i have to agree with rupert i would never go on this show (or any reality show for that matter)
but especially not in a case were the outcome meant something to me On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:57 AM, liza jean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > he seems determined to try. > > i wonder how he's gonna pay for the music rights once whoever owns > copyright gets wind of renat's "winnings"? > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.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 <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.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> > > <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> > > <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] > > > > > -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
