p2pnet sued for libel
p2pnet goes on hold …
Hi everyone:
I’m being sued for libel and consequently, there’ll be a drop in postings for a few days while I try to get the situation sorted out.
As I’ve posted a number of times, p2pnet is a non-entrepreneurial, not-for-profit site based in Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. It started out as a personal page and although the ads now pay my way and support the site, they do so only with the barest of margins and I’m not living in the lap of luxury, or even able to put anything in the bank. I say this not because I want anyone to feel sorry for me. p2pnet is a commitment and I’m tremendously proud to have been able to stand up strongly for principles I, and others, believe in.
I hope I’ve come up with a workable solution and I’ll keep you posted as things progress. Meanwhile, if you’re a Canadian lawyer who may be willing to represent me pro bono, please contact me at jon@p2pnet.net.
Cheers! And thanks. And as usual, all the best …
By way pf a PS – I will be posting after all. People have sent copy in (not to mention emails of support) and it’d be churlish not to. So give me a few moments (I was up all night) for a shower and a cuppa and I’ll get started …….
Better : ) A cup of rosie lee works wonders, as does getting wet. heh.
Who’s behind this? There’s very little I can say about things at this point, except everyone has been wrong so far. I’ll post updates but for now, I’ll get the items sent in online and we’ll talk later.
Cheers! And thanks, everybody. It’s nice to know I have friends, even if they are as broke as me : )
=============
UPDATE – 12:31 Pacific
I’m not being coy by keeping my mouth shut. As I just told Tim Richardson over at The Register:
While I search for someone to act for me (ie, pro bono publico), I can say this: I’m being sued principally as a publisher, not for something I wrote.
This represents online freedom of speech in its purest sense and my natural inclination is to go into detail in public.
But this isn’t about what’s right or wrong. It’s about the law, and that’s a very different bag. Handsomely paid lawyer’s pleading against handsomely paid lawyers to other handsomely paid lawyers. The defendants and/or plaintiffs are almost incidental.
And at this point, I’m getting nowhere with finding legal help here in Canada.
In the meanwhile, I’ll be doing posts as and when I can, in between trying to find a way to deal with this, or have it dealt with, in a fair and reasonable way.
This is David and Goliath all over again and funnily enough, I just had a call from Patti Santangelo. We were comparing notes and the way it’s going, I may soon have to try and start a defence fund for myself.
So if there are any rich people out there who’d be interested in giving me a hand …….
In other words, there’s no a gag order – I’m silent because I haven’t been able to take any action on my own behalf yet.
And the case is hugely ironic, as you’ll discover when some of the details emerge.
And be sure of this – It has the potential to set a precedent, in Canada at least, turning online freedom of speech into a genuine travesty.
Finally, I’m getting a little tired of the nasty emails, etc. Leave it out, OK? You guys aren’t doing anyone any good by slinging mud. We need to be in lock-step, not dancing separate, pointless jigs.
Cheers! And definitely stay tuned.
Jon
(And not at all incidentally, thanks for all the good wish emails ……)
=============
UPDATE 2 – 10:32 Pacific, May 20 – It’s now public knowledge that Kazaa owner Sharman Networks and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming are the ones who are suing me. My most recent post is here
.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:49 am
NO WAY !!! Please keep up updated, what is their case?
May 15th, 2006 at 3:19 am
yeh – keep us posted
May 15th, 2006 at 3:47 am
Is it the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, CRIA, all the above or none of the above?
May 15th, 2006 at 4:03 am
We’re behind you all the way Jon. We need site’s like yours on the net, too bad some people don’t feel the same way… Keep us posted.
Cheers,
Nathan
May 15th, 2006 at 4:09 am
I second that. Wish I was a Canadian lawyer.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:30 am
God forbid people take everything being writen on the internet as being true, or as opinions being fact.
10:1 it’s google, they’re a bunch of loveless <insert unpleasant noun>.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:36 am
p2pnet is the best p2p news site, keep on fighting!
http://www.natural-person.ca/
May 15th, 2006 at 5:07 am
i wish you well. olease do’t give in.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:15 am
http://www.uottawa.ca/associations/clinic/eng/main.htm
May 15th, 2006 at 6:26 am
whats the big deal?
May 15th, 2006 at 7:52 am
that whoever is suing p2pnet will have more resources (like money) to attack Jon with. It’s going to be a big guy vs. little guy situation and they’re probably only doing it to show how big and powerful they are.
Bloggers are increasingly the first ones to report the news and/or giver coverage to stories that the mainstream ignore…until it turns out that there are actually millions of people reading about the story and they’re forced to report it for fear of looking out of touch.
Attacks on bloggers are bad for the idea of free speech because bloggers often don’t have the resources to fight back.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Libel is a serious accusation. If all news are derivatives from main stream media, then there is nothing to worry about. However if someone is attempting to put down a point of view that’s a different story. I hope it is not an attack on the point of view.
I like from time to time to read in here for fun about that thieving bunch of “copyright Guild” commoners being put in proper and rightious perspective of whom they really are and were already for many centuries in Europe. This “industry” would never evolve in any country governed by nobility. So its roots also stink from Britain (patent Guild) and USA (copyright Guild)… No suprise there, isn’t it. However usually when an industry’s bare existance is soly dependend on a restrictive legislation, then it is also usually some form of a state monopoly. It is not the case with corporations behind MPAA and RIAA. They are private. This sick situation must end sooner better then later.
Good luck!
May 15th, 2006 at 11:03 am
It would be nice if you were to post more details on this at some point. Or do we have to contact you privately?
May 15th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Good luck… hope it all works out – would hate to see the site die
May 15th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Jon
Surely the copyright cartel is somehow behind the lawsuit. I personally have ben sued twice for alleged slander by a local “copyright lawyer”. While I cannot prove it, I see the copyright cartel members behind the lawsuits against me.
Surely to these cartel people free thinkers who reason like you are threats to be done away with. After all, you and those like you are a threat to the hold that the copyright cartels have on the works that artist and songwriters, etc. have sweted to make and are now controlled by the cartels for their almost exclusive benefit.
But dont’t worry. They cartels may have money but you have the reason. Anyway it is not necessary to have the reason. Free speech allows for errors in thinking.
If you decide to set up a fund for your defense, you can count on me for help. I am sure others will want to help too. You helped Santangelo in a big way and now it’s your turn. Just let us know how we can help.
I am sure the readers of your site will understand that their freedom of speech is also at stake. If the lawsuit madness is not stopped, anyone can be next.
Good luck.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 15th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Bet ya 5 bucks it’s the jerks that have been spamming the site
( BT-Chat ). They took offense at being called out for it.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Jon still has to go through the legal wranglings of getting his charge(s) dismissed. With libel you actually have to prove that Jon knowingly said a false claim, which has to be proven he already knew was false (through prior writings, speech etc) and that he was acting with the intent to harm/damage the person charging him with libel.
Good luck Jon, I’ve never known you to intentionally lie or twist the facts with intent.
TT
May 15th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Amen.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
nz
May 15th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
It’s going to stop a lot of people from getting spyware on their computers from those ads that are “supporting” this site: Morpheus, Bearshare, Warezclient, etc.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
“It’s going to stop a lot of people from getting spyware on their computers from those ads that are “supporting” this site: Morpheus, Bearshare, Warezclient, etc. ”
This, would be libelous,
Or simply the act of a cowardly, basement living, pimple faced,
poo slinging weenus.
Depends on how seriously you want to take the words of a fly
eating chicken-shit with a personal grudge, and no life
Never EVER got a spyware infection from the ADs on this site.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
spyware usually comes from stupidity.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Hmm Jon. In the shits I see… well it does serve you right. You want to call people names. Pay the man the price. You get what you deserve….
May 15th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
ooooooohhh sooooo true
May 15th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Hi,
I ‘m that loser with no life again.
I have a personaly grudge against jon, so I hide in the
dark and fling insults anonymously. My envy of jon and
this site knows no boundaries, so I will say and do anything
to cause it harm … anonymously, of course.
That’s the definition of coward
Now, I want my stapler !!
May 15th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Well done fanboy…. keep up the good work!!!
May 15th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Lets keep the mudslinging going. It gives this site a great rep!
May 15th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Hi,
It’s me the loser again.
Since I really have nothing, I am now going to resort to more
anonymous namecalling. “Fanboy” is the best I can come up
with right now due to limited vocabulary an IQ.
I promise to look up some more really good names to call
supporters of this site though … anonymously of course.
I wouldn’t want anyone to know who I am and what REALLY
motivates me.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Hi, me again .. no really.
I am now going to do my best to pretend that I am a different poster. ahhhhh the cleverness of me
May 15th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
OOOOOOOO!!!! Loser…..
The fanboy tag really does suit you….
As for libel – how about I sue Jon for comments you just made? Or how about Cary Sherman or Dan Glickman? Or how about Graham Henderson?
Shall I keep going down the list? How about Apple? How about Microsoft? How about Sony? How about the RIAA or the MPAA? If you want to live in a glass house and throw stones, don’t go crying when the glass falls on you and cuts you….
Jon has made enough shit to last a lifetime. Perhaps the reaping what you sow saying is coming back to kick him in the balls??????
May 15th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Hi me again….
I am going to be posting as I like. Get this thread full of vitriol. It will be nice for people to read some hard facts for once from a really crappy “news” site….
May 15th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Hi,
Me again.
Now I am going to resort to anonymous threats
My anonymous feelings were harmed, so now I am going to
wave my anonymous fists in the anonymous air in the make
believe land were I make the world quake before my greatness.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Don’t feed the trolls.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
LOL!!!!
May 15th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
LOL,
Ok,
I am done pulling his chain.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Loser: His posts caused considerable harm to my spotless
reputation.
Judge: Did he know who you were ?
Loser: Of course not, I was “Anonymous”
Judge: Did ANYONE know who you were ?
Loser: why no, I was ANONYMOUS ?
Judge: So, no one knows who’s reputation was at stake ?
Loser: Well, no , but my feelings were hurt real bad
Judge: Call Oprah, but use your own dime.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
what? you still here?
May 15th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I am anonymous, therefore, I am always here.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
well that makes two of us…..
May 15th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Matte ?
May 15th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Jon wouldn’t be too worried if it were just some hair-trigger “I’m going to sue!” individual. The guess that it’s the spammers is a good one, but maybe it’s somebody worse – maybe it’s the <formerly known as do no> Evil Empire, upset about about click fraud spat!
May 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
It’s very similar to the REAL reason the RIAA wants P2P eliminated.
It’s the competition, plain and simple.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
As someone who has been subject to Jons ridicule in the past Im kinda in two minds about p2pnet being sued .
It may get Jon to think about what he posts about individuals ,but it also stifles freedom of the press and bloggers .
Good luck anyway Jon and becareful what you write about .
May 15th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Hi,
Me again …
Same loser trying to look like a different poster.
( i’m a ninja, you can’t see me )
May 15th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Heh, Maybe its Sam Bulte, you’ll probably see Mike Geist get sued next week too.
Anyhow good luck Jon, probably some copyshit Lawyer or politician trying to cover their lies.
May 15th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
”
As for libel – how about I sue Jon for comments you just made? Or how about Cary Sherman or Dan Glickman? Or how about Graham Henderson?
Shall I keep going down the list? How about Apple? How about Microsoft? How about Sony? How about the RIAA or the MPAA? If you want to live in a glass house and throw stones, don’t go crying when the glass falls on you and cuts you….
Jon has made enough shit to last a lifetime. Perhaps the reaping what you sow saying is coming back to kick him in the balls??????
”
I would be very, very carefull about threatening people with being cut, if you’re a filthy and pesky commoner, who doesn’t have guts to call thieves, bandits, criminals, MPAA, RIAA and their corporate associates for thieves, bandits and criminals, whom they really are. Why? Because, it wasn’t even an entire 100 years ago, when bandits, criminals, MPAA, RIAA, their corporate associates could be cut into pieces by any nobleman in Europe and even without paying a fine for the murder, if they caught these filthy vermines selling copyrighted cds or robbing travellers on the highway. Personally I don’t find anything written here about copyright and people behind it too strongly expressed, as it could be done properly by a person with a correct blue blood birth. And there are many colorfull words to be said about Guilders… any Guilders whatsoever, aren’t there.
pan Piotr Glownia,
(I am not an anonymous coward! My words are mine and I stand with my life behind them!)
http://home.swipnet.se/Piotr_Glownia/
May 15th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
people know about you and care about you
larytet
May 15th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
1. http://www.cippic.ca/
2. http://www.onlinerights.ca/
3. http://michaelgeist.ca/
Dr. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He has obtained a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Master of Laws (LL.M.) degrees from Cambridge University in the UK and Columbia Law School in New York, and a Doctorate in Law (J.S.D.) from Columbia Law School.
He’s an Online-rights advocate. Another good source for potential help (has a law school behind him too)
He also has another site run out of the Univercity of Ottawa, i lost the link though.
4. http://www.digital-copyright.ca/
5. http://www.eff.org though american based, they have canadian affiliates and lawyers who work out of the 4 links pasted above. Would be a good source to perhaps get some contacts.
You may have good chances if this law suite originates from the US. You have rights as a CDN that can’t be step’d on. But CDN law in terms of libel, i think may be more strict than americans since they have the 1st ammendment backing them. But not sure.
Good luck
Wish we knew more in depth info like source of the libel suite (american or CDN) and what entity.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Interesting, if it is, and now this happens.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
If this is really about competition, then there could very well be the lamescream media behind this lawsuit.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Yep. Not the first time the conspiracy theory has been raised (http://wiredfire.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=52)
But people are also saying that it’s all a publicity stunt to raise P2P’s ratings at Alexa.com
May 15th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Yep. Not the first time the conspiracy theory has been raised (http://wiredfire.org/)
But people are also saying that it’s all a publicity stunt to raise P2P’s ratings at Alexa.com
May 15th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Ask Nick Parker and DannyBhoi-Wallace what they know about this.
ASK THEM
Yes. They’re the ones spamming the comments here in a vain attempt to ruin discussion
ASK THEM.
And if you are involved with Parker you better think again.
Are you listening?
May 15th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
boo
May 15th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
thats right freedom of speech, can’t sue people for them saying shit. liable? whats liable? what the liability, avoiding censorship? telling about asshole idiots who want to cover up, and they sue? if ths site goes own hundreds more will pop up.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
DONT YOU FUCKING DARE MOTHERFUCKING DUMBFUCK
May 15th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
… this is for Ontario only: I’m currently trying to find something similar in BC.
Cheers!
May 15th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
its libel, not liable.
Since we don’t know the details, its a bit premature to really claim freedom of speech protection.
Freedom of speech doesn’t protect you from making outragous claims about people or organizations that you can’t back up with fact.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
all you do is sue each other
May 15th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
“Ask Nick Parker and DannyBhoi-Wallace what they know about this.
ASK THEM
Yes. They’re the ones spamming the comments here in a vain attempt to ruin discussion ”
Most of us already realized that.
Who else has such a very personal bone to pick with Jon
and this site ?
I don’t think they are the ones suing tho.
If they were suing, they wouldn’t be posting.
Since they CAN’T sue, the only choice they have is to hide in the dark and Troll .
May 15th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I REALLY wish I could tell you you’re wrong and to go “Die in a Fire” .
But the sad fact is that you are correct.
// steps into the inferno
May 15th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
“Ask Nick Parker and DannyBhoi-Wallace what they know about this.
ASK THEM
Yes. They’re the ones spamming the comments here in a vain attempt to ruin discussion ”
Most of us already realized that.
Who else has such a very personal bone to pick with Jon
and this site ?
I don’t think they are the ones suing tho.
If they were suing, they wouldn’t be posting.
Since they CAN’T sue, the only choice they have is to hide in the dark and Troll . ”
I think that these comments are exactly why Jon is in the shit. Accusing individuals without a shred of evidence is tantamount to slander. I would be careful if I were Jon. And I would also think that it would be prudent to monitor and moderate these comments. It could land you in more trouble.
Good luck mate. I hope that your legal problems are sorted out quickly. I wish you well and I hope that no harm comes to you or your family.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Jon,
You are my friend, and I wish you nothing but the best. At times like these, you find out who your true friends really are.
Roadblock
P2P Consortium
May 15th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
“I think that these comments are exactly why Jon is in the shit. Accusing individuals without a shred of evidence is tantamount to slander. ”
And, you’d be wrong.
As with you, I control my comments. Jon has no responsibility
or control over anything I say.
Much like you.
Hiding under your “blankie” of anonymity.
Looks like your STILL the same troll attempting to pretend you’re
someone else. As another poster said a while back.
“my writing style is easy to recognize ”
No one’s fooled.
“Good luck mate. I hope that your legal problems are sorted out quickly. I wish you well and I hope that no harm comes to you or your family. ”
Why say what you don’t mean ?
My personal opinion ( not necessarily that of the site or it’s owners or operators ) is that you are a troll and most definitely
someone who has a personal grudge against the site.
Also,
You are absolutely no one to fear … whatsoever.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
[quote]I think that these comments are exactly why Jon is in the shit. Accusing individuals without a shred of evidence is tantamount to slander. I would be careful if I were Jon. And I would also think that it would be prudent to monitor and moderate these comments. It could land you in more trouble.
Good luck mate. I hope that your legal problems are sorted out quickly. I wish you well and I hope that no harm comes to you or your family.[/quote]
And Parker speaks!
Jon didn’t post this, I did. You are making an awful lot of enemies Parker and there are an awful lot of people angry about what has happened to Jon. Don’t come it here with your faux concern. You make me sick with your ass-kissing of everyone you secretly plot to harm. Your time will come. You fucked P2PNet over with your poison and you did the same to Slyck (you weren’t aware that your attempt to discredit Slyck by getting all touchy-feely with the MPAA was discovered and one of the reasons why you’re no longer there?). Who knows what lies you had to spill forth to trick FD into giving you Snarf Forums and yes! your very own news section.
Well isn’t all this convenient.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
And who has the grudge? Hmmm…..
May 15th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
This is so nice, so lovely! The comments section have been hijacked! Stop feeding the trolls and they will go away!
May 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
This is great stuff. Parker covers the story and is also participating heavily in every news thread abou this issue on every major p2p forum.
He’s the only person to keep going on and on and on about how much he feels for Jon and his family. He’s repeating it time and time and time again. After everything he’s said in the past about Jon I find this a bit rich, fuckin smug and just another portion of evidence left behind in his destructive wake.
You just guaranteed your section wiredfire is going to get trolled into the ground forever. But at the moment you’d be grateful for a troll as your solitary but one poster.
Internet wasteland or trash heap? You decide. It’ll be one or the other
May 15th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
In the words of Pantera…
“You cry for compensation. I ask you please just give us…
5 minutes alone”
May 15th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
We eat and have sex too.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
IANAL, TINLA
I’ve had letters claiming defamation sent to me in the past. Once from the Canadian Alliance Party (I was hosting a website called the CanadianAllianceParty.net that was an obvious spoof of the party) and a “lawyer” who was attacking free speech advocates.
<http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=102>
It’s a hard decision to “speak truth to legal accusation”, but hard for us to know how to help your defence without knowing what the accusation was. While I have seen many articles with controversial political statements in them, I have never seen anything that would qualify as defamation. I really have no idea what the accusation would be.
John may be comforted a bit by what the actual law is on this issue. The bottom of the article I referenced above has a “Is this really defamation, and what is the problem?” section that links to Canadian law on this. The following was a summary
In order for the online venturer to be found directly liable for the tort of defamation, each of the following elements must be proven:
1. the offending materials must have been published (that is to say, communicated in some tangible fashion to at least one person other than the plaintiff);
2. the materials must have expressly, or by reasonable implication, referred to the plaintiff; and
3. the materials must have been false and, in the eyes of a reasonable person, discrediting to the plaintiff in their context.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Unfortunately those three standards are for US libel law, not Canada.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Actually as a lawyer, the Libel laws in most countries are very strict. Defamation (the result of Libel) can carry huge damage awards. Canada has particularly strong Libel laws, and reading many posts and articles on this site, a number of them may certainly qualify as Libel. Remember that people that post can be just as liable for defamation as people who publish. This is particularly true under Canadian Law.
It has become very commonplace for companies to sue people who make negative or untrue comments on chat boards and sites about their companies, executives and business and most of these claims have been upheld by the courts and allowed to proceed. The protection of \\\\\\\”free speech\\\\\\\” is greater in the USA than in Canada, but is still very limited, and in many cases rightfully so.
The best example is: imagine if you were charged with burglary of the house next door, and then the local newspaper called you a \\\\\\\”thief\\\\\\\”. You would certainly sue them for Libel and win a defamation case. The correct reporting would be to state that you were charged with burglary, particularly if at any point later you were found innocent either in the case or an appeal
So the solution here is caution as to what you say. Remember when you post you are leaving a long trail as to who you are, first from the outbound ISP (your internet provider) then to the inbound ISP and then to the site. All have the IP information showing exactly where you came from and what machine you used. In fact the web has been proven to be the easiest way to track down even sophisticated hackers as I sure everyone has read about. (even with proxys or cafes). The easiest information to obtain is an IP location as almost all courts have granted this information, if for no other reason than to determine if there was malice involved (malice being a posting or comment which was done to purposefully create harm or damage).
So when you write a comment, write it as if you are leaving it signed with your personal name and home phone number, because that is in effect what you are doing.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
“a number of them may certainly qualify as Libel.”
just wondering which one it is? May qualify or certainly qualify? Things either certainly do or certainly don’t.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
This isn’t an american site you moron. Its Canadian.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
post – Um, I’m thinking it may mean it’s something one of US wrote. Just guessin’
http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8788&comment=40902
jon says under it “That does indeed come into it.”
May 15th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
“imagine if you were charged with burglary of the house next door, and then the local newspaper called you a \\\”thief\\\”. You would certainly sue them for Libel and win a defamation case.”
Really, this posting is legally correct but in logic mistaken and creates confusion. To prove my point, some questions/points.
The proposition that anyone can sue the local press is unrealistic. The press can always hires better connected lawyers, and who can trust that the judicial system will be fair when one of the parties is the press?
In my neighborhood the press is typically silent about judge performance, but the silence is actually paid for when a press related case reaches the judge.
Anyway is it not a defamation lawsuit a type of though control that exists because it is a good source of expected income for the person suing and the lawyers of all the parties?
And what if the newpaper had said “we think that the thief is the neighbor? Does the word “think” or “is our opinion” change anything?
The same reasoning applies to suing any entity with better connections or a deeper pocket. Ironically people generally sue for defamation those with deeper pockets figuring they have money to settle or pay a sentence. That is what lawyers say, but fail to say that the deep pockets can also be used to defeat the lawsuit.
Or is it that everything that is published must first be screened by a lawyer?
And where does one get a lawyer that can read what others write in other countries and can tell if what is said is the truth or not or if is defamatory per the laws of the proper country, and which is the proper country? where the publication is done or where the alleged defamed person resides or where the defaming writer resides?
And what about what callers say on radio? Is the radio station reponsible of what is said by callers? Must everything be taped first and screened by a lawyer first? Is that done anywhere?
Frankly, suing for libel is always for the purpose of silencing. If any damage was done anyway it is not reversible, except by the proper out of court explanations of the defamed party. So if you are callled a “thief”, it means nothing if it is not true. Sue and more people will know that you were called “thief”. The best legal advise is “never sue for defamation”. Don’t let defamation bother you. Have a heart and forgive. Go to Church and pray for the defamer. Never go to a lawyer for the purpose of suing.
BTW, a huge segment of the population and our youth has been called “thief” by the copyright cartels. Imagine everyone suing!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 15th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
interesting. so someone did a comment and P2Pnetis being sued? cant be.
May 16th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Basically, as I understand it at this juncture, if someone publishes something by someone else, to all intents, it’s as if they said it themselves.
Think about it. However, there’s a question implicit here. Even if I knew who’d posted something, or I could find out, would I pass that on? The answer is No.
Unlike most sites, I don’t ask people to sign on so they can say something. If they want to register, more power to them. But for me, anonymous means anonymous. You have my word.
Cheers!
May 16th, 2006 at 1:46 am
There is no sex in USSA
May 16th, 2006 at 4:29 am
You’ve not posted any of the details (and I understand why) so I’ll withold any comments about this until it develops to where some facts can be put to print. No sense in rumor mongering and going off on a tangent that would be nothing but conjecture at this time. Once more facts are known I will then make comment.
I do wish you the best in this and will keep an eye out for updates that will bring this subject more into focus.
I know of no better way for gathering good publicity and rep than some idiotic lawsuit making false claims. However let us see where this goes. I suspect it will be a tough road to hoe for the claimant to prove what he will have to prove to verify this libel.
While I know that dealing with this will be a pain in the butt, it sounds like the claiment has more money than sense.
In the meantime, make as much hay and publicity with it as you are allowed to do from the legal aspect. It will do nothing but advance our cause and show the claiment as the idiot he/it is. I pray that it is one of the well known organizations that this site makes target of. While that would not be cheap, it would be one heck of a responce and getting the word out would be of high importance, gathering not only sympathy for the cause but also valuable publicity pointing to yet more traffic to your site.
I will await further developments for when you can speak of this in a more frank manner.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:31 am
My in house counsel where I work tells me that in Canada it is the party that is sued that has to prove that in fact the Libelous statement is true, not the other way around, which means the burden of proof sits with the accused not the accuser. Strange but true.
Also sites and ISP collect and retain IP information and these can be used to identify any party whether they have registered or not. This means that anyone can be actually identified through this method by the issuance of a court order, including this post. Strange again, but true.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:13 am
the person being sued (jon) has to prove the libelous statement is true?
also jon has said repeatedly that he does not collect or retain isp information from anyone who visits this site, whether they post a message or not.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
access log retention is not required for a site like this, it’s not a big business that has to conform to (most) legal standards.
people seem to think that no one controls this data, in fact jon does. he may have made a choice a long time ago not to collect this data or to shred it monthly.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
If you start a fund I’ll definitely donate. This site rules.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
actually not! ISP services retain all log retention particularly if they are in the US as otherwise they have a liability. So they do exist. Also if Jon is liable for what is posted here, lets not get him in any more trouble particularly by hinting that he should destroy things which may have criminal liability for him or others.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Do what you have to do Jon. Itd be a crying shame if we lost the only real news site.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
heh, some of you people.
saying that jon doesn’t have a legal obligation to collect or retain access log data in no way implies that he ‘should destroy’ things that would be retarded, i’m sure that part of the conditions of him being served was that he retain data (any past, present and future), from this point foward until this is resolved.
why does everything have to be consipracy with some people?
don’t read between the lines, read the lines. if jon was a big company like mircosoft, he would be required to keep data. he is a small time news and editorial site, therefor he is not bound to the same laws of retention, thats all that was said.
finally, its not like jon commited a crime by letting people post their opinions, he’s a victim of not have a stupid disclaimer that says these are opinions. a commenter said something someone didn’t like, and they don’t want it viewable to the public anymore, plain and simple.
please be aware of the differences between ‘civil and criminal’.
again, some people…
best of luck jon.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Actually in Canada This can be tried as a criminal offence.
There are many web sites dedicated to Canadian Libel/Defamation laws and outcomes, which you can google for. One gerneral one is:
http://www.duhaime.org/Tort/ca-defam.aspx
Not many libel suites are lost. It appears its quiet easy to sue for libel in Canada, even if the data is contained on american servers.
Unlike the states, which can print articles without proof or truth (meaning its allowed to be assumed and rumour) , its not allowed in Canada.
In addition, if he is being sued for articles posted here, Most provences in Canada have limits on how old the article is if someone sues (ie a max of 6-weeks old).
It may be legal to download warez in Canada, but sure isn’t legal to say whatever the “f” you want about someone or some entity.
The owner/publisher, being canadian, is responsible for this from what i know, regardless of where the article (data is) though i could be wrong.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:00 am
In addition, if he is being sued for articles posted here, Most provences in Canada have limits on how old the article is if someone sues (ie a max of 6-weeks old).
Does this mean if it’s more than six weeks old it’s OK?
May 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
This is dependant on the provence. There is a fed law, but also the provincial law that has to be considered. Each provence has their own (or similar).
The age of the article is a consideration as well. The age will depend on the provincial law i do believe.
What i am not sure about is weather the law applies to where the data resides (ie provence of where the server is or the publisher) IF this is even a consideration in libel/defimation suites. But it should be since provincial laws are also applied.
So in other words, if he lives PEI and PEI libel/defamation laws there state that legal action must be taken within 8 weeks of publishing, That means a person can’t sue over an article thats 1-yrs old. The stated amount of time has already passed by law.
Again, this depends on the provincial law, not federal law (I believe), and maybe, but i am not sure, where (provence) the libel/defamation suite has been entered into court.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
That is correct. Sex is copyrighted my Microsoft in the big ol’ US of A.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Scan the letters you got. put them online!
May 17th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
“There is a fed law, but also the provincial law that has to be considered.”
This is as stupid as it can get.
Provincial law as applied to the Internet? Well, the provinces are really provincial if they think they can shove their little rules (law is too big of a word) to the INTERNETational community.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
you said “This is as stupid as it can get.”
yup its stupid (maybe) but it is the truth.
Yes provincial law affects the net and what is done. AGAIN, this depends of your server location (business address) etc…
This is NOTHING NEW.
you need only look at the Office de la Langue Francaise (OLF) who has succefully sued in Qubec (provincial law applicable to provincial business address even though the data business portal was on a non-quebec server).
You may think its ridiculus and stupid and so forth, but its what happens, has happened, will happen and is happening. Accpet it.
Internet is not a lawless international medium ruled by one law.
This is also true for any legal issue. Provincial law has to be observed (not just federal).
This is even true for privacy issues which are governed by the Fed gov, but also by the provincial gov.
Now this may also play a role in this libel suite, depending on what is being demanded. BC has a great addition to the privacy act of canada. It also protects CDN private info (ip # is considered private according to the privacy commisioner of Canada). So if there are demands to be made, it has to meet criteria of the fed as well as prov. Unless a court order is obtained, and in which case he has a right to demand the network admin release no information according to this act (but he has a week (5-7 days) to demand this.
It can get complicated indeed depending on prov, what is being sued for on n on.
QUOTE:
You should also be aware that most provinces have implemented very short limitation periods with regards to alleged defamation appearing in newspapers or broadcast (as short as six weeks in some cases) so time may be of the essence.
END Quote:
This is in essance publishing. He has to check his provincial law.
“INTERNETational community” maybe in your dreams.. but in reality, no such thing. Laws apply for where you and/or the server resides, weather federal or provincial.
Now you are more educated… enjoy the new found food of thought, and don’t be quick to call it ridiculous. Its the law.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Notice/Avis: This summary does not apply to Quebec. Ce sommaire ne s’applique pas au territoire quebecois.
Defamation was well described in a 1970 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision called Murphy v. LaMarsh:
(Defamation is where) a shameful action is attributed to a man (he stole my purse), a shameful character (he is dishonest), a shameful course of action (he lives on the avails of prostitution), (or) a shameful condition (he has smallpox). Such words are considered defamatory because they tend to bring the man named into hatred, contempt or ridicule. The more modern definition (of defamation) is words tending to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
The common law protects every person from harm to their reputation by false and derogatory remarks about their person, known as defamation. In addition, all Canadian provinces have libel/ slander legislation (defamation includes slander and libel, where slander is verbal defamation and libel is printed defamation). It is a tricky and slippery field of law, based on statutes, English common law and many defences. No wonder it has been called a “peculiar tort”. And remember, defamation tort law protects your reputation, not your feelings.
The major points of defamation law in Canada are as follows:
Defamation is a “strict liability” tort. In other words, it does not matter if the defamation was intentional or the result of negligence. Defamatory material is presumed to be false and malicious. “Whatever a man publishes”, according to one case, “he publishes at his peril.”
Defamation must be a direct attack on an actual reputation, not an alleged reputation that a “victim” believes they deserve. A judge will assess the statement against the evidence of the victim’s reputation in their community.
The remarks must be harmful (i.e. “defamatory”) and this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Some statements are clearly defamatory. Other statements would only be defamatory to the person targeted by the remarks. What may be a nonsensical or mildly offensive remark to one person may constitute serious defamation to another. The judge will consider the situation of the person defamed in assessing the claim of defamation.
The defamatory remark must be clearly aimed at the plaintiff. General, inflammatory remarks aimed at a large audience would not qualify as the remarks must be clearly pointed at a specific person.
The defamatory remarks must be somehow conveyed to a third party. Private defamation just between two parties causes no reputation damage to reputation because there are no other persons to be impacted by the remarks. With libel, the damage is presumed as it is published. With slander (verbal defamation), proof of repetition to other people is essential to the claim; damages have to be proven (there are four exceptions: the defamation imputes the commission of a crime, the unchaste status of a woman, a “loathsome disease”, or a professional incompetence).
There are a number of special defences available against defamation:
The “defamatory” remark was basically accurate.
The plaintiff agreed with the defamatory remarks. For example, if the plaintiff subsequently publishes the remarks, they would be hard pressed to succeed in a defamation claim.
Some special privileges exist for remarks made in certain venues such as in a court room during trial or in a legislative assembly or one of its committees. A privilege against defamation claims also exists for judicial or legislative reports.
There is what is known as a “qualified privilege” where remarks that may otherwise be construed as being “defamatory”, were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. An example would be giving a negative but honest job reference. The criteria for this defence are: defamation was incidental to the protection of an interest or discharge of a duty and the remarks were given to a person who had an interest in receiving the information. In assessing this defence, judges will ask themselves whether a reasonably intelligent person would have given the information to the person to whom it was conveyed.
Citizens are entitled to make “fair comment” on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to presume motives on the part of the person who’s actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice. It should be noted, however, that some provinces have enacted laws which give their citizens varying rights to “fair comment.”
Situations which involve racial or hate defamation might find a more expeditious and cost-effective recourse through human rights legislation rather than defamation.
You should also be aware that most provinces have implemented very short limitation periods with regards to alleged defamation appearing in newspapers or broadcast (as short as six weeks in some cases) so time may be of the essence.
============================
if you notice at the VERY top it says:
Notice/Avis: This summary does not apply to Quebec. Ce sommaire ne s’applique pas au territoire quebecois.
Provincial laws plays an import role. Please re-educate yourself by googling canadian laws. as it pertains to libel/defamation.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Are you guys trying to bury Jon? This is Canada, not the USA. Will you give Jon a new home after this is all done? This is not the time for teenage fun. This is obviously a very serious issue and to goad Jon on is ridiculous!
May 17th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
1. http://www.cba.org/BC/public_media/rights/240.aspx
2. http://www.libelandprivacy.com/cyberlibel_home.html
3. http://www.adidem.org/articles/DS5.html
4. http://www.cyberlibel.com/
May 17th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Thanks for the explanation.
It proves that you need a laws degree before speaking anywhere about anything controversial.
A travesty of democracy!
May 17th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Wow. Thanks. This really sheds some light on this in Canada. Looks bad for operating from Canada, though not much better in the US.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Dude, go to Chile, Chileans have a strong sense of what constitutes corporate crap, freedom of speech is alive and well, way more freedom to be and say what you want than in the self proclaimed land of the free. We have no frivolous law suits, And you won’t hear the words “call now!” nearly as often, or not at all. It’s a true paradise. Plus, when the 3rd world war kicks in, you’ll really want to be in the lower left corner of the map.
Negatives: Not a lot of people speaks English, rough estimate… 0.1% does.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
http://www.p2punite.org/?q=node/512
May 17th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
wooowee now it starts
May 17th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
http://www.p2p-blog.com/index.php?itemid=9
May 17th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
“Actually as a lawyer”
Actually, as a pseudo-anonymous “Reader’s Write”, we don’t know much about you at all.
In my case I may or may not be “Russell McOrmond”, although people could easily contact me to confirm if they aren’t sure. http://flora.ca/
We know what the process should be if someone wanted to sue someone who posted a “Reader’s Write” here: Sue the ISP’s and other information providers involved to get disclosure of your information that eventually leads to your name.
Those in the p2p world already have experience with how that works, given the CRIA vs. 29 Canadian’s allegedly filesharing without authorization went through that process.
Canada’s stronger privacy protection ended up protecting the identities of these people due to lack of evidence of infringing activity. I don’t think this will be as much of an issue here, given we appear to be talking about some other pseudo-anonymous “Reader’s Write” – a posting that is likely still being published by this site, and available in Archive.org and other such services.
Bringing evidence that such a posting exists will be easy — then again, so would downloading a song from a P2P network and listening to it to verify its origins — something the Big-4 major labels seemed incapable of doing.
I am looking forward to learning more. Is the claim that Jon is responsible for every “Reader’s Write”? Is he only being sued as part of a discovery process, with Jon being forced to court because the alternative is possibly a PIPEDA violation (IE: disclosing tracking information about that “Reader’s Write” without permission or a court order)?
I’m waiting to learn more details. I’ve now read elsewhere who is launching the lawsuit, but not details of the type of lawsuit and what statement (made by who) is claimed to be defaming. For all I know it was one of my own postings.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
easier to get sued for libel in canada it appears… but dunno
May 18th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Don\’t be in Canada of all places. Worst Libel laws in the world. USA UK and Australia just as bad. No protection for information or sources.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:05 am
A P2P company suing a site that promotes P2P. Didn’t Apple Computer start this trend?
May 18th, 2006 at 3:16 am
I never heard of this site before a couple of days ago…
But what u are being sued for, i recall read on 3 other web sites. A security news site, a real aussie news media site, and some other p2p news site.
In ALL cases the story went something like how the AU kazaa owners were in court, she sold her house fast at a loss to a friend or business partner to avoid selling it so sumone who is sueing her gets the money and how she or they have accounts set up off shore.
So if this is what u are being sued for… these people must have a shit load of cases in court then and not just here. It was on too many places through-out AU and the US.
Libel my butt, it was regurgitated news from AU and according to what i read even a judge in AU was informed of the same thing at the tiral.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:23 am
Difference between reporting and adding your own \”spin\” to it. Particularly in Canadian based site.
Guess all of us that post to this are going to have our names come out. No anonymity on the web.
Makes sense though for it to be them when you notice how this site only takes ad\’s from other p2p providers. Mixing journalism; postings and income never mixes well. Gives a place for people to use for their personal nitching. Hope it all gets settled soon. Not good for p2p.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:25 am
There is a big space on the right hand side which they could have rented if they wanted to be on here among their compeditors.
Seems cheap for the amount of traffic the site gets.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Canada is the better, though Libel is serious here, and perhaps easier to start. Privacy laws are one of the strongest in the world. So those jon & jane doe’s being sued, may never have their identities disclosed.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:39 am
If you had twelve monkeys banging away randomly on their keyboards on this site posting as “Reader’s Write”s, what are the odds that one of them could post something libelous?
For those who are wondering what is going on, refer to this link:
https://webapps.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/file/civil/caseBasics.do?fileID=1751384
It’s no surprise that Sharman Networks is suing, because they never did represent the benevolent interests of filesharers. In their campaign against the RIAA, it was their hope to become the new slave masters of music and “content”.
Something that occurs to me in this case is that the webhoster can disregard it, because the server and the company are both located in the United States and the court case was filed in Canada.
I’m going to bet that there isn’t much to this case and Jon Newton will prevail. I wouldn’t think he would even need a lawyer because there is not much complexity to the case.
Jon it’s just an attempt to silence you and pressure you to give up information on the identity of the anonymous poster in news article #8678 with comment id#39880, which were both eliminated from this site but can still be found in the Google cache.
Don’t let the big bad wolf intimidate you. The miserable failure Nikki Hemming can huff and puff and try to blow this joint down, but she will once again fail as she has done in many other cases in her life.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:46 am
You said:
Guess all of us that post to this are going to have our names come out. No anonymity on the web.
This is not at all true. People have been sued by the CDN-riaa here and the courts upheld their privacy.
Being on a CDN server has its perks. Privacy in Canada is one of the strongest in the world. Even with a court order, it can be faught.
Please check out: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/
Also look at: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ekit/index_e.asp
and if anyone is worried and want to know your rights you can call:
Monday to Friday from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Toll-free: 1-800-282-1376
I would NOT worry about the privacy issues. Its VERY strong here.
However, the fight here will be about content on canadian servers. It appears that a forum type content MAY be more weakly protected than in the US. If this case is won by kazza, I think Jon would have to appeal.
The message Canada would send is: Move to US servers, Hide under US pseudonems because Canadain laws are weak.
What was on this site in reference to kazza was only regurgitated news. As for follow-up comments by people around the world, IS canada going to hold those people liable and want their identities? Chances are nill. Instead Jon may be the sole liable person. Then this would mean the CDN gov is making it clear. MOVE COMMENTARY OFF OF CDN SOIL, and then your privacy WOULD be at risk, since Canada has the strongest laws. Catch-22 for this type of thing.
Many will be following this.
I hope Micheal Geist is watching and helps jon (or someone make him aware).
I hope the privacy Commissioner of Canada was contacted [ http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ ].
May 18th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Thanks eclectica!
And Jon: Wishing you all the best! You know that you can count on many of us…
–Zoltan
May 18th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Interesting reading but the problem is identifying people who post anonymously, i would think it is next to impossible as most use dynamic ips and then it is proving that the person at the end of that ip actually wrote it , i wouldnt have thought they have a leg to stand on as similar cases have failed in the past.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Here’s an idea, let’s all post libelous slander against Nikki Hemming of Kazaa. Let’s see her sue the whole fucking 10 000 of us to show how ridiculous this is…
May 18th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
With a court order they would get this information from the ISP (dynamic or not). ISP maintais records of who is using what ip at what date and time etc..
CDN isp would then have to notify you prior to giving this private information (in canada). The if u agree, you let them know. If you disagree you have to remind them of their obligation to maintain CDN privacy laws and let them know u do not want info divuldged to anyone. Then normally u have only a few days to fight this..
Further info on this at:
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/
May 18th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I would, but not on THIS server. The guy doesn’t need more headaches for what others are writing i guess…
But yeah…
May 18th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
What I meant is, every forum, everywhere you can leave a comment, post crap on Nikki Hemming of Kazaa.
Let’s see her sue 10 000 websites…
May 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Very smart. You must have a Masters in Law! You want to post libelous slander! Not what these sites are for. Take your personal problems elsewhere! SOunds like you have some serious issues going on!
May 18th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
jon, you run this site. why let all these guys put up this crap. if everyone was to register we would have a real forum here not these personal attacks. if someone slanders someone else, let them pay for it.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
jon, you run this site. why let all these guys put up this crap. if everyone was to register we would have a real forum here not these personal attacks. if someone slanders someone else, let them pay for it.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
AGREE! GET THESE PEOPLE OFF THE SITE! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS HERE!
May 18th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Most every blog I’ve visited on any topic is full of libal, profanity and insults. this site is mild compared to some. so Why doesn’t any of the others get sued??? My gues is that p2pnet has become very popular and has struck a nerve somewhere. not just with Kazaa. I’m sure the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and many many others are rubbing their hands with glee.
Rick
May 18th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
This post linked to a site elsewhere which carries an item I can only describe as mindless drivel. I’ve left the the heading, which expresses the sentiment, but I’ve docked the link.
Cheers!
Jon
May 19th, 2006 at 3:00 am
whew. had to read it a few times to finally get what you were saying Jon. boy I need to unwind.
Rick
May 19th, 2006 at 5:00 am
Hi Jon!
I just happen to surf your site after reading an article on SLICK.COM saying Sharman sued p2pnet.net… well -I though- that definitely must be something interesting.
How do you see to talk with AdBusters.org lawyer? I think it may be a good thing to join forces with them, after all they claim themselves as free speech guardians and their ar HQ in Canada too.
Good luck man and cheers from Argentina
mat
May 19th, 2006 at 7:28 am
yes all very well if you live in canada and i bet the majority who use this site dont not to mention if you have half a brain you use a proxy when posting anonymously anyhow
May 19th, 2006 at 10:58 am
quote: “p2pnet is an open content news site. We allow anonymous comments, but we don’t in any way accept responsiblity for them. We don’t monitor Readers’ Writes. But we sometimes post them as stories. We delete anything that’s obscene or denigrates gender or religion. And we delete all lame efforts to get free advertising by posting in Readers’ Writes.”
May 19th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Tor is very good at this job
http://tor.eff.org
May 19th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Unfortunately, I’ve only just added, “p2pnet is an open content news site. We allow anonymous comments, but we don’t in any way accept responsiblity for them.”
That’s like closing the gate after the horse has gone. Right?
I honestly thought quotes and links to original sources were enough of a qualification.
Cheers!
May 19th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22578
vote to remove kazaa from slyck (registration required)
May 19th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Check this i posted a poll asking slyck to remove support for kazaa, then it was deleted twice and i had the following message:
From: SlyckTom
To: TheIce_Man222
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:04 pm
Subject: HEy Quote message
Dont think you can come on this site and start doing what you like. Please observe the forum rules or you can find a new site to call home.
Thank you,
Tom
Nice huh after having been a member for over a year obviously they dont want anyone to ask them to stop supporting kazaa,they let you write what the hell you like about everything else and allow you to slag off everyone but when it comes to loss of money from advertising its a different matter! i no doubt this will be removed as quickly so i will be cross posting copys of this on several other prominant p2p news web sites including p2pnet.net just to show how muck slyck supports kazaa – no doubt it will cost me my membership but what the hell got to try and support people like Jon
May 19th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
This is important – go here
http://www.p2pnet.net/privacy.html
May 20th, 2006 at 2:10 am
You know what doesn’t make sense to me. Kazaa is a P2P program. This is a P2P website. This P2P website helps out P2P programs (even if some people say how much they hate a certain P2P program). Either way, it supports P2P in general. This…person…is sueing the consumer of the product. Thats like alienate people who are paying you to survive. Thats stupid. Its rediculous. I think the people involved need to learn to toughen up…anything someone says on here is just words…everything I read I take as a grain of salt.
Anyway, its just stupid. Good luck Jon. Don’t let them beat you down…but if its better off you to settle…I’ll support you no matter what way you go…just don’t let them push you around. You have to have a foothold somewhere.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Anyone up for setting a fund up for Jon here. Either that…or send him a check in the mail.
If we believe in what we our saying…let’s help him make a stand that we’d love to see him do. I want to see him win this case or go down trying…but not on his own.
May 20th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I back this.
Can Jon give us a mail address?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 20th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I hate the idea of asking for financial help, but I’m definitely going to have to.
I’ve now filed a court ‘appearance’. This tells Sharman Networks and Fleming that I’m going to defend the lawsuit, with all that implies.
And that’s going to cost money.
I’ll be doing a brief post on this a little later today.
Cheers!
May 20th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I think it’s becuase p2pnet articals are so heavily syndicated (rss)across the web and this story (true or not) kept spreading like mad.
Jon, it’s awesome that your site gets so much attention and syndication.
Sorry that this is a result of that.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Get your ass in gear and ready to fight this all the way to Canada’s Supreme Court. We don’t live in a litigious society and be it Americans or now these fucking Australians, let’s not allow them to make a mockery of our judicial system.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Only been here a few times.. But hopefully other sites Will SUPPORT you and make a fund for you as well…
I wish you luck in your fight!
No one will look at you different if you bow out of it. It will get very costly, no average joe can afford this, and the end result could be bad news (hope not).
….and because of what? Some AU news paper with the AU judges comments and prosecution comments said they may have offshore accounts. And some 15-yr old kids reads it different and adds to it and puts his own comments to it! Sheeeez
Wish you the best.
If any one can get/buy the court transcripts of the AU trial(s) with the above commentary by the judge/prosecution, pls do and post.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Easy to say fight this… its already a supreme court case, and if he fights, chances are he will also have to go to appeal.
This is going to be damn expensive… No average working schmuck can afford this. This is big money and big moeny to appeal.
If you read the BC Inet libel cases on the net, most had to go to appeal.
And unfortunately, in the BC courts eyes, The procecution doesn’t have to do much aside from make the law suite, It auto-sides with them, and biased to the the procesution unless jon proves otherwise.
May 20th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Jon,
none of us expect you to be some kind of superhereo . we didnt understan that the laws in canada can make you liable for individual posts …. if this is the case you should have set it up like slyck requiring registration- this will keep the assholes off….
the problem is that it looks like you are anti kazaa which we dont think is a good thing wither- is this because they dont buy ads from you as we never see them on your site
May 20th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Hey dumbass, this site is Canadian and Sharman networks is in Australia. Quit talking out your ass. No Americans have anything to do with this.
May 21st, 2006 at 3:28 am
I wish you only the best — I’ll click your ads everyday from now on. Good luch, I wish I’d been able to do more.
May 21st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
hehe
Put up an ebay thingy.
#1 Offer an EXCLUSIVE NEWS interview and so forth on the law suite etc Saying you are selling the rights to this exclusive interview to pay for legal fee’s!!!
Start the bidding at 1000 CDN
also put a link on it for donations.
maybe you will get lucky :/
#2 Offer an exclusive position on P2Pnet.net as Editor (moderator) with no salary!! Thats right, bet on this position to help with legal fee’s. The first qualifying sane bidder will have the right to help the p2p community as EDITOR (mod) and win this non-salary job for 6-months!! heh :/
also put a link on it for donations. :/
#3. on ebay.ca say you are looking for a lawyer! The winning bid by this lawyer will have the opportunity to add to his curriculum vitae a LAND MARK CDN SUPREME Court case added to it! :/
also put a link on it for donations. :/
anyhow, you get the point, milk it for what its worth and maybe generate some legal cash for the case against you… or maybe my idea’s just suck :/
Hell if the Pirates-Bay can do it (and they distribute), you can do it!!
get creative to generate $…………
:/
May 22nd, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Kazaa sucks, its not a doubt Jon would not take Kazaa advertisement money if they offered it. He was probably never offered an advertisement by them. General P2P users hate Kazaa…thats why there is so much negetivity towards it. Kazaa has only brought it upon itself.
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:35 am
Everything the pirate bay did on ebay was taken off before anything ever went the final stage.
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:43 am
best of luck to you with this jon..you’ve helped me in the past with your site, and you don’t deserve to fall to this bullshit that undermines freedom of speech and journalism. My thoughts are with you, David.
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:46 am
thats cuz they distribute and against its TOS. This isn’t
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Come on Jon you are being a little cute aren’t you……. looks like you had a chance to not humiliate yourself and deal with this privately but you wanted to have your fifteen minutes of fame and go on to incite the repetition of the alleged libelous material…eyes wide open and happy for this one to be peddled dishonestly…it does you no credit to mislead people
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:50 pm
yes, best of luck that no one will every dig down here to see what you’ve done to worsen this situation with no attempt to do anything other than turn it into a media event for yourself…my thoughts are with anyone who suffers the abuse you are now openly condoning with the feeble plea that this is an open content site and other that its your site and you are the only one earning any money off it it has nothing to do with you….yeh, good luck with that
May 24th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Just like the RIAA truly robbing innocent people in the US while the government is not doing it’s job!
There is another story of big company trying to crush an individual for money!
Fine Ms Parasite Nikki Hemming You are an old ugly bitch in an out and if you don’t want libel wait to see what I am going to post on internet soon not on this forum though.
OH! And also this: hiring a hit man is definitively way shipper and effective than hiring a lawyer for a small guy to defend himself against big crappy corporation such as you. Just a though.
May 28th, 2006 at 9:27 am
I’ve been doing some research on libel. For one, most countries consider libel as being directed toward an individual, not a corporation. Only the UK (could I find), is where libel can be directed toward a corporation, and an individual(s). Yet, suing a website that doesn’t “review” all posts for such derogative comments toward an individual/corporation shouldn’t be at fault due to the fact that it is not the opinion of the site/site owner, and such that the owner/site should not be liable for such a response. Why would they go “chicken-picking” for sites that have information that “defames” them, when there are possibly hundreds, if not thousands, of other sites that have posts from users that post of their negative opinions toward a corporation/individual.
Something like this will be causing more and more people to hate Sharman Networks (and, imagine that, they are defaming themselves in the process!)
June 5th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
And it’s being sued by Kazaa CEO…from Aussieland???
June 5th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
But I am ONE American who is behind Jon ALL the way. I’ve even made a contribution to his Defense Fund. Will YOU?