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.
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?
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.
Here is another example of why we need a "loser-pays" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loser_pays system in US courts.
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.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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?
"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....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
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 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?
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.