Comments on: Spunk Video Sues Lucas Distribution

By: DeWayne

DeWayne — Mon, 19 May 2008 07:13:35 +0000

WOW yeah I guess thats settles it!

Of course when Michael saw Piss in the title he just grabbed it didn’t notice the bareback LOL

By: Will

Will — Mon, 19 May 2008 06:10:11 +0000

OMG, good detective work! I think that’s pretty definitive, no?

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 19 May 2008 06:05:50 +0000

Will, I did not see “Raw Twinks in Czech” on Lucas’ site, but searched for it when I heard of the lawsuit. The only place I have been able to see the movie DVD is on another blog (http://heroesnhunks.com/hardnews/2008/05/16/michael-lucas-could-be-sued-again/) and TLAvideo. The only mark that I can find on the Raw Twinks in Czech cover that connects the film to Lucas is the UPC code with the prefix 79867 and serial number 00046 (the serial number for Auditions 23 is 00048, Juvie Boys 2 is 00049, and so on).

By: Will

Will — Mon, 19 May 2008 06:00:45 +0000

Between this and D & R I’m exhausted! Good night!

By: DeWayne

DeWayne — Mon, 19 May 2008 05:46:19 +0000

Will I think you have to change the title I was told Dukes of Hazzard would have got EON films in big trouble BUT Dicks of Hazzard no one would mistake that for the TV series.

I guess the judge felt Michael Lucas was an irrelevant name change

By: Will

Will — Mon, 19 May 2008 04:59:08 +0000

I typed that before reading the rest of your post. So if he was careful to at least put his name in there, why isn’t that enough?

By: Will

Will — Mon, 19 May 2008 04:56:45 +0000

Guess what, DeWayne? The title of that DVD is “Michael Lucas’ La Dolce Vita.” So apparently his law degree didn’t completely go to waste!

By: Albert

Albert — Mon, 19 May 2008 04:34:18 +0000

Yep.

By: DeWayne

DeWayne — Mon, 19 May 2008 03:02:59 +0000

Will, Jaime is correct about the lawsuit not being dismissed that was pointed out to me after I made my comment. He is correct the judge stated from the bench he did not think the suit had strong merit but he refused to dismiss the suit. Thus costing Lucas additional legal fee’s.

Remember the game in Civil law is played to exhaust your opponent financially before he gets his day in court. I was serious according to U.S. Supreme court rulings, parody is protected speech. The judge should have dismissed the suit but probably declined because its a porno film.

The producer of the “Dicks of Hazzard” was sued by Time-Warner and the suit WAS dismissed.

Lucas should have changed the title slightly on La Dolce Vita (maybe La dolce vita sporchi bambino)
Italian translation for “The sweet life soiled child”.

I thought about spoiled but soiled sounds better in Italian!

I digress the point is I think the judge felt “Michael Lucas La Dolce Vita” was too similar a title to Fellini’s and THAT is why he refused to dismiss.

Oh and Michael probably smirked and sneered at the judge & opposing lawyers in the courtroom thus destroying any potential judicial sympathies!

By: Will

Will — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:44:30 +0000

Jamie – You say “Raw Twinks in Czech” has disappeared from Lucas’ website. Could you please tell us, did you ever actually see it there? Because at this point I can find no confirmation anywhere that this is actually being released by Lucas, much less that he commissioned it.

By: Will

Will — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:22:08 +0000

Perhaps his ONGOING legal costs had something to do with this latest debacle?

By: Will

Will — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:03:59 +0000

This poster appears to be absolutely correct. A quick Google search produced a judge’s ruling refusing to bar the sale of Lucas’ La Dolce Vita DVD, nothing more. He did express doubts about the merits of the case from the bench. But that is the last development I’ve been able to find.

That news item from the Wall Street Journal is over a year old. If the lawsuit is still active, why nothing since? However, I would have to say my earlier statement and DeWayne’s reply for now stand corrected.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sun, 18 May 2008 21:47:44 +0000

When was the Fellini lawsuit dismissed or settled? Lucas’ pr machine would have certainly ensured wide celebration. The restraining order that the owners of La Dolce Vita attempted to obtain was denied, but according to the court, that lawsuit remains active.

And now, Spunk Video has alleged that Lucas stole thier movie. Hmm, is there a pattern?

From what I’ve been told by highly placed individuals is that Lucas commissioned the bareback film from the Czech Republic director who has worked for Lucas for some time. Then, although comlpetely unrelated, the three boys on Rufus Foulkes’ set seroconverted, and the industry went into convulsions (again) which scared Lucas from releasing his movie.

According to their press release, Lucas apparently refused to pay the director and told him to go sell it to somebody else, which is where Spunk Video enters the picture.

One thing Lucas said in another back-and-forth over the Fellini suit has stayed with me: in complaining about the Fellini lawsuit, he said something about you all know “a non-bareback movie with a foriegn title” isn’t going to sell enough to cover the legal costs he’s incurred. I wish I could find the blog entry where he said that, but like the movie “Raw Twinks in Czech” it has disappeared from Lucas’ site.

By: Will

Will — Sun, 18 May 2008 06:30:36 +0000

Actually V.J., I want a do-over. I SHOULD have said:

Who are you and what have you done with DeWayne?

By: V.J.

V.J. — Sun, 18 May 2008 05:42:17 +0000

Dewayne and Will,
That was good!
LOL!

By: Will

Will — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:45:59 +0000

DeWayne – You’re turning soft.

By: DeWayne

DeWayne — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:58:16 +0000

Will, yes the Fellini lawsuit was dismissed after Lucas had wiped out his profit on La Dolce Vita on legal bills,,by his own admission. You can be right and still have to pay those legal bills.

And in Michaels defense he was right La Dolce Vita was a parody protected speech!

See I can stick up for ML when he is right!

By: Terry

Terry — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:32:09 +0000

Whatever, people have a beef with Michael Lucas, and he may have screwed up with Spunk Video, or not, I’ll never know. But I’m sick of every thread about him turning into a bitchfest. Over it.

By: Will

Will — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:10:04 +0000

DeWayne – Good to hear from you! Let’s not forget the first lawsuit was summarily dismissed. Just because somebody sues you doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong!

By: DeWayne

DeWayne — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:28:00 +0000

Would I piss on Michael while he is lying prostate (pun intended) in the throes of yet another lawsuit?

Yes because Michael likes Piss and Spunk or is that spooge (Just on the face not the butt & make sure there is a rubber there so its not BAREBACK)

Seriously I believe Michaels Stellar human relations program is paying big dividends these days. 2nd expensive lawsuit for Michael in 12 months,,if this keeps up Michael will have to get a real job befitting a man with a law degree…

Flat on his back, legs in the air & cock in mouth!

Just ask Barry Taylor its what lawyers DO for their clients nowadays!