that I wish I could build an actual BUSINESS the open source way. That means we don't just produce content but also sell it, and also build (and sell, by maintaining it) a platform for other people to build and sell their content. Well, I do feel ready to get started and could use serious help, and I know it would work (if the ambitious goal doesn't one can always go back to less ambitious ones easily), but I don't feel equally ready presenting my case in short words and easy to understand terms ;-)

Video Professor

[bakamaki]

The one thing that always got to me about that John Sherer guy was how he improperly handled the CD's, laying them around and what not during his infomercials... Respect the media baby!

That's interesting stuff

[A nonymous Coward]

I wish slashdot would cover it, it is bigger than the equivalent now in the US.

Re:That's interesting stuff

[rtb61]

The one catch is that it involves sport, the haven of jock straps, so who cares in this particular forum. Hey, if this particularly nasty fellow were to give his players spiked clubs to use on the field to increase ratings, it might be considered a good way of thinning down the jock strap population.

The flip side is censorship of blogs by targeting the web host. Perhaps a civil suit by bloggers targeting web hosts might be appropriate in setting a precedent in the opposite direction. The web host is the problem, their indifference to their clients rights is the problem.

It needs to be made quite a bit more painful for a web host to willy nilly take down their clients web site at the first sight of a lawyer and blatantly infringe upon the client freedom of speech, a criminal act rather than the alternative simple civil slander.

Of course in the UK like in many other countries the difference in libel is the difference between couching statements in opinion rather than in fact, whether you believe it or not makes no difference, you have to be able to prove your statements true in you present them as facts.

Consumer Reports

[Lexor]

Of all organizations, Consumer Reports did this to me many years ago when I was in university. I wrote them a scathing letter and the nonsense stopped, at least in my mailbox... not sure if they still use these subscription tactics.

Re:So sue me!

[Anonymous Coward]

But where will he find a lawyer? /old joke

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[Culture20]

Maybe they'll send a message: "Dear Sir, your credit card number is no longer valid so we've reported you to the following credit agencies..."
Fixed that for you.

Legal Trademark Wonderings

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so my understanding of trademark law is that failure to properly enforce a trademark is tantamount to abandoning the trademark. And in this action, Video Professor is claiming that the negative reviewers are guilty of a trademark infraction.

Put aside for the moment that that's a questionable interpretation of trademark law. By their own logic, if an unauthorized review is to their reasoning a per se trademark violation, doesn't the fact that they haven't sued anyone who gave them a good review logically imply they're not properly defending their trademark? And so render their trademark unenforceable?

Re:Legal Trademark Wonderings

[gujo-odori]

By their own logic, maybe, but not according to the law. Trademark law doesn't prevent people from using the name of your product to talk about it, even if you think it does/should.

An example of a way to weaken your trademark and potentially risk losing it is someone else starts a business or product with the same name as yours (or maybe very similar; there was a charity resale boutique called Sacks Fifth Avenue (which was on 5th Avenue, I forget what city, and they were successfully sued for trademark infringement by Sak's Fifth Avenue) and in the same general market sector, and you don't do anything to prevent it.

In the Sak's case, while it gave them kind of a black eye at the time, they went ahead anyway because if they failed to enforce their trademark, no matter how noble the reason, they could have lost the ability to enforce their trademark in the future.

Re:Legal Trademark Wonderings

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Sak's case, while it gave them kind of a black eye at the time, they went ahead anyway because if they failed to enforce their trademark, no matter how noble the reason, they could have lost the ability to enforce their trademark in the future.

Speaking of black eyes, some years back a woman opened a children's clothing store in Marin County, CA. She named it Grammy Goose.

The legal worthies at Laura Scudder's took her to court for trademark infringement against their Granny Goose products. As if she were selling snacks or something similar. I believe the outcome was that the lawsuit went away when local people started a county-wide boycott against all Laura Scudder products.

I never did find out the outcome when Grand Asshole Donald Trump's piranhas went after a woman who had a ceramics shop named "You're Fired" for years before His Rectumship decided to co-opt it for the name of his unreality show.

Re:Legal Trademark Wonderings

[ChaoticLimbs]

No, mentioning a product name does not infringe trademark. Calling your product Video Professor, when you're not the actual trademark owner, would constitute trademark infringement. However, if I sold hamburgers under the name Video Professor Burgers, I would not be infringing his trademark unless he had also registered it as a trademark for food.

He needn't worry

[mhollis]

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!) 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).

Re:He needn't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked tech support for an ISP back in the dial-up days, I can vouch for the fact that getting online proves squat about a user's knowledge of the internet. Probably the best evidence of this was a question that we got at least once or twice a week...

How do I get off the internet?

Re:He needn't worry

[MillionthMonkey]

He shows off thank-you letters he gets from grateful customers, all handwritten.

Re:He needn't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked tech support for an ISP back in the dial-up days

Actually, I can't blame them. Figuring out how to disconnect the modem wasn't the most intuitive of tasks...

instructions?

[OrangeTide]

Without instructions how will we know if you're defective?

Re:instructions?

[beckerist]

3 blinking red LED's? :-) za-zing!

Re:instructions?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

I don't think those are LEDs. You might want to stop by your doctor's office as soon as possible.

Re:instructions?

[OrangeTide]

Yea. growths and tumors don't normally blink. nanobots perhaps?

those are great to defend

[hawk]

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

One of the reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one of the review pages listed in the law suit, there's certainly a lot of negatives....

Flyin' High on your dough

[TheBrutalTruth]

What do people think of this guy, based on his commercials? One of them ends with him whining and begging for you to buy his crap, err product. (Will he sue me for that?!)

I actually have had an interaction with this man. He was (maybe has by now) going to buy a plane and wanted to buy a new (used replacement in our case) interior for it before he had actually purchased his aircraft. He was in a terrible hurry to get it done, but would not believe me when I told him the interior we have is from a different, and incompatible (a Citation 500) model. I quoted him anyway, since it didn't appear (I feel bad for his assistant) that he knows planes as well as *cough* computers.

I would have never imagined enough idiots would buy his drivel to buy that man a jet. Used or not, they ain't cheap - to buy or fly. I need to start something like that, maybe: "How to post on /. - what not to do"

Of course-Home team advantage.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

Pfft! That's funny. I've lost count at how many times I've seen a slashdot post going "Sue them!".*

*Especially if "they" is on the slashdot hit list.

Identity

[TrappedByMyself]

Anonymous is Ted Danson

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[zerocool^]

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

Re:read the complaint, please. BEWARE!

[davidsyes]

"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 NOT free. What I think is going on is TVP is making money off those who do NOT return the materials AS STIPULATED/REQUIRED.

As for me, I kinda feel a little pity, and annoyance at the part:

"Won't chu buy my product? Please?" He looks sooooo sad, as if playing on the average person's sensitivity to another's plight....

logic flaw much?

[tacokill]

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. 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".

Let's be clear here: if you aren't prepared to fight back, then you will get whatever comes to you.

I am not saying it is right. I am just saying that is probably #1 on the laws of the world, universe, and everything.
Not fighting = easier target.

Re:logic flaw much?

[snarkh]

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 claims and are scared of litigation. The legal system can be thus abused to extort money/shut up opponents, etc.


Let's be clear here: if you aren't prepared to fight back, then you will get whatever comes to you.


I don't know about you, but if someone puts a gun to my head, I am giving them my money.
You have to consider risks/benefits of fighting before deciding on an action.

I would have gone to court in their position, but that is a personal choice. Also there were several complicating factors, for example, their English was not great.

Re:logic flaw much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not saying it is right. I am just saying that is probably #1 on the laws of the world, universe, and everything. Not fighting = easier target.

Are you the same butthole who, just a few posts back, was willing to stake his career on neolithic inter-witch-doctor FUD? Jesus, the intergalactic speculation from the mushrooms is rampant on slashdot today.

And, if you don't want your dick to turn purple, swell up then wither to the size of a raisin one day, you'd fucking better start referring to us as "shamans", not the pejorative "witch doctors".

Suddenly had a strange visual

[Anonymous Coward]

Video Professor Sues 100 Anonymous Critics

like, Slashdot sues 100 Anonymous Cowards ...and the jury is made up of grammar and spelling nazis, and one insensitive clod, looking forward to getting free HBO when they get sequestered in a hotel.

Re:read the complaint, please. Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you never heard of tSCOg either, have you?

Sweet Christ, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where will I go for my "Microsoft Windows 98" and "The Internet" training needs?! I upgraded to a 4x cdrom to meet the requirements to run this software, but now I don't know if I trust this guy enough to even install it. And I was just about to 'try his product'.

This was a given

[Krojack]

I didn't need 100+ people to tell me that you had to sign-up when getting the free disk.. Thats why I never bothered to get one for my parents.

Its the same for those free credit report ads that run every 15 minutes. You get the free one but at the same time are signing up for a service.

Re:This was a given

[CronoCloud]

The free credit report ads state at the end "free credit report requires subscription to triple advantage" or somesuch at the end. I don't recall VP ads having anything similar.

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[Threni]

> Maybe they'll send a message: "Dear Sir, your credit card number is no longer valid so we've reported you to the following credit agencies..."

In the UK (and hopefully in the US too) you can get a copy of your credit report, and have it changed if incorrect. In this case, you'd see them saying you ordered something with a bad credit card number, and have them remove it. They have to show that you did, in fact order something using the bad credit card number, which will be impossible.

Trademark Infringement?

[jgoemat]

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 from starting a company called 'Apple' or selling 'Apple' computers or electronic products that the consumer may think are genuine Apple products. Here the posters are merely commenting on the actual product, there is no confusion in the marketplace. Read U.S. Code Title 15 Chapter 22.

As for defamation, what is said must be false (in the U.S. at least, I don't think this is a requirement in some cases abroad like if insulting the Queen in the U.K.). If these people are lying about Video Professor, then they should get sued and the court should award damages to Video Professor. If they are not, then Video Professor should have to pay attorney's fees to all 100 of them for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

I am not a lawyer, just a person interested in the law. If you have any legal questions, consult an attorney.

Re:Trademark Infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

This prevents some jerk from starting a company called 'Apple' or selling 'Apple' computers or electronic products that the consumer may think are genuine Apple products.

Not very great protection. Apple Computer had to agree with Apple Records not to get into the music business before the recording outfit agreed to let them use the Apple name. Hell of a lot of good that did them. I can imagine what tactics were used on them to get them to agree to a "settlement" for Apple Computer to continue with itunes, etc.

Same with the EU's bullshit privacy regulations. They were supposed to cut off data exchange years ago with anyone, including the US, who did not enforce protection of personal data as strongly as they did. So data exchange continued during "negotiations" with the US.

And where are we today? They have to PRE-SEND some 37 items of data to the USFuckingA on every airline passenger sent our way, EVEN IF the plane is only overflying US territory, not even landing here.

What the fuck do they think foreign airlines are going to do -- open the door and push suspected terrorists out so the corpses land on our hallowed ground?

Shit, what a farce.

And a 1, and a 2...

[Hoi Polloi]

100 anonymous critics on the web,
100 anonymous critics.
Take one down by suing that clown!
99 anonymous critics left on the web...

SCOX

[macdaddy]

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.

ok?

[pak9rabid]

Seriously, wtf did these people expect was going to happen? There's no such thing as a free lunch folks.

Re:ok?

[ChaoticLimbs]

And yet it is still illegal to promise one and deliver a sack of warm mud.

Re:ok?

[Clujo]

Exactly! They should know not to trust anyone. Besides, here is just one testimonial: anyone can see how great this stuff must be Video Professor is easy to use. "This is easier than a VCR, because I don't know how to use my VCR!

Internet Speedway

[fwarren]

Another scam a lot like this is the Internet Speedway. They advertise on net radio alot.

I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide if they think the basic website they provide and the products they offer to drop ship for you at the prices they sell to you at, are a good eal or not. The basic site is like $400.00 and a preminum site is like $3000.00.

Part of the fine print on the "free cd" is they ship it to you for $9.95, ONLY payable by credit card. Once the credit card number is given to them, every month, for 5 or 6 months, they will pull $70.00 from your account to pay for your basic site.

Yes, I know, you were just planning on looking at what they had to offer, but to just look, you have signed up for the basic program.

From what research I have done. If you call in for a refund, they hang up on you. If you call and complain that you can't make money with the site selling those products. They try to upsell you the $3,000.00 premium package.

Re:Internet Speedway

[ncc74656]

Another scam a lot like this is the Internet Speedway. They advertise on net radio alot.

Talk radio, too.

I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide if they think the basic website they provide and the products they offer to drop ship for you at the prices they sell to you at, are a good eal or not. The basic site is like $400.00 and a preminum site is like $3000.00.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They make it sound like all you have to do is let them set up a website for you and you'll start raking in the money with no technical knowledge, no product knowledge...none of the hard work that it really takes to make a business work.

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Cute, but you can't report someone because their CC# failed to work.

defamation? really?

[kcpearly15]

It doesn't seem to me that there would even be a case for this lawsuit. Defamation, as far as I know, is only a valid claim if the defendant knowingly spread untrue information. As long as the critics based their arguments in truth, they should be fine. It just makes The Video Professor look they are trying to move attention away from the validity of the critics' claims. Though, it would be interesting to read these "anonymous" critics to see if they really are in violation of trademark laws! Why are these critics kept anonymous anyway?

Re:defamation? really?

[tehcyder]

Defamation, as far as I know, is only a valid claim if the defendant knowingly spread untrue information. As long as the critics based their arguments in truth, they should be fine.

Phew, oh, well that's all right then. Lucky things are so simple when you start talking about the law isn't it?

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

One possibility would be to make the remainder of the donation this year. However, I would never do this for anyone who didn't have the courtesy to call and ask first for your re-authorization for the amount in question. Among other things, you might be using a card with an intentionally low limit. An unauthorized charge at the wrong time could cause you to go over-limit, causing credit reporting problems.

In addition, depending on how you and they reported the contribution to the IRS, you might be found liable for under-reporting, or could have to file an amended return, at a cost possibly far in excess of the value of the remainder of the donation.

In short, screw them if they don't know how to run a business like responsible adults. This isn't a lemonade stand.

Links to vairous Entrys to Video Professor website

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some insight to the video professor website and thought you might like to see some of the different ways people are signing up.

I find it kind of stupid that they have multiple default pages, and are using an asp website...

http://online.videoprofessor.com/default3_step1.aspx?psid=139
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default4.aspx?psid=138
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default5_step1.aspx?psid=136
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default6.aspx?psid=186
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default7.aspx?psid=188
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default8.aspx?psid=190
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default9.aspx?psid=192
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default10.aspx?psid=194
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default11_step1.aspx?psid=218
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default13.aspx?psid=232
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default14.aspx?psid=234
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default15.aspx?psid=326
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default16.aspx?psid=324
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default17_step1.aspx?psid=356
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default18_step1.aspx?psid=365
http://online.videoprofessor.com/default19.aspx?psid=363

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[morgan_greywolf]

You can report someone for any reason whatsoever. As long as you say that the person owes you money, then they will add it to that person's credit report, usually with no documentation whatsoever to back up. It's completely up to you to dispute any inaccuracies, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that you do not owe it.

IOW, as far credit agencies are concerned, you are guilty until proven innocent. Believe it.

Google search for video vrofessor scam

[Secrity]

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,040,000 for Video Professor scam. (0.16 seconds)

Samples:

PC Magazine Discussions - Video Professor is a Phishimg Scam!
Video Professor computer learning software is a scam to get your credit, debit, or bank account number, and then, without agreement or warning, ...
discuss.pcmag.com/forums/thread/482411001.aspx - 42k - Cached - Similar pages - Filter

Compare Prices and Read Reviews on Video Professor: Learn Windows ...
I cried. And therein lies the scam. Of course, I immediately called Video Professor and let them know that I was unhappy and wanted to return the cds. ...
www.epinions.com/content_69518528132 - 40k - Cached - Similar pages - Filter

Amazon.com: Video Professor Starter Pack: Software
Video Professor Starter Pack prepares you for expert-level computer use, ... This is all a scam for the maker to get your credit card info and steal from ...
www.amazon.com/Video-Professor-1571422323-Starter-Pack/dp/B0000EZ1NW - 214k - Cached - Similar pages - Filter

Wrooong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Defamiation is defamation whether the published negative comments are true or not, get a fuckin law book plaese.

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, but you don't put up an entry saying that person X has an invalid CC number. You claim a debt. I come along and dispute it and it vanishes (or else I get to sue you because you don't have any proof of the debt and you affirmed it anyway).

Similar story

[renegadesx]

Eric Hovind has been attempting to silence all critics recently too. Those that destroy his daddy's arguments refering to his Creation "Science" Evangalism ministry

"Defamiation"? Oh, "plaese".

[mr_mischief]

Gee, that's the exact opposite of every single definition of "defamation" available to check online.

This isn't legal advice, but while in a strict dictionary sense "defamation" might be anything said that hurts a reputation, truth is an affirmative defense. The articles linked above state that no action is called for and no damages occur when someone states a truth. The person whose reputation is tarnished by the truth earned that reputation. Speaking or printing the truth therefore does no damage to the rightful reputation. That seems to this non-attorney to mean you can call the speech or publication by any name you want, but you're not going to get money by suing someone for telling the truth.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but grade-school Social Studies teachers in the U.S. teach their students about John Peter Zenger and the case of New York v. Zenger. That case set forth truth as a defense for slander and libel in the common law of the North American colonies of England.

BTW, where are "defamiation" and "plaese" on any of the above sites? Do I need the latest edition of Black's? I can't find those definitions at all, oh careful and detail-oriented A. Coward. Without resolving those two issues, I'm having trouble following your carefully stated premise and well-reasoned arguments to your no doubt brilliant conclusion.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

lets not forget theyve repeatedly been caught editing their own wikipedia entry to remove criticism :)

Wife incident

[Dareth]

You have a similar argument as my wife. We were lying in bed, and she asked me to snuggle.
Next thing you know, I am holding my nose and wondering if I am bleeding or not!

Apparently I "nose-butted" her elbow, entirely my fault!

Well, I still love her anyway.

Re:Wife incident

[ShadowsHawk]

Did you say no?

Not to mention..

[The Cisco Kid]

That you have to pay $8.95 "shipping" for their free CD, yet somehow Netflix is able to mail DVDs around the country for .41 each (albeit in a crappy envelope that often jams in the USPS sorting machines and so usually has to be hand-sorted) But even if they packaged the CD properly and sent it via Priority Mail it would only cost $4.05. I havent ordered any so I don't know how they actually ship them, but I suspect its via a lower-class service.

Given that CD's cost less than a quarter to mass-produce, its easy to see they are making a killing on these 'Free' CD's.

Aside from their shipping cost scam, the things themselves look like they would be of benefit only to utter nincompoops, and even then only marginal benefit.

My son knows how to use the computer

[Anonymous Coward]

My son knows how to use the computer better than me, and he's 3.

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[Anonymous Coward]

I decided to make a donation to a charity, and figured out how much would be best given my tax situation.

as mother teresa rolls over in her grave.

Re:The countermeasure: disposable credit card numb

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right.
He shouldn't have tried to donate anything at all.