Careful

jackspark · Careful

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. Now we won't be talking about them anymore........ sad.

PasoBaby_CarolU

thebundychick

ditto -

jackspark

Giddyup doesn't like our comments sooooooooo we just won't comment on them at all, GOOD or bad. Our thread seemed like great advertising for them, if ya ask me and now that they have requested that some of our comments be removed, you can see that Carol did the only thing she could do .............. ditch the whole thread. My meaning was: you can't just have the good stuff Giddyup, there is some freedom of speech that goes along with it, IMO.

Clarissa

The easiest way to give totally accurate info re what you got when you rented videos is to take photos of the covers & discs & post them here for all to see & make their own decisions. Like in a thread titled What I’m Watching Now. You could name the title, show photos of it & say where you got it from local or online & whether purchased or rented.

PasoBaby_CarolU

The reason I locked that thread was so this discussion would not happen.

GiddyUp is certainly not the first company that has contacted me and asked me to remove inaccurate information from this forum. Quite simply they rent purchased copies out legally, very much like the Library does.

Most companies spend a lot of time perusing the Internet for each use of their name. It doesn't take long for misinformation to take seed in the public's mind and ruin a company's reputation. If you remember that thread, then you remember how upset we all were when we thought that GiddyUp was pirating the DVDs. As it turns out, they weren't, but a lot of the bad feelings remain.

It is always a good idea when saying something bad about a company, to make sure it is correct. In the past we have used a company's copyrighted name and applied it to similar products not made by that company.

misstux

It is neither libel nor defamation of character if it is true. I have e-mail from said company saved on my computer just in case.

learningthedance

PasoBaby_CarolU

Elise, our Library charges a membership to people who don't live in the City. I live in the County and my taxes don't go to the City, so they do charge me. What GiddyUp does is no different then NetFlix or Blockbuster Videos or Red Box or any of the video services. And it's really not a lot different then Pay it Forward, which a lot of people do with training videos.

jackspark

My point is that they were getting FREE advertising and probably benefited from all the chat and good comments. I assume that they gained some business from that thread.......... I'm getting rid of my membership; I hate cry babies.

becdubie

Copious_Amour

Kim Cassidy

I am under the impression that NetFlix and Blockbuster pay royalties to the movie companies. Am I wrong in my thinking?

Pay it forward, I'm all for people getting good info, but is it fair to the people who spent LOTS of money to create a DVD and who would like money repaid to have others get it without paying?

It is not a black or white answer.

PasoBaby_CarolU

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090304212852AAa4Vbc

I agree with you Kim, that there isn't an easy answer. I frequently lend out books I buy, or people share books with me. Pay it Forward is not a lot different then buying/selling used books.

But, I do have to think of the clinician. These people aren't MGM or Fox or Century. They are trainers trying to make a living.

I leave it up to each person to decide what to do. I usually watch what I can free on YouTube or on the trainer's site, and if I like it, I buy their videos or books.

Kim Cassidy

jackspark

misstux

misstux · Open letter to Carol

Let's start with definitions. They are from dictionary.com and legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Libel - to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.

Defamation of character - Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Duplicate -
noun
a copy exactly like an original.
verb (used with object)
to make an exact copy of.

Majority - the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total or (in my words) more than 50%

Based on the above, what I said would have to be untrue for it to be libel or defamation of character.

Now let's go to what I said. Unfortunately I did not do a screen capture, so I don't have the exact words. I said that I had a copied dvd that I couldn't play. I also said that the company in question was renting out copies. If that were not true, it would be libel. The following is copied directly from an e-mail that I received from the company in question: "in approx. 55% of the DVDs we purchase from the trainers, the DVDs are duplicated (as opposed to replicated) trainers burn their own copies on their own media" Going back to the definitions posted above, the word duplicate is a synonym for the word copy. In other words, the majority of the dvds that this company purchases from the trainers are copies. I did not say that the company in question was making those copies, although I assumed that was the case.

I have made quite a few dvds and cds of my own, backing up vhs of my own horses, copying out of print vhs so I don't lose it, making compilation cds of my favorite music, making copies of files for meetings at work whether "dirty" movies ( among other things, I design sewers for a living and get to watch movies of the pipes to determine what sort of repair is needed), drawings, or other materials. I have also received from friends home-made disks. Those end products are distinctly different in appearance from a professionally made disk, even the really nicely done ones.

Carol, what I said about the company was correct. The dvd that was sitting in my house when I wrote the comments was a copy. In retrospect I wish I had taken pictures of it and the others, but I didn't. I also wish that I had taken screen grabs of my original posts. The information that you removed from the forum, at least my posts, did not contain inaccurate information. You removed the posts based on their say so rather than factual information. You believed the company over your members. The comments that I initially made were not made in anger. Those that I made after they threatened to sue me were. And they did threaten to sue me. Here is a direct quote from one of the e-mails I received from them: "You have 48 hours to remove your blog postings stating that our DVDs are copies of originals. If you choose not to, we will file legal recourse via our attorney on the basis of libel and defamation of character."

Am I happy about anything that has transpired from this? Not especially. I could have chosen to let this pass, but I will not stand idly by and let someone impugn my character.

Melody

jackspark

Good job Melody.... stand up and tell it like you see it; refuse to be quiet and intimidated by anyone

coveredbridgefarm

I guess I have to say that I'm surprised that companies pay someone to take the time to scrutinize forums like this one to this extent. I am not surprised, however, at the bullying tactics they are apparently taking with Melody, even when she can use their own words to defend her position. I have been in kind of a similar situation in regard to reports by a big company to the credit rating bureaus where the company submitted a false report with the intent of lowering my credit rating apparently relying on a belief that I would be intimidated by the threat of a lawsuit even though both the comapny and I know that it was the company who was in the wrong and I have the facts to prove it. Who wants to get into a legal battle with a big corporation? The corporations know that most individuals are intimidated by the thought that they will be out-lawyered. It's definitely a bullying tactic but pretty effective.

Larry

PasoBaby_CarolU

Melody,

You were not the only person making accusations. The original title of the thread and statements in it said that GiddyUpFlix pirated DVDs. That is not true. Further statements were made that GiddyUpFlix may have sent copies instead of originals - even though as you stated, they were purchased copies and not 'pirated' by GiddyUpFlix, that was not clear in all the posts.

My suggestion is that anyone who has received copies of original DVDs from GiddyUpFlix, or copies/originals that don't play, that you contact GiddyUpFlix directly to resolve the situation. Most companies will do that and pay all shipping costs to keep their customers satisfied.

When they contacted me, they did not threaten a law suit, but asked that I remove the posts about copies. I read through the thread and it made no sense without them, just as it made very little sense after Jan Mendoza corrected her original post once she found out the copies were not pirated.

Larry, companies only have to do Keyword searches in Google to have recent uses of their names come up. They have a very good reason to correct anything in the public record that accuses them of breaking any laws on this, since it is their business and they rely on a good reputation. As they stated to me, opinions are one thing, but accusations of illegal activity by them must be stopped.

Finally Melody, I am fully aware of the law on libel. As in the past, I may know that the law is on my side, that nothing that was untrue was said....that knowledge however won't pay the legal fees of defending myself in court. So, while I may win the 'battle' I could loose my farm and all my animals defending myself. So, I err on the side of financial stability.

If it came between a lawsuit or this forum, I can tell you that I will take the forum down. Again, GiddyUpFlix did not in anyway threaten me....and I do not want anyone to take away from this that they did. I do want you all to think about this though when thinking about libel in the public record. You can be right, but you can be broke right too.

coveredbridgefarm

Carol, I recognize the delicacy of the situation you can find yourself in as moderator of this forum(thank you for what you do). I also recognize that companies can be easily maligned unfairly over these same forums. But it's also true that companies can act/respond unfairly as well. So, as usual, each aspect of mankind can run(or appear to run) the entire gamut of behavior from victim to bully. No wonder our horses get confused by our energy/attitude. We are disconnected from any kind of dependable/reliable behavior.

Not meaning to make light of the current situation. Just saying(making comment on human behavior in general).

Larry

misstux

This situation was entirely preventable by the company itself. All they would have to do would be to make a file that states that approximately 55% of their videos from trainers are duplicates/copies made by the trainer and obtained legally and also state that these disks may be problematical for some subscribers to play. That file could easily be inserted at the front of the description for each of the duplicate disks and also in the communication that you get when you file a problem report, especially as these disks are problematical for a lot of people to play. Also, if a notice like this were up front, people would not get so frustrated about not being able to play the disks. Personally I would have tried 1 or 2, then not bothered any more with those sorts of disks.

Let's face it, the first thought that you get when you receive a copy is not that that was what was purchased, it's that the purchaser copied the disk. I know this even though I have a copy/duplicate cd of my favorite female singer songwriter that is her most successful release that was re-issued by her and also includes several demo versions.

Melody

Careful

Open letter to Carol