Video Professor Sues Anonymous Critics

Video Professor Sues Anonymous Critics (http://techdirt.com/articles/20070921/170536.shtml)

from the buy-my-product dept

If you watch enough TV, you've probably come across the commercials for "the video professor" who offers DVD videos teaching you how to do things like use your computer. The commercials involve an appeal from the CEO and founder of the company to "buy my product" and promote how you can get a trial for "free!" However, if you look around online, you find many (http://www.ripoffreport.com/searchresults.asp?q5=Video+Professor&searchtype=&q1=&q3=&q2=&q7=&q4=&q6=&start=-5), many complaints (http://www.infomercialscams.com/scams/video_professor) that the company ended up charging people money for the supposedly "free" products. What is actually happening is that when you sign up for the "free" trial, you're actually signing up for a subscription to receive other training videos periodically. The problem is that many people don't realize this -- and claim that they were mislead (in many ways, this is similar to the Amazon Prime mess (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070509/015742.shtml) that still hasn't been cleared up. Whether or not the company clearly explains to buyers what they're signing up for is open to debate.

However, with such widespread criticism for its practices online, it isn't surprising that the company is concerned. Of course, rather than addressing those criticisms, instead the company has decided to sue. Greg Beck (http://www.citizen.org/litigation/) writes in to point out that the company (which tells people to look for reviews online) has sued 100 anonymous critics (http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/09/video-professor.html) of the company claiming trademark violations and defamation. Lots of companies seem to think negative reviews constitute a trademark violation, but a review is a perfectly legitimate use of a trademark. Defamation depends specifically on what the reviewers said, so it's difficult to judge that aspect of the lawsuits. However, to tell people to look for reviews online, and then go out and sue a bunch of folks who negatively reviewed your product seems like highly questionable activity.

Defamation my ass. More like desparation - as in "a cry of" for lack of a product that comes with a reliable promise.

That Video Professor guy is a crackpot in my opinion - a posuer who had no doubt made millions feeding off of those busy baby boomers (like my own mom and dad) who are so busy working that they didn't get on board the internet until it was a superhighway. MS wind@ws knowledge - the basics - are required for teachers like my parents and they don't know where to run (except to me and I live in another time zone).

So ripoff kings like the Video Professor capitalize on those fears and offer these products "free" to try with a soothing, reassuring voice and it's all just a big hook to throw away good money. Why? Because you are not really given an evaluation period - you are sent the whole kit and the bill comes shortly thereafter. Returning the merchandise comes with punitive charges and is not a viable option at all. "Might as well keep it" is the sigh from the customer that is music to the greedy ears of bad businessmen like the Video Professor.

Just like the "Attacking Anxiety" self-help tapes which are an even bigger scam (in my opinion). I spoke to a friend of mine who is an MD about them one day and we started having a laugh. "What is in those tapes - cocaine?" he said. You would think so the way they are hawked as a cure all. Just like the Video Professor. "Free to Try" to cure your ills but in fact not free to buy and once you've got 'em in the mail you're hooked in for hundreds of dollars - regardless of their worth as a teaching tool.

At least that's what I've come to know, anyway. My 2 cents.