Rupert, You have pointed out interesting thoughts. I have accepted the fact that this court TV show will be cut, this is America after all. I don't take this very seriously though, if it happens it happens, if not I will not spend the rest of my life blogging about it. Speaking of blogging, I did blog about it, just one entry... http://innomind.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-through-ugly-dispute-with.html
I am in no way trying to bring traffic to my site(s) should I win the case. These three videos I will purge either way. My intent is to have these videos lawfully deleted from the defendants hard drives, or pay up for my work. To answer Liza Jean about the music in the video. The music belongs to the defendant, and is welcome to play their music both on their site or to their prospective corporate clients. As long as my video work is not attached to it. Like I said; If I win I will delete all 3 videos and the raw files of every of eight events I shot for them. I do not want to associate my name with these sharks. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Renat, > > How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, > all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. > Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be > *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however > ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* > come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - > you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you > want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and > they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you > won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence > to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. > > This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have > first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me > up. > > Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're > suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what > happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have > better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on > these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a > widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your > case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. > > Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to > humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion > to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 > and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally > forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for > advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole > point of which is to reverse that power structure? > > And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during > daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be > broadcast and disappear. > > Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the > demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots > about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential > business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? > > My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade > control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have > the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in > all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other > video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often > feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. > > Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. > Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24 > hours a day 7 days a week via Google. Not once on a cable channel on > a Tuesday afternoon in January in a place that's set up as a > freakshow and then disappears for ever. That's all these things are > - freakshows. And you're volunteering to be a freak? > > If none of this makes any sense to you, just ask yourself what the > benefits of this are - if you take away the idea that it will drive > traffic to your site (it won't) and your certainty that they will > come off looking worse (they won't). It's all downside and risk. > Except for a free trip to LA. If you count a trip to LA as upside. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > > > > On 24-Nov-08, at 12:15 AM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: > > Good looking out Irina, > Thanks so much! > It's written in the producers letter that they guarantee the payment > should I win the case. As far as ridiculness of the correspondence I > exchanged throughout the last couple of weeks with the defendant; > this must be televised... I will though ask the producer to provide > the lodging and food money upfront before he sends the airline tickets. > > The only thing that may come in the way of doing it on TV is the delay > of serving the lawsuit to the defendant or her not wanting to do it at > all regrdless of the incentive she receives with the TV approach. > > Renat > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <irinaski@> wrote: > > > > renat, i know a good friend who was a producer for one of the > judges' shows > > > > his job was to make sure the show was as ridiculous and insane as > possible, > > even if it meant humiliation and horror for the participants, even > if it > > meant > > kind of lying to them > > > > just do not think the producers are on your side in any way > > > > and like someone else on this list said, get the money in advance > > > > tell them to send you a check tell them you dont have any credit > cards or > > any extra money > > > > do NOT agree to re-imbursement > > > > make them buy the airline tix for you and pay for the hotel for > you etc. > > > > the re-imbursement can take up to six months to one year > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:34 PM, liza jean <daredoll@> wrote: > > > > > who owns the music on these videos? > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > "Renat Zarbailov" > > > <innomind@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, > > > > If supposedly the defendant agrees to do it on TV then there's no > > > need > > > > to blog the hearing in court since the cameras will already > tape it. > > > > > > > > There's a bit of complication in regards to serving the papers to > > > > appear in court. The letter returned back to court on Nov. 18. > When > > > I > > > > was filing the complaint I wrote down the home address of the > > > > defendant, though she emailed me her business one prior to > that. The > > > > reason I wrote the home one is because we never conducted any > > > business > > > > at the business address in Manhattan. So I figured, what are the > > > > chances that this address even exists if she so willingly gave > it to > > > > me. Good thing as of Nov. 21st. it's still within 23 days > since the > > > > initial filing, so I went back to court and updated the > address to > > > the > > > > business one. Now if she gets it by Dec. 1st, there's still time > > > > enough for the Judge Joe Brown producer to convince her to do > it TV- > > > style. > > > > > > > > Until Dec. 1st... > > > > > > > > Renat > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > "johnleeke" <johnleeke@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you do it, it would be fascinating for us if you video > blog the > > > > > experience. I wonder if they have you sign away all your > rights to > > > > > shoot and distribute your own video about the experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > www.HistoricHomeWorks.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://geekentertainment.tv > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
