Read-only historical archive Reconstructed community archive · captured 17 November 2010

Forum index / General Homegrown / Homegrown Collection 2 Update

Homegrown Collection 2 Update

125 posts · page 3 of 5

Mono
post #61
27 June 2006, 18:48 UTC#61
QUOTE(Dan Avery @ Jun 27 2006, 07:44 PM) [snapback]353570[/snapback]

This is hillarious.

Record the phonecall mono and give the american bastard some lip.

No, I'm not going to be profane to someone over the phone. The HollyChode website is just a parody and is meant to be taken lightheartedly.
If Moody wants to sue me then so be it, but I'm not going to start talking shit over the telephone.
Chad Sexington
post #62
27 June 2006, 18:51 UTC#62
QUOTE(Mono @ Jun 27 2006, 06:48 PM) [snapback]353574[/snapback]

I'm not going to start talking shit over the phone.


Mike

mind if I call you mike

Mike, I think you really need to think about this, filming some Moody bashing on the phone wouldn't be such a bad idea, mind if I sit down.

[sits]

Alright the way I see it you have two options, not bash Moody or bash Moody

[does hand motions]

And it's as simple as that. Here is my card

[hands hershey's business card with Henry James' Information blacked out and Chad Sexington written in pencil]
Rob764
post #63
27 June 2006, 18:53 UTC#63
LOL @ this whole turn of events, and Moody himself.
EVIL-WEBBY
post #64
27 June 2006, 19:11 UTC#64
lets settle this once and for all


lawyers vs delayed reaction in a face off
Rob764
post #65
27 June 2006, 19:17 UTC#65
Michael Moody can suck my purple-headed womb-broom.
gman
post #66
27 June 2006, 19:46 UTC#66
QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]353500[/snapback]

just sent it out to a bunch of people on my mailing list and my lawyer replied really quick. he's pissed because it violates copyright and is defamation of character. I emailed him back to chill the fuck out but he's calling me later. you have to understand, I pay this guy to be pissed off for me so I don't have to be pissed off when people step on my feet. so when you deal with him, if he does decide to contact you, you won't be dealing with me on this matter. it's all him and he handles things like this on his own, which is what he is paid to do.



Nice save, knew it was coming.

A little lesson for you.

Meaning of "defamation of character":

QUOTE
If an employer intentionally defames you and it hurts your career, you might be entitled to collect monetary compensation through a defamation lawsuit.


Do you employ mike?

Moving on....

What defamation is not:

QUOTE
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.


Let's break this down, where has Mike implicitly used your company name on the mock website? No where. Where has he implicitly used your full name on the mock site? No where.

Moving on....

QUOTE
In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion which cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense.

In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.


Are you sure Mike doesn't believe this to be true? What about public interest? Seems to be public interest but hasn't really been publically published, has it?

Of course, the art of suing for "defamation" is a complex one, there is much contradictory information. A lawsuit of course could further complicate things as Mike is located in the UK and you in the USA, furthermore this was a parody so wouldn't be taken seriously even if it was indexed publically.

I'd like to hear dgodlewski's opinion here, however due to the loopholes in the American law, the complexity of the defamation laws etc, even if you tried to sue Mike, I would imagine you'd haemorage money and wouldn't win the case.

Nice stance on the "suing" thing tho.

lou komodo
post #67
27 June 2006, 19:47 UTC#67
QUOTE(Rob764 @ Jun 27 2006, 07:17 PM) [snapback]353586[/snapback]


womb-broom.


LOFL!!!!!!!!!
Liam
post #68
27 June 2006, 19:55 UTC#68
Gman wins!

Flawless victory!

LEGALITY.
RayBorDumB
post #69
27 June 2006, 20:05 UTC#69
If he's such a good friend of yours for years and years and you're so close AND you told him not to sweat it and just lay back and enjoy the joke, why would he even attempt to follow through on such a shaky case that he would invariably lose money in even if he got the site taken down? I'd like to see some slight bit of evidence concerning the existence of these lawyer friends.

External image not preserved — inspect source: http://www.paulsfunhouse.com/images/monkey1.jpg
Moody's "favor" to his lawyer.
Dan Avery
post #70
27 June 2006, 20:16 UTC#70
Gman wiped the floor with this moe-foe.
Rico
post #71
27 June 2006, 21:14 UTC#71
Best site ever:

Moody: all of my future dvds will also be released as HD video dvds, so I'm not sure if homegrown collection 2 & 3 will be in HD but soon, my dvds will be HD.
Lando: Awesome, I've always wondered what crap looked like in HD.
Hollymood
post #72
27 June 2006, 21:28 UTC#72
QUOTE(gman @ Jun 27 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]353601[/snapback]

QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]353500[/snapback]

just sent it out to a bunch of people on my mailing list and my lawyer replied really quick. he's pissed because it violates copyright and is defamation of character. I emailed him back to chill the fuck out but he's calling me later. you have to understand, I pay this guy to be pissed off for me so I don't have to be pissed off when people step on my feet. so when you deal with him, if he does decide to contact you, you won't be dealing with me on this matter. it's all him and he handles things like this on his own, which is what he is paid to do.



Nice save, knew it was coming.

A little lesson for you.

Meaning of "defamation of character":

QUOTE
If an employer intentionally defames you and it hurts your career, you might be entitled to collect monetary compensation through a defamation lawsuit.


Do you employ mike?

Moving on....

What defamation is not:

QUOTE
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.


Let's break this down, where has Mike implicitly used your company name on the mock website? No where. Where has he implicitly used your full name on the mock site? No where.

Moving on....

QUOTE
In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion which cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense.

In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.


Are you sure Mike doesn't believe this to be true? What about public interest? Seems to be public interest but hasn't really been publically published, has it?

Of course, the art of suing for "defamation" is a complex one, there is much contradictory information. A lawsuit of course could further complicate things as Mike is located in the UK and you in the USA, furthermore this was a parody so wouldn't be taken seriously even if it was indexed publically.

I'd like to hear dgodlewski's opinion here, however due to the loopholes in the American law, the complexity of the defamation laws etc, even if you tried to sue Mike, I would imagine you'd haemorage money and wouldn't win the case.

Nice stance on the "suing" thing tho.


actually you're wrong, I've already talked to my lawyer and he rattled off about 5 different things to nail you with but for now I've just told him to not care. its just a joke and that is it. I personally don't care but you made the mistake of taking my copyrighted trailers and re-editing them with another website name, so seriously, really quick, take that off of youtube before I have youtube take it down
vode
post #73
27 June 2006, 21:30 UTC#73
Hahahahahah, great.

ANd its even better than his real site.

EDIT: nail gman? hahaha, you dont pay lot attention to anythign hahaha

and hahahahahha MOODY HOW YOU LIKE MY QUOTE? FEW YEARS AND STILL NOT TV SHOW; EH?
EVIL-WEBBY
post #74
27 June 2006, 21:38 UTC#74
QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 10:28 PM) [snapback]353672[/snapback]

I personally don't care but you made the mistake of taking my copyrighted trailers and re-editing them with another website name, so seriously, really quick, take that off of youtube before I have youtube take it down


you dont care at the start, by the end it sounds like you do care.....you care alot

but hold on, isnt that footage non exclusive to you? meaning the only thing copywrited is the order the clips apear...which I dont think you can have copywrited anyway. the only ones who can compain or sue are the groups footage and I dont think they care at all and just find it funny....like you should, you never take jokes well do you lol
vode
post #75
27 June 2006, 21:39 UTC#75
HAhahaha, haaaah, pownded.
Dan Avery
post #76
27 June 2006, 21:59 UTC#76
Some major poo-nage going down atm on Haich-Gee-Eff.

Moody I can see why your upset. Have a bannana.
lando
post #77
27 June 2006, 22:18 UTC#77
QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 02:28 PM) [snapback]353672[/snapback]
actually you're wrong, I've already talked to my lawyer and he rattled off about 5 different things to nail you with but for now I've just told him to not care.


LOL, care to name them? Wait, nevermind. Don't, I don't want you to waste your time trying to come up with bullshit reasons when you could be using that time to try and come up with excuses as to why several of the groups who are owed money aren't going to get their money and making up some other bullshit statement about having some dude who worked on the original Star Wars as an Office PA work on your shitty DVDs and try to pass it off as a big deal. You have no case dude.
ELLIOT
post #78
27 June 2006, 22:31 UTC#78
HAHA I knew it wouldnt be long before he brought his imaginary lawyers into this.

Dont worry Mono, every legal threat he's ever made on here has been just that, a threat. Remember that million dollar law suit, and how the authoroties were going to kick my door down in Sydney for asking for a copy of the HGC?

Moody is the fag who cried wolf.

Moody, defamation is only relevant if you defame someones character. From what I can see on that website, all the quotes are yours and all the writing is true. Therefore, you only have a defamation case if the information is false and makes the person look bad in doing so.

Hold firm Mono, dont be threatend my Moodys lies of lawyers. The site is a fucking crack up and needs to stay up.

Moody, if you say you dont care why dont you tell your lawyer mate to back off? Your reasoning is so stupid its not funny.
Funk Master Steven
post #79
27 June 2006, 22:36 UTC#79
QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 09:28 PM) [snapback]353672[/snapback]

take that off of youtube before I have youtube take it down


Don't think Youtube.com can actually do much for you, M0n0 is recieving no cash from the video and has only changed the title around in a way that wouldn't benifit him at all.

Unless m0n0 put a DR water mark on the clip or claimed to own all the footage or sells the footage you can't do much.
ELLIOT
post #80
27 June 2006, 22:41 UTC#80
Hey Moody, did you get my phone message yesterday?
Blasto
post #81
27 June 2006, 23:19 UTC#81
Moody can't sue for the videos. I'm pretty sure he mentioned from the beginning that supplying your footage to him would give him non-exclusive rights. The groups who shot the footage could object, but Moody could only object if the footage was presented as being from "Michael Moody" or "Hollymood Entertainment".

The funniest part of all this is that the best material comes from Moody himself.

Not sure how easy it would be to sue over the site anyway. It can be seen as parody or satire. Plus there are hundreds of anti-websites against Coca Cola, McDonalds, WalMart, and just about every other major corporation, and they seem to be able to avoid legal ramifications.

If some of the groups really, REALLY wanted, they could file a lawsuit against Moody if the day after the payment deadline comes and they don't receive any money. Even if there is no money to be paid out, they are probably legally owed some sort of finacial statement saying so.

And no, I'm not a lawyer, but I have one year of law classes under my belt and two years of film industry-specific legal/business classes to my credit.

I'd also watch out to see if Moody ever releases a "Special Edition" version of the Homegrown Collection". Depending on how the releases were worded, this may give the groups involved the right to renogotiate terms or choose to opt-out of the project.
EVIL-WEBBY
post #82
27 June 2006, 23:31 UTC#82
QUOTE(Blasto @ Jun 28 2006, 12:19 AM) [snapback]353732[/snapback]

I'd also watch out to see if Moody ever releases a "Special Edition" version of the Homegrown Collection". Depending on how the releases were worded, this may give the groups involved the right to renogotiate terms or choose to opt-out of the project.


the only way he could make a special edition is if he re-edited the whole thing
Blasto
post #83
27 June 2006, 23:37 UTC#83
QUOTE(EVIL-WEBBY @ Jun 27 2006, 11:31 PM) [snapback]353735[/snapback]

QUOTE(Blasto @ Jun 28 2006, 12:19 AM) [snapback]353732[/snapback]

I'd also watch out to see if Moody ever releases a "Special Edition" version of the Homegrown Collection". Depending on how the releases were worded, this may give the groups involved the right to renogotiate terms or choose to opt-out of the project.


the only way he could make a special edition is if he re-edited the whole thing


I only mentioned it because I saw he has a re-release of the "101 Reasons Not to Be a Pro Wrestler" DVD he did. I'm curious as to whether or not the people in that DVD were paid a second time for being in the re-release.
EVIL-WEBBY
post #84
27 June 2006, 23:50 UTC#84
im not sure whats different apart from the menu & cover
gman
post #85
27 June 2006, 23:53 UTC#85
QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 11:28 PM) [snapback]353672[/snapback]

QUOTE(gman @ Jun 27 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]353601[/snapback]

QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]353500[/snapback]

just sent it out to a bunch of people on my mailing list and my lawyer replied really quick. he's pissed because it violates copyright and is defamation of character. I emailed him back to chill the fuck out but he's calling me later. you have to understand, I pay this guy to be pissed off for me so I don't have to be pissed off when people step on my feet. so when you deal with him, if he does decide to contact you, you won't be dealing with me on this matter. it's all him and he handles things like this on his own, which is what he is paid to do.



Nice save, knew it was coming.

A little lesson for you.

Meaning of "defamation of character":

QUOTE
If an employer intentionally defames you and it hurts your career, you might be entitled to collect monetary compensation through a defamation lawsuit.


Do you employ mike?

Moving on....

What defamation is not:

QUOTE
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.


Let's break this down, where has Mike implicitly used your company name on the mock website? No where. Where has he implicitly used your full name on the mock site? No where.

Moving on....

QUOTE
In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion which cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense.

In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.


Are you sure Mike doesn't believe this to be true? What about public interest? Seems to be public interest but hasn't really been publically published, has it?

Of course, the art of suing for "defamation" is a complex one, there is much contradictory information. A lawsuit of course could further complicate things as Mike is located in the UK and you in the USA, furthermore this was a parody so wouldn't be taken seriously even if it was indexed publically.

I'd like to hear dgodlewski's opinion here, however due to the loopholes in the American law, the complexity of the defamation laws etc, even if you tried to sue Mike, I would imagine you'd haemorage money and wouldn't win the case.

Nice stance on the "suing" thing tho.


actually you're wrong, I've already talked to my lawyer and he rattled off about 5 different things to nail you with but for now I've just told him to not care. its just a joke and that is it. I personally don't care but you made the mistake of taking my copyrighted trailers and re-editing them with another website name, so seriously, really quick, take that off of youtube before I have youtube take it down



Sorry? I didn't do anything of the sort.

Talk to me, any of our mods or members like that again and your ass will be gone quicker than you can say "lawyer".
Funk Master Steven
post #86
28 June 2006, 00:03 UTC#86
QUOTE(gman @ Jun 27 2006, 11:53 PM) [snapback]353740[/snapback]

QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 11:28 PM) [snapback]353672[/snapback]

QUOTE(gman @ Jun 27 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]353601[/snapback]

QUOTE(Hollymood @ Jun 27 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]353500[/snapback]

just sent it out to a bunch of people on my mailing list and my lawyer replied really quick. he's pissed because it violates copyright and is defamation of character. I emailed him back to chill the fuck out but he's calling me later. you have to understand, I pay this guy to be pissed off for me so I don't have to be pissed off when people step on my feet. so when you deal with him, if he does decide to contact you, you won't be dealing with me on this matter. it's all him and he handles things like this on his own, which is what he is paid to do.



Nice save, knew it was coming.

A little lesson for you.

Meaning of "defamation of character":

QUOTE
If an employer intentionally defames you and it hurts your career, you might be entitled to collect monetary compensation through a defamation lawsuit.


Do you employ mike?

Moving on....

What defamation is not:

QUOTE
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.


Let's break this down, where has Mike implicitly used your company name on the mock website? No where. Where has he implicitly used your full name on the mock site? No where.

Moving on....

QUOTE
In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion which cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense.

In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.


Are you sure Mike doesn't believe this to be true? What about public interest? Seems to be public interest but hasn't really been publically published, has it?

Of course, the art of suing for "defamation" is a complex one, there is much contradictory information. A lawsuit of course could further complicate things as Mike is located in the UK and you in the USA, furthermore this was a parody so wouldn't be taken seriously even if it was indexed publically.

I'd like to hear dgodlewski's opinion here, however due to the loopholes in the American law, the complexity of the defamation laws etc, even if you tried to sue Mike, I would imagine you'd haemorage money and wouldn't win the case.

Nice stance on the "suing" thing tho.


actually you're wrong, I've already talked to my lawyer and he rattled off about 5 different things to nail you with but for now I've just told him to not care. its just a joke and that is it. I personally don't care but you made the mistake of taking my copyrighted trailers and re-editing them with another website name, so seriously, really quick, take that off of youtube before I have youtube take it down



Sorry? I didn't do anything of the sort.

Talk to me, any of our mods or members like that again and your ass will be gone quicker than you can say "lawyer".


Hey Gman can I still talk shit about the mods and other members?
Dan Avery
post #87
28 June 2006, 00:04 UTC#87
Gman 'laid the smackdown' on Moody.

And thats the bottom line, cus GMAN said so!
gman
post #88
28 June 2006, 00:06 UTC#88
I'm just fedup of Moody's moods.
Dan Avery
post #89
28 June 2006, 00:16 UTC#89
QUOTE(gman @ Jun 28 2006, 01:06 AM) [snapback]353745[/snapback]

I'm just fedup of Moody's moods.


But are'nt we all Gman, but are'nt we all.

Poll for ban. Poll for ban.
Moody is a lying man.
Ban this bitch
Or get sick
Moody likes to suck the dick.

Lies lies
omg ban
sorry for this dreadful spam
but if this turd(moody) doesnt flush(go away)
il kill the foo' myself, now kthx shhush.
ELLIOT
post #90
28 June 2006, 00:35 UTC#90
I just sent this link to my girlfriend who works in Media over here as well.

She and the whole office is laughing at Moodys quotes and cant beleive he hasnt been laughed out of the media industry over there yet.