Comments on: Sharman escalates p2pnet attack

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 23 May 2006 08:44:05 +0000

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!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 21 May 2006 19:30:13 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 21 May 2006 03:59:11 +0000

more great advice from a bunch of morons- this is Canada not the USA! We don\’t have a 1st amendment here!!!!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 20 May 2006 18:54:46 +0000

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

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 20 May 2006 18:09:23 +0000

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!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 20 May 2006 01:03:08 +0000

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

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 23:43:56 +0000

This is important – go here

http://www.p2pnet.net/privacy.html

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 23:28:57 +0000

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

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 22:23:59 +0000

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

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 21:51:07 +0000

It’s something I’ve being trying to avoid since p2pnet went online …

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 21:45:13 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 21:07:24 +0000

But what if it’s true what he said. Would it still be called libel?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 20:38:21 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 20:37:52 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:23:27 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:12:50 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:08:35 +0000

How ridiculous how spiteful people can be, isnt it a case for registration on the forum if stuff like this is posted?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 18:45:13 +0000

interesting reading , for those who cannot find the second story it is still in yahoo’s cache

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 17:53:37 +0000

” 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 ?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 19 May 2006 13:24:10 +0000

Wake up dude ,your on the net ,this is where the truth lies,you sound like a suit from Kazaa,