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.
...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."
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!
got his or her legal education from a series of DVDs.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
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.
My blog
November's DVD of the month is "how to create your own legal pleadings" with Video Professor's MS-Office accessories training 'product' ?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
don't try my product.
Yes.
I predict the class will be awarded a voucher for a free credit report courtesy of freecreditreport.com.
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.
As someone of TFA site commented, if you know how to look for reviews online, do you really need video professor?
-Valiss
"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?
Please help metamoderate.
My, uh, "friend" has this problem, see. What should I^H he do about it?
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.
Please help metamoderate.
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.
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."
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
How to sue 10000 anonymous critics from Slashdot.
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.
...Video Professor isn't available in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I mean really, what's up with that?
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.
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."
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
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")
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
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.)
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).
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
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
"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"
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.
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?
oh...so THAT'S where that damned BOWFLEX came from!
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.
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.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it