Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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?
As someone of TFA site commented, if you know how to look for reviews online, do you really need video professor?
-Valiss
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.
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.
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.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
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.
That's why I also never complain about war, crime, poverty, disease, or dictatorships. If it's old, it must be good!
Advice: on VPS providers
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!
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
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
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.
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.
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.