Sharman escalates p2pnet attack
p2p news / p2pnet: I’m being sued by Sharman Networks and Kazaa ceo Nikki Sharman.
What are they claiming, exactly? Go here.
I’ve been doing my level best to keep this low key and between myself and Sharman Networks because I truly believe this is a 100%, solid gold, carved in rock freedom of speech issue, about people being able to say what they think and express what they believe online (or anywhere else) without fear. So Yes, I’m an evangelist. And Yes, I’m on a mission. Yes, I want to keep p2pnet online, and of course, I also want to keep my family safe because this has the potential to seriously affect us to a far greater extent than it’s done already, and no mistake.
I tried to comply with all, not merely some, of the demands being made of me and, despite my inclination to do the opposite, didn’t published anything beyond the bare bones of the situation, and Sharman notwithstanding, I intend to maintain that stance, responding only to accusations it publishes through the media.
On that, Sharman has chosen to go loudly public which, given the nature of the claims, is strange not only because Sharman’s Kazaa is supposed to be whole-heartedly for the international p2p community, of whom I’m a member, but also because Hemming is supposedly so worried about her reputation she felt compelled to sue p2pnet to protect her good name, demanding that I take down pages which had offended her.
I took them down. And despite her assertions to the contrary, they’re still down. But nonetheless, she now appears to be doing everything she can to draw attention to the case
Poster child for record labels
In fact, “It’s nothing short of astonishing to see Kazaa and Hemming want to pursue legal action against a site that has spent the past few years backing P2P software makers at all costs,” says Vance in The Register.
“In addition, one would think the company had seen enough white-wigged men to last it a long, long time. Kazaa has been the poster child for record label and music publisher lawsuits against P2P companies. The music industry – which has decried Kazaa users’ abuse of its copyrighted material – no doubt finds it hilarious.”
No doubt they do. Kazaa has been on the wrong end of corporate music industry law suits in Australia for some time, now.
The Sharman sues p2pnet story came up firstly on Emma’s P2Punite in Sweden. It was quickly picked up by Torrentfreak in The Netherlands and by Slyck in the US, as well as by other sites and blogs around the world.
It’ll soon be everywhere. And this is only the beginning.
Implications for the blogosphere
Because this isn’t about Sharman suing p2pnet . It’s about a multi-million-dollar company using its weight to try to stop a small news site from reporting something the company didn’t want reported – shades of Steve Jobs and Apple. And it therefore has hugely important implications for the blogosphere, and for the millions of people who’ve chosen the Net as their principal means of talking to each other.
Sharman says in statements reproduced in whole and in part on The Register and Slyck:
“The writ was delivered following two formal attempts, on May 5 and May 8, requesting Mr. Newton to remove the material in question and post an apology on www.p2pnet.net. Only after being served with the writ did Mr. Newton act to remove – if only temporarily – the defamatory material.”
As I said earlier, the pages came down and are still down, and as I emailed Sharman this morning:
“I’m disappointed to see she’s [Hemming] now choosing to litigate through the press, despite requiring me to keep your letters to me confidential. I’ve tried to address Ms Hemming’s concerns respectfully and tactfully, but I now see she’s not interested in keeping the matter out of the press.”
I also said I was concerned with her one-sided characterization of the facts on which this lawsuit was initiated, adding:
“You and she both know you filed this suit before I received notice of her concerns. Despite your clear statement to the contrary, you provided no ‘formal’ notice of your client’s concerns. You didn’t send a registered letter or courier your demand letter …”
Meanwhile, I repeat publicly what I’ve been saying privately to Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming since the start of this:
“I’m still willing to try to find common ground to try to resolve this. I’ll continue to seek legal aid and for now, I’m still very much open to suggestions about how we can settle this in a manner which will work for us both.”
Also See:
The Register – Kazaa parent sues, er, P2P site, May 18, 2006
May 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA THATS FUNNY!
Kazaa sucks! Fuck them.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Hope you kick their asses Jon, telling the truth really hurts Kazaa!
May 18th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
The only real way of geting them back is
1) Dont use Kazaa
2) Dont use Skype
May 18th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
perhaps they’re doing this as part of a closed door unofficial settlement with the entertainment industry. It’s no secret that Ms. Hemming has been trying hard to take her company and go to bed with the industry (figuritivly of course).
Hang in there Jon, wish there were some way I could help. let me know if there is.
Rick
May 18th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Solidarity in tough times… stay calm!
May 18th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
What does the original owners of Kazaa and Skype have to do with Sharman networks?
May 18th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
watch out, you might be the next john/jane doe!
May 18th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
watch what you say with words….. the suit is looking for all names ,,,,, thats the reason for the Jane Doe\’s and John Does… looks like the site already removed the last reference to the B….
don\’t give them reason to come after anyone else. From the suit looks like they are going fishing!
May 18th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
kazzastards. at least the site will get plenty of publicity out of the deal hehe (silver lining to the mercury cloud). Hope things work out well for you, keep us posted.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Part of Kaaza’s problem is that they continued to do the same things they did prior to the Loudeye attack on their services. It would have been in their interests to change the hash scheme, making the service more secure to the insertion of virus and trojans that Loudeye and others provided. Kaaza lost a lot of good will and market share over the lack of action. My question at this point is, is this the only suit or is it the start of some sort of campaign to scare up money to help pay for the problem it has in Australia and elsewhere.
What looks to be an attempt at gaining economic benefit from wherever it can is on the surface what this looks to be. I’ve not known Jon to be anything but forth coming in both his recommendations and his condemations. I do respect his choices and this present attack on him, lowers my opinion of the attacking party.
I’m sure that the individual values their own ability to say what they wish. It somehow smacks of the same sort of mentality as the RIAA and assorted other organizations. It can bode no good will nor betterment of opinion in this sort of case and may well push a lot of others to the same sort of ideas.
No where did Jon mention the name of the party. I discovered yesterday at another site whom was responcible for the issuance of the libel suit. As I am sure others did. It just seems that when money gets involved, people get crazy. This appears to be both premediated in the way it was done and it also looks to be done on purpose with this sort of intimidation in mind.
I wish you the best of luck with this trumpted up charge Jon. I can’t say that my respect has done anything but go downhill for the attacking party. I didn’t think it had the ability of gaining a new low point but there it is.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
I wonder …..
1. Are they suing Google ??
After all, I can still get the original article 8866 from the
Google cache, even tho it is NO LONGER AVAILABLE FROM
THIS SITE. ( I made sure to grab a copy from the cache,
for future .. reference ).
2. Are they suing the Associated Press ??
After all, the SOURCE ARTICLE is from the ASSOCIATED PRESS.
Material from the article is quoted AND credited properly to
it’s SOURCE .. Associated Press.
They have simply brought even more attention to this material by
bringing the suit. I am certain that there are many that now will
do everything in their power to make sure ( completely without
Jon’s approval or consent ) that this story and the comments in
question will spread as far and wide as possible.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:06 am
I think you’ve been overly polite and gracious to Nikki Hemming / Sharman Networks and should restore those articles that were taken down by you.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile!
May 19th, 2006 at 12:07 am
And another thing. You can reason with reasonable people, but you can not reason with the people on the Sharman Networks team. They are brutes.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Well I read through the 8 page pdf file and it appears that since all the complaint contains is links to your site rather than the content of them, you are at liberty to fix and edit those links to read whatever you want them to read. Their whole case is that you are responsible as the site publisher for what goes on in this site, so by the same line of reasoning you can edit all those links to put whatever you want there.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:58 am
Its thought the oriiginal owners of Kazza and Altnet are still connected
Kevin Biermiester may sill have a finacial interest in Skype as dose the and this Lawsuit against may be part of Sharman network’’s contant legal battle against Stramcast networks one of Jons advertisers .
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1139
May 19th, 2006 at 4:41 am
Oups. http://www.p2pnet.net/index.php?page=reply&story=8699
May 19th, 2006 at 4:59 am
wow, what a bully.
May 19th, 2006 at 7:08 am
from the material you seem to have posted or caused to be posted by making this a public issue via your contrived behaviour it is apparent that someone was personally defamed or vilified here.
if that’s the case then its not about freedom of speech its about an individuals rights to be protected from malicious and unecessary vilification
the personal attack, one which you would not condone upon yourself, does you little credit and when that is revealed you will have disappointed a lot of people.
i of course don’t expect you to post this. You couldn’t want anyone to know that one voice at least, thinks you are telling lies in the way you have presented this matter but i guess that’s not a freedom of speech issue
i hope that the increased traffic you’ve generated by coyly acting like this is confidential spreading it about and then acting like you are on the receiving end helps pay for the judgment you should get against you.
you either fabricated the story, are protecting the person responsible or are spinning this for everything its worth to increase traffic and your meagre income
May 19th, 2006 at 7:11 am
maybe this is the record companies media people again using you site to peddle misinformation when they don’t think they are getting enough sympathy
May 19th, 2006 at 8:18 am
I just can’t believe that one of the most vocal and eloquent champions of P2P technology is being sued by a company that seeks to put itself at the forefront of the P2P revolution.
It seems a little sad to me that they couldn’t have worked it out behind closed doors.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Wake up dude ,your on the net ,this is where the truth lies,you sound like a suit from Kazaa,
May 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
” from the material you seem to have posted or caused to be posted by making this a public issue via your contrived behaviour it is apparent that someone was personally defamed or vilified here. ”
Umm,
Read. Sharman made the move to “Try” this issue in the press,
not Jon.
“if that’s the case then its not about freedom of speech its about an individuals rights to be protected from malicious and unecessary vilification ”
It is certainly about freedom of speech, for US. The ability to post our personal OPINIONS, and be protected from malicious profiteering via lawsuit. The malicious and unnecessary vilification seems to be coming from Sharman, actually. Why else are they suing Jon and not Associated Press, and other MAJOR news outlets that ORIGINATED THE STORY that appeared in excerpt. You are right … the right to be protected from malicious and unnecessary vilification IS infact under attack, but not by P2Pnet.
” of course don’t expect you to post this. You couldn’t want anyone to know that one voice at least, thinks you are telling lies in the way you have presented this matter but i guess that’s not a freedom of speech issue ”
Of course this will be posted, and you know it. YOU posted it.
This site is open to all opinions. ALL of them, but .. you know that.
See, you are calling him a liar, with no evidence, that’s libelous too, and yet, you are only voicing your opinion .. .should YOU be sued ?? .. NO .. not at all. You, as others responding to the articles are ENTITLED to their opinions, to believe as they do and voice them, in response to the articles ( the one in question, sourced from a MAJOR NEWS OUTLET that is not being sued ).
Should the net be totally sterilized of opinion, with only the responsible, corporate and government entities allowed to present information ? I think I know who YOU work for. ( only MY opinion )
“i hope that the increased traffic you’ve generated by coyly acting like this is confidential spreading it about and then acting like you are on the receiving end helps pay for the judgment you should get against you.
you either fabricated the story, are protecting the person responsible or are spinning this for everything its worth to increase traffic and your meagre income ”
Once again,
Sharman took it public, not Jon.
The court documents are available to all ( always were, for those that wanted to look ), so it is definitely not fabricated. Sharman can only blame itself for the increased attention to this story. No one learns from history , apparently. If you want a story to vanish, the LAST thing you want to do is try to censor it. I had completely forgotten about this story, until the suit was brought. Now it is in the front of everyones mind again, and thats because of the SUIT.
Someone IS in fact, spinning this for all it’s worth .. once again, it’s not Jon.
There are NO secrets on the net. The REAL motivation for this suit will surface. How will they spin it, I wonder ?
May 19th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
interesting reading , for those who cannot find the second story it is still in yahoo’s cache
May 19th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
How ridiculous how spiteful people can be, isnt it a case for registration on the forum if stuff like this is posted?
May 19th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Actually, from what I understand Jon will get sued for you saying that. He is getting sued as a publishler.
Personaly I think this is a bunch of bull$hit.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
No, it’s not.
The suit is designed to stifle public opinion, to frighten people
into keeping their mouths shut. If people were forced to reveal
their identities, this would discourage anonymous sources, keeping
them away from the internet blogs, insuring that only large
corporate controlled publication have access to them.
Associated Press, AND the Washington Post both published this
story, and they are not being sued, because there isn’t a public
forum to express personal opinion, and AP and WP can well afford
to defend themselves. Jon is a cheap easy target, and public
opinion is killing them. Therefore, the public must be silenced.
Free speech , if you have lots of cash.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I don’t get this? Why do a few people, like yourself, STILL insist that Jon is being sued for the articles?? It’s been clearly pointed out that the comments made by anonymous users about the articles are the source and the writ of summons is also clear that four comments made are the injurious to the plaintiffs. Jon and his host are being sued as publishers.
Jon as a fellow BC resident from the sunny, and at the moment extremely dry, Okanagan and a website owner that allows comments I will be more than interested in seeing how this case goes forward. I think that you are covered with your disclaimer.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I don’t get this? Why do a few people, like yourself, STILL insist that Jon is being sued for the articles?? It’s been clearly pointed out that the comments made by anonymous users about the articles are the source and the writ of summons is also clear that four comments made are the injurious to the plaintiffs. Jon and his host are being sued as publishers.
Jon as a fellow BC resident from the sunny, and at the moment extremely dry, Okanagan and a website owner that allows comments I will be more than interested in seeing how this case goes forward. I think that you are covered with your disclaimer.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
But what if it’s true what he said. Would it still be called libel?
May 19th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Jon why dont you offer to make the forum registration only so at least if comments are made in the future at least you can identify what user made them , ok noone actually uses their real details to register but at least the system would be more secure and it would deter the casual little pricks who write stuff just to wind people up??
Surely this would be a reasonable outcome at least then if someone tageted a poster rather that you you could hand over the ip address etc of the poster and say not my problem.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
It’s something I’ve being trying to avoid since p2pnet went online …
Cheers!
May 19th, 2006 at 5:23 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 6:28 pm
You think you can create unity against Sharman by flaming a file-sharing site? Posting a personal message in public is the height of bad manners and an obvious breach of forum etiquette.
Go and ‘help’ someone else. Jon doesn’t need this kind of ‘help’, neither does the community
May 19th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
This is important – go here
http://www.p2pnet.net/privacy.html
May 19th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Too bad Jon doesn’t have a way to ban you…with a post like that, especially posting messages that are supposed to be private, I would ban you from my site.
You should take a lesson from jon, at least he respects privacy.
Loser
May 20th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Various people have asked me on- and offlline what I’m going to do about this, if I’m going to need any financial help and, if so, what’s my address.
As I say in a response to another comment, “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 1:54 pm
This has “The People vs. Larry Flynt” written all over it.
Who takes P2Pnet seriously??? Really?
I’m sure they are right up there with the NY Times and the evening news right?
No offense intended. I luv this site and visit regularly to get a laugh but not to get cold hard facts.
To be held libel you have to have credibility. Anonymous posters on P2Pnet have about as much credibility as an 8 year old stating my dad can beat up your dad.
Just use the Larry flynt defense and you’ll be fine
May 20th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
more great advice from a bunch of morons- this is Canada not the USA! We don\’t have a 1st amendment here!!!!!!!
May 21st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
I stand corrected.
Still a valid arguement against libel 1st amendment or not. I mean suing P2Pnet for libel would be like suing a spoof comedy movie for making fun of real life people. It’s just a stupid waste of court time and money.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:44 am
Jon, Pricks don\’t deserve anonymity! If they are using your forum to spread slander- hand them over! Bet the other side would take that and run!