p2pnet vs Crookes, and the culture of sharing
p2pnet view P2P:- The Crookes vs Newton fund could be at $2,930. But it’s still at $1,750.
That’s because this morning, I gave back $1,180.
“Hi XXXX: Thanks, mate, but I couldn’t accept it”, I said to the Canadian p2pnet reader who’d donated it. “But by offering it you’ve done me a good turn — story on p2pnet to follow.”
That was in the note which went with the refunds.

I returned the money because XXXX had already contributed two amounts he couldn’t afford.
They came to $300.
And now, on top of that, he’d in effect given me his month’s wages.
This from a guy who until very recently was sleeping rough because he didn’t have a house to live in.
But he’s also someone who fervently believes Canada wouldn’t be Canada unless people are free to speak their minds without fear or hindrance, and that you have to stand up to keep it that way.
Here’s the story …
Almost five years ago multi-million-dollar Australian company Sharman Networks, and a woman named Nikki Hemming, went after me because an anonymous reader had posted something in p2pnet Sharman, initially, and then Hemming, didn’t like. So they sued me for defamation.
Sharman owns Kazaa, the P2P file sharing application that’s involved in the majority of RIAA Sue ‘Em All cases. Hemming runs Kazaa. Sharman dropped its end of the lawsuit, but Hemming kept hers going and even after well over four years, it’s yet to be heard.
Shortly after it started I was at another fund-raising event, this time for the Kaaza defamation suit. During the course of it, I was on a panel at a freedom of speech round table.
Also there was Michael Pilling because he, too, was involved in a defamation lawsuit, this time brought by Wayne Crookes and when I wrote about the round table, I linked to a link Crookes didn’t like.
He demanded I “repudiate” what he called the “libel” and “apologise”.
I refused and he took it to court.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia agreed with BC Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher’s earlier decision that website owners aren’t responsible for defamatory content on other sites to which they’ve linked.
If the linking website endorses the material or encourages readers to go to the linked site, the linking site may be liable because that might constitute publication, he said.
But I hadn’t published anything, or commented in any way. I’d merely linked.
Wanted — $5,000
Crookes’ final effort to stifle freedom of speech will be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada on December 7
If he wins, Goodbye online freedom of speech in Canada. In fact, Goodbye internet in Canada. And the precedent-setting ruling would bounce around the world, adversely affecting other cases.
As I’ve said in other posts asking for donations, my lawyer, Dan Burnett, is providing his skills and time for free. But we estimate we’ll need around $5,000 for direct and unavoidable out-of-pocket costs such as travel, accommodation, legal disbursements.
But when you get right down to it, I don’t have to be there because it won’t be me or Crookes arguing before the justices from our respective points of view. It’ll be our lawyers, addressing other lawyers.
I could never afford to pay Dan Burnett in which case, Crookes, a wealthy man with three title search companies in Vancouver and a former senior federal Green Party of Canada officer, would have had everything going for him.
Dan is clever, experienced and articulate and his particular expertise is in media law. But if I was paying him, I’d never be able to afford him and I’d be representing myself.
Not a good idea.
I’d take Crookes on any time one-on-one, but when it comes to the letter of the law, rather than what’s right or wrong, I’d be lost.
We have to have lawyers speak for us because only they can understand the archaic languages they’re created for themselves over the centuries and which, all too often, stand in the way of fair treatment and fair play.
In tightly restricted courtoom environments, only they can function. And there, dollars, not sense, rule, more often than not.
Obviously, I’d like to be at the hearing, and I think I should be there. But I can’t afford it by myself. So if push comes to shove, I’ll channel whatever’s in the Crookes vs p2pnet fund to Dan, and I’ll stay here on Vancouver Island and watch it streamed live on the SCC website —- like anyone else who’s interested.
Of course, if Crookes wins, it’ll be me who’ll have to somehow pay him whatever damages the court decides on.
I’ve returned XXXX’s donation. But the spirit in which it was made is the most important part, and that’ll remain alive whatever else happens.
So for Crookes vs The Net, anything you can afford will really help.





October 31st, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Kudos to XXX, sounds like a great guy.
Cheque coming your way, Jon, I was waiting to see how finances were after some fairly large house bills this year!
Good luck, and keep hammering away at this story – it needs to be known far and wide.
October 31st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
be sure and apply for your DMCA Compliance Rectum Exam, cause the DMCA, or something like it is headed your way
October 31st, 2010 at 6:51 pm
@ Dorothy.
Thanks, Dorothy, as always.
Cheers!
October 31st, 2010 at 8:48 pm
The problem with this kind of post and this kind of site is it isn’t mainstream so not many people see it, not enough anyway. That could be the reason you are not getting donations.
Just saying.
November 1st, 2010 at 3:33 pm
@ RW: ‘Jon supports freedom of speech. What a fucking joke!’
From a deleted post –
This guy is a Google fanboi (troll?) who says the same things over and over again and who seems to think it’s his right and privilege to post whatever he wants whenever he wants. So I delete his stuff. No apologies.
As I’ve told him before, when and if he comes up with something original/different/interesting, NP.
Meanwhile … Jon
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 am
You defend your deletion of my messages on the grounds that they have nothing of value to offer, but that is exactly the opposite of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means allowing others to speak their mind, even if you don’t agree with what they have to say. It means allowing them to speak their mind even if what they say angers or offends you, as long as what they say is the truth, or their own opinion. There are no caveats to “freedom of speech” that say it only applies to speech that you approve of.
As I’ve pointed out previously, this is exactly what the Chinese government does. Look at how news of that prisoner receiving the Nobel Peace Price has been blocked for every internet user in China and then look at how you delete any message I post that says anything you don’t like. Now explain to me how they’re not the same thing.
I was the one who posted that message on the cheerleader story explaining that the dancing photo wasn’t related. I was originally going to say that you only included that photo as an extreme example to color people’s judgment of the cheerleader story, but I knew that you wouldn’t like that and my post would get instantly deleted. How is that in any way upholding freedom of speech?
Now you can, and have argued that this blog is your personal site and that you’re under no obligation to provide me with a forum to post my opinions. This is true. However don’t paint yourself as some great believer in freedom of speech when you openly admit to censoring any post that doesn’t measure up to your standards. That attitude is about as far from believing in free speech as you can get.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:04 am
@ RW: ‘… don’t paint yourself as some great believer in freedom of speech when you openly admit to censoring any post that doesn’t measure up to your standards.’
I’ve never said or “admitted” anything even remotely like that.
A censor is A) “an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds”.
Or
B) “any person who supervises the manners or morality of others”.
I’m not A) and I don’t do B).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor
I do, however, very, very occasionally delete — “to strike out or remove (something written or printed); cancel; erase; expunge”.
You’ve become a pest. Nothing more. That’s why your comments have been deleted. So please don’t try to claim an imaginary ‘I’ve been censored’ high ground.
End of story.
Cheers!