9 months ago, I uploaded 3 videoclips (all averaging 15 minutes) on YouTube of a DVD which I purchased from the producer. The videoclips were supposed to be for private viewing only (for one person), however, I totally neglected to arrange the setting for private viewing only. Two days ago, this producer found out about the videos and now claims that I am responsible for his economic/financial loss. Since one of the videos had 800 views, he claims that each view could have been a potential DVD seller. He charges $49.95 per DVD, and he estimates that he usually sells 10 DVDs a month. To make a long story short, based on his 9-month estimation, I owe him $39,960!!! As soon as I received his e-mail, I immediately took down the 3 videos in question and apologized for my mistake. I see his estimations as nothing more than speculations, and he really cannot prove that I intentionally damaged his business; on the contrary, he should be thankful that I promoted his DVD on YouTube as a marketing tool.

Anyone could’ve viewed the videos, and it’s possible that one and the same person could’ve viewed the videos. Or, it is possible that the producer had known about this a while ago and that he pretended to have known it only 2 days ago! Or perhaps he could’ve told his friends to view the videos multiple times. Should the producer decide to sue me, wouldn’t he be required to get a court order to access the IP addresses of every person that viewed the videos? And wouldn’t he be required to present hard copy transaction records of the supposed 10 DVDs that he sold per month?

By the way, the producer lives in California and I live in Massachusetts. I was advised that if the producer wants to take me to a small claims court, he would have to file it in Massachusetts? Is this true?

Finally, the way I see it is this – I purchased a copy of his DVD and shared 15 minutes of selected clips to a person strictly for educational purpose It’s not like I stole his DVD and purposely infringed on his copyright. I am also looking into “fair use” of copyrighted material which I heard is a grey area. What is the difference between buying a book, making photocopies of a few pages and sharing them for educational and noncommercial purposes and buying a DVD and uploading them on YouTube also for the same purposes?

I am willing to negotiate with the producer to make amends. I am thinking of proposing to him the following:

1. I could heavily promote his DVD on my website, say, for one full year, and also promote it via Facebook and other social networks. My website receives an average of 3,000 hits a week and an affiliate website gets an average of 5,000 hits a week. I also have a mailing list database containing almost 7,000 e-mail addresses. My website is a non-profit site that features my interest in beauty pageants.

2. I am willing to pay him $149.85 which is the total amount if I were to purchase 3 DVDs (each for $49.95) – each DVD to correspond to each of the 3 video segments.

Does this sound like a fair and reasonable proposal?

The bottom line is that I cannot afford to pay the producer since I have a very low-paying and non-secure job and I live from paycheck to paycheck. I don’t want to be spending the rest of my life paying someone for an act that I did not intentionally commit.

I would appreciate if a legal counselor could review my posting and get back to me with advice as soon as possible.

Thank you.

 

 

Having fun in He**—— Happy Saturday

 

 

This is a first—finding myself siding with the Media.  Remember ABC’s Wide World of Sports replay of “the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat” footage?  Some poor guy ski-jumping or just skiing down a mountain is shown tumbling over and over in a horrific spill.  That footage must have been replayed countless times around the world for years and I’ve always wondered if he died or suffered serious injury.  You Tube, etc., makes it impossible to shield the general public from seeing the real deal these days.  If the networks don’t broadcast it, someone else who was there filming is going to post it all over the net anyway.  People need to protect themselves from what they don’t want to see or hear.  Everyone knows that the focus of the first few minutes of a news broadcast is the day’s top stories.  The death of an Olympic athlete during an actual event-related activity is going to be a lead story.  So, the egg-shell thin and faint of heart should avoid the early minutes of news programs when something major like Friday’s accident has occurred.  I don’t watch the show, America’s Funniest Home Videos, for the simple fact that I find some of the videos downright disturbing.  In many stances, the home video shows a person involved in what must have been a very painful situation and one that probably resulted in serious injury.  Yet, the show airs across the country and has a studio audience that laughs their heads off.  The luge accident on Friday lasted only a few seconds and there was no prolonged footage of the efforts made to revive him.  I took comfort from the footage in that I saw that everything happened so fast that there was no time for him to suffer and I’m glad that help arrived immediately.  I could tell from the video that the outcome may have been the same even if the poles had been padded due to the speed—especially considering they reduced the race length and speeds after the accident.  Think back to what we saw after 9/11 and hurricane Katrina.  I am so sorry about what happened to a young man I never laid eyes on and I thought about him all Friday afternoon.  Somehow, knowing what actually happened because I was able to see it made it a bit better for me.