Video Professor upset by criticism, sues 100 anonymous critics By Nate Anderson | Published: September 25, 2007 - 02:14PM CT You've probably seen infomercials for the Video Professor on late-night TV; a kindly-looking John Scherer has been pitching his company's computer training videos for two decades now. But Video Professor, ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
09-25-2007, 10:54 PM
| #1 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California 
| Video Professor: Please, try my product ... AND YOU BETTER LIKE IT!!1 :mad: Video Professor upset by criticism, sues 100 anonymous critics By Nate Anderson | Published: September 25, 2007 - 02:14PM CT You've probably seen infomercials for the Video Professor on late-night TV; a kindly-looking John Scherer has been pitching his company's computer training videos for two decades now. But Video Professor, Inc. has no problem using less-friendly tactics when confronted with criticism, and the company is now suing more than 100 anonymous Internet posters over derogatory comments that they made about Video Professor's business. The Denver Post noticed the case a few days back, and it's certainly an odd one. Video Professor filed a federal claim in a Colorado court against 100 "John and Jane Does" who committed "unauthorized Internet disparagement of VPI and its products" on web sites such as INFOMERCIAL SCAMS.COM (the site, incidentally, is the number three Google result for "video professor"). The complaints generally follow a similar theme: Video Professor allegedly markets products as free to try, then pitches callers with upsells that confuse them into signing up for subscriptions. A recent comment from "Tina" is typical. "I had purchased one piece of software from Video Professor... before I knew what was happening, my credit card was overdrawn and more attempted charges were constantly occurring. I kept calling customer service, returned the original software and heard many promises of the 100 percent refund, less S/H. This has been over 3 years now." Oddly enough, the Video Professor contacted the owner of the site back in July and told him that they wanted the full contact information for all concerned parties in order to address them individually and continue "providing superior customer service." Now, two months later, the company has sued the anonymous individuals in question and is trying to enforce a subpoena against infomercialscams.com in order to get IP addresses about posters. Those posters are being charged with commercial disparagement, false advertising, misrepresentation, and posting false and defamatory messages. That's certainly the sort of superior customer service we'd all like more of. Unfortunately for Video Professor, it can't sue the site operators directly (although it would really, really like to). The Communications Decency Act gives such sites a "safe harbor" against prosecution based on user posts, so Video Professor is forced instead to individually pursue each person that made a disparaging remark. The company's federal complaint is a strange read, since it does not identify even a single false and defamatory statement; it simply asserts the existence of such statements somewhere on Teh Interwebs. Despite that, the company was able to obtain a subpoena to obtain the information it is seeking. Infomercialscams.com is being represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, DC. Paul Levy, one of the group's lawyers, late last week sent a strongly-worded letter (PDF) to Video Professor that outlined the perceived problems with the subpoena. Chief among them is the fact that anonymous, critical speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, and the threshold for unveiling anonymous posters is high. Despite that, Levy notes that the good doctor's lawyers can't simply assert that 100 unknown individuals posted false and defamatory messages. For one thing, the particular messages in question need to be identified (the complaint does not even indicate which posts it refers to). Within those posts, actual false claims need to be mentioned (none are). Further, it's unlikely that each alleged offender is exactly guilty of the same transgression, so the company needs to offer evidence for each particular case. Due to the extreme generality of the complaint and subpoena, Levy asks, "Is it Video Professor's position that any former customer who criticizes its conduct must necessarily be making false statements, and hence is subject to sued for libel? Certainly you have given no evidentiary reason to believe that any of the statements about Video Professor are false." The company is no stranger to the courtroom. A search shows that Video Professor has filed four separate federal lawsuits in 2007 alone. In one of these Video Professor sued a rival seller of computer training products who included a link on his site to other sites critical of Professor practices. In the last three years, the company has racked up 615 Better Business Bureau complaints, though all appear to have been quickly addressed. The company is certainly serious about the newest case. Founder John Scherer told the Denver Post, "I personally do not believe that you can be anonymous and bash people and get away with it under the First Amendment. I will stay with this case, and I will get the names that I am requesting. I will pursue this until the Supreme Court tells me I can't get them." Fortunately, federal courts rule based on US law and not the personal beliefs of the litigants. Source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070925-video-professor-upset-by-criticism-sues-100-anonymous-critics.html
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
     |
|
09-25-2007, 10:54 PM
| #2 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| The New American Dream: Create trash product. Hype it to uneducated people. Confuse them into buying it. Offer bad customer service. Wait for backlash from customers. Sue everyone for "damages." Reminds me of Monster Cables.  | ||||
| |
|
09-25-2007, 11:31 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up  Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby Interesting read.
What about Monster Cables? | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 11:04 AM
| #4 | ||||
| Better Dead than Red  Democrat "My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them.”
| i'm also interested to know what's so bad about monster cables | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 11:09 AM
| #5 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| "unauthorized Internet disparagement of VPI and its products" What the hell is that? That's not even a law. The only thing they could sue for is slanderor libel... and in order to do that they would have to prove that whatever the people said was factually incorrect and they would have to show economic damages. Good luck! | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 12:31 PM
| #6 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by Stylerod Monster cables is suing ANYONE who uses the word Monster, including "Walt Disney Co., which distributed Pixar Animation Studios' hit film Monsters, Inc'."
Here's the list of everyone they're suing. USPTO TTABVUE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System They're even suing Sesame Street for using Monster Clubhouse USPTO TTABVUE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System  | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 12:47 PM
| #7 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by 7960
They are suing the Boston Redsox for calling their wall the Green Monster? Holy shit. This is insane! It's been called the Green Monster for, what, 60-70-100 years? Why the hell can't they be stopped? | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 12:48 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| That's more ridiculous than the band Metallica suing Revlon for making a lipstick color by the same name. Do they think that they can actually win that suit? | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 12:48 PM
| #9 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Stylerod They should be slapped with fines for frivolous lawsuits. That is the very definition.
| ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 01:36 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator  Democrat Omaha, NE
| Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM Nothing, other than their price. They are good cable but cost about 30-40% more than they should.
| ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 02:25 PM
| #11 | ||||
| no es mi culpa  Independent Beantown
| Originally Posted by Stylerod they're seriously suing the bosox for the monstah????? oh my gawd.
__________________ There is small disproportion betwixt a fool who useth not wit because he hath it not and him that useth it not when it should avail him. | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 02:33 PM
| #12 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Linzyhop yeah I will never buy another monster cable again. screw that.
| ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 03:50 PM
| #13 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by Linzyhop for 14 different things, actually
USPTO TTABVUE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System | ||||
| |
|
09-26-2007, 03:53 PM
| #14 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up Conservative Party High Point, NC
| The funny part is. This pisses me off more than anything else I can think of right now. What a waste of time and money. If I owned Circuit City or Best Buy I would fucking drop their line completely. | ||||
| |
|
09-27-2007, 02:20 PM
| #15 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| I've been boycotting Monster Cables for a few years now. I refuse to buy their products because of that shit. Small businesses were strong-armed and put out of business by them. Most of the companies they sued weren't even competitors. In fact, I'm not sure if ANY of them were actually competing with Monster Cables. Bunch of bullshit if I do say so myself. | ||||
| |
|
09-27-2007, 02:38 PM
| #16 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by 7960 They should have to pay legal fees and damages to every single company on that list.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. | ||||
| |
|
09-27-2007, 07:43 PM
| #17 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby I always suspected this company made most of their profit with inflated postage costs?
__________________ Sock It To Me!  "Bureaucracy is a Parasite that Preys on Free Thought and Suffocates Free Spirit!" - Douglas Adams | ||||
| |
|
09-27-2007, 08:39 PM
| #18 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by RMNIXON I'm not sure if it's true, but I heard a story of a guy who made his million on fishing flies. He put an ad in a magazine to sell hand-made flies and nobody bought them. Then he put an ad in to "give away" some number of flies but you had to pay $6 s/h and he couldn't keep up with the orders.
| ||||
| |
|
09-28-2007, 05:38 PM
| # |
