p2pnet libel case update
p2p news / p2pnet: One of the things I’m required to do as the defendant in the civil libel lawsuit being brought against me by Kazaa owner Sharman Networks and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming is file what’s called an ‘appearance’.
I’ve done that and it tells Sharman and Hemming I’m going to defend myself.
I’ve now had several responses from lawyers who may be willing to represent me. But there are costs involved, and they’ll be hefty.
So although I really hate to do it, I’m going to have to ask readers, or anyone else with a more than just a passing interest in online freedom of speech and/or confidentiality, to give me a hand with a donation.
My friend Jason Rohrer, who created the MUTE p2p application and who wrote the code for the Patti Santangelo Fight Goliath fund, has put a p2pnet contributions script together and I hope to have it online by around the middle of next week.
That’s all I want to say for now, but stay tuned.
Cheers! And thanks to everyone for letting me know there are people out there who give a damn.
May 20th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Best of luck.. I’m a poor schmuck too but will try and give what i can afford to give, which won’t be much. But alot of averages joe’s like me can equal alot.
I cannot comment on BC’s methods. But in QC, when it is shown you are below a certain annual income level (which is diff for each prov) they will give u legal aid. Also, if the annual income level is at the level for legal aid or not, and it is shown through Income tax return statements, what ever calls or services you make to the presecuting lawyer (them) HAS to be paid by the people who started the law suite (them). VERY BIG bonus in QC. But, this may only apply to QC. Each prov differs on this i do believe. So in QC if you defend yourself and have income tax statements which shows the provincial cap, they will have to foot the bill for your calls and everything to their lawyer(s). Again, this is QC.. I am BC dumb :/
Best of luck. Hope a BC legal person will help you out at least.
May 20th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
glad to see you’re fighting it Jon. make sure to provide a snail mail address too. I don’t like pay pal and don’t want to use it. see ya.
Rick
May 20th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
I’m afraid that the Quebec experience doesn’t really apply. Quebec’s
civil law is based upon the French Code Civile (Civil Code) or Napoleonic Code. The rest of Canada is governed by the English Common Law system. It’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges; while they’re both fruits, they’re nothing at all like each other.
May 20th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
I second that. I also don’t have even one credit card and even if I did I would be quite hard pressed to use it online.
I also agree with what the first poster said about a lot of drops in the bucket will eventually fill the thing, at least to a point. I hope all of us can send what we can in order to help you keep this EXTREMELY important site of yours ONline!!!!!!!!!….where it BELONGS.
Good Luck, Jon
L8rz, @};-
May 20th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
I’ll be happy to donate when its online
May 20th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Good Luck Jon, I can only imagine the stress and worry accompanying the outrage you must be feeling.
Let us know as soon as you have the script ready, I’m sure it will be posted on a multitude of sites.
May 21st, 2006 at 12:54 am
I am waiting for this months paycheck to come in. As soon as I get it, I will send in my share via snail mail. If you need anything sooner, I will see what I can do. cyberscan
May 21st, 2006 at 1:22 am
Kazaa needs to be sued by everyone who had to replace their hard drives because of all the viruses they gave them using their Music Download software. Besides the MPAA needs to sue them for illegal music downloading. If you add the two together the result would be a big Zero.
May 21st, 2006 at 1:28 am
Hire a private investigator on the side, but don’t tell the lawyers, find out which one is cheating on his wife, gather a lot of evidence, and hire that lawyer. Representation fees should then, in the end, be renegotiated. Buaha ha hahah hahah hhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
May 21st, 2006 at 5:12 am
There’s no question that Sharman has been illegally diverting assets out of the country in a massive money laundering operation, of which Nikki Hemming’s mystery mortgage is only the tip of the iceberg. Many of Sharman’s lies were exposed during their trial, as their phony claim that the Sydney headquarters was only a contracted operating company (and not the owner) was blown wide open after their Vanuatu ties were investigated.
Like most criminal enterprises, the people of Sharman exist in a world shielded behind a smokescreen of lies, deceptions, and fraud, and the one thing that hurts them the most is truth. Truth about the way they’ve betrayed their customers and disgraced themselves in the eyes of the entire P2P community. Truth about the way they’ve defied the Australian court and concealed the bulk of their ill-gotten wealth in a secret offshore hoard where it’s beyond the reach of Australian law. Despite showing total contempt for the law when it gets in their way, Sharman also has no hesitation in exploiting the law when it can be used to their advantage. Filing trivial lawsuits against shoestring-budget news sites seems to be one of their favored methods to harass the site owners out of reporting any damaging truth about Sharman.
For Sharman, it’s always been about money, and making as much of it as possible, in any way possible — ethics and decency be damned. They’ve never cared who they might hurt in their insatiable hunger for money. Sharman is, in essence, a giant parasite feeding off the jugular vein of the P2P community, and the sooner they are destroyed, the healthier the P2P community will be.
May 21st, 2006 at 6:01 am
That wasn’t the original posters point. It is about being able to get legal aid – something that can be had in ALL provinces but the criteria for eligibility varies from province to province. It has NOTHING to do with Napoleonic Code vs English Common Law … geez did you even read the comment?
May 21st, 2006 at 6:13 am
Hey Jon, Charlie from pod2peer here. Just wanted to let you know that i’ve brought your stoy up on the show recently, and as soon as you get teh donation stuff setup, i’ll be pushing it as much as I can. I hope you slap these peoples asses so hard, they go crying back to auzzie land, never to return.
May 21st, 2006 at 6:42 am
yup..I’ll third it..
, we got to keep you running, you’re watching our backs, I guess it’ll be our turn to watch yours, only fair.
Bri.
May 21st, 2006 at 6:44 am
“Sharman is, in essence, a giant parasite feeding off the jugular vein of the P2P community, and the sooner they are destroyed, the healthier the P2P community will be.”
Amen to that. Talk about burning your bridges behind you, except in this case, Nikki is standing somewhere in the middle of this particular bridge and blowing it up at both ends. Dumbass. I’m not too worried though as she will definitely get her cumupins in the end, of that I have no doubt. It’s a shame that innocent folk, like Jon here who isn’t any different that your average joe sixpack, have to bear the burden of stupid greedy twats like Nikki in the meantime though. On the up side, at least everyone in Canada should have their tax returns by now and can hopefully afford to donate a bit more than usual for this worthy cause. I know I certainly will be. It’s high time to slam these idiots heads to the curb and hard, and make it clear to her and all other wannabes that his kind of crap won’t be tolerated by anyone, least of all the hands that feed you; the P2P community. You’ve just made your biggest yet Nikki, and it will be the last you ever make.
May 21st, 2006 at 6:55 am
“yup..I’ll third it..
, we got to keep you running, you’re watching our backs, I guess it’ll be our turn to watch yours, only fair.”
Well said! I’ll be donating as much as I can as well once things are set up. It looks like the other p2p sites will be supportive in their own way as well, which is good. This is far too important of an issue to keep quiet. Hah, little did Nikki know that she just kicked a sleeping bear. I’ll bet she thought she was kicking some poor defenseless lamb that she was hoping could be taken advantage of. Well, she gave the finger to both the p2p community and to free speech, and that disrespect is going to turn right around and bite her right on the ass. Hope she likes fighting a war on two fronts.
May 21st, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Another idea… Bare in mind i forget if this was based in the US or Canada, or both, maybe someone can look into it.
It was determined that online sites who basically blog and post stories etc were not afforded the same rights as publishers or have the right to be called a publisher and hence were not afforded the rights to conseal sources of information like real publishers do. They also refuse to acknowledge to call bloggers or story submitters publishers for the above reasons.
That being said, can he even be sued as a publisher?
Can this news site be considered a blog?
Again, bare in mind i forget if this was based in the US or Canada, or both, maybe someone can look into it.
I’m just trying to help find argueable idea’s that may (or may not) help :/
May 21st, 2006 at 1:18 pm
If they’re suing you as a “publisher” instead of as a “content writer” then this whole thing is going to get flushed down the toilet.
p2pnet is not the digital equivalent of a book, magazine, newspaper, or other forms of publication.
p2pnet is more like a cork board in a store that anyone can pin their ads, flyers, cards, letters, etc. onto without asking permission.
Now, here’s the kicker. If there was an item published in a magazine verbatim that makes totally false statements about someone, that is libelous material that the publisher allowed to be printed foolishly, and the publisher can be held responsible for allowing an unchecked clump of information to go through. If there was the same item printed up on a piece of paper and stuck to a cork board that’s basically open to anyone to say whatever they like (one could call them freedom of speech boards at that rate), you’re not going to see the store manager or owner getting sued for someone anonymously putting the flyer up.
Even if you have the burden of proof for a libel or slander suit in Canada, the fact that you are only the cork board provider while someone else posted the content in question…you get the idea.
May 21st, 2006 at 1:24 pm
exactly. BC’s limit can be googled and easy to find, even a phone call to legal-aid in his prov will help him on this and tell him what he can do and if he can be reversed-charged (charged money) by contacting the prosecution, depending on his stated income.
In addition, if jon is going to rep himself, the prosecuting attorny has to submitt all pertinant info on the case TO JON at jon’s request. Against the law to with-hold information when he requests it. The prosecuting attorny will eat a shitload from the judge and bar association.
Also, since Jon is rep’ing himself he can make the courts (and procesuting lawyer) aware of this and he can also request a time extentions on filling doc’s, submitting doc’s and a time extention on the case itself. Courts have to take this into consideration that he has no legal and is doing it himself.
Every minute the prosecution touches sumthing about the case or even thinks about the case, the prosecuting lawyer will add to the bill of the kazzaa people, which could be a huge amount. Even a one-minute phone call from jon to the prosecuting lawyer can cost kazzaa 100$ (based on minimum charge).
But what isn’t clear is if jon will be charged $ for this by the prosecution. Can they go against Jon for the lawyer fee’s? This will depend on his proven income-tax statements maybe and what the cut-off line is in BC.
Also what isn’t clear, If Jon needs to submitt documentation to the courts and reply to the prosecution documents on stated income and what ever else, Can he also call the prosecution to help him with the required documentation at no charge. This is VERY possible, and maybe not limited to just QC. It may be limited to stated income. This is what i dont know.
I’m sure Jon has already called legal-aid in BC or the cdn-BC bar association to find all this out though. Nothing like having the prosecuting lawyer work for you at no charge and charged back to the people sueing you. heh
All these little details can save jon an easy 2000$+
I’m QC, been through it myself (but not a supreme court libel case or a case where someone is seeking monetary damages), I don’t think this is solely based on french law, but rather CDN law and the persons income-tax statements and rights to legal counsel.
Just adding my 2-cents is all, and maybe trying to give some idea’s on how he can do this alone (which i don’t suggest) at the least cost to him.
May 21st, 2006 at 2:07 pm
very interesting analogy you made.
heh in closing statements jon should do just that.
go get a cork-board from some office supply store or similar.
Pin a letter on it and write I am being sued.
Undernetah it pin aother letter (take the worse anon one directly from the forum).
pin another and so forth…
Then say this is what i am being sued for.
Interesting analogy.
Good theatrics for a closing statement and to drive a point across
May 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
-Interesting reading:
http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/defamation/
-VERY GOOD BC legal/legal-aid services site
http://www.lss.bc.ca/
-Also on that above link: http://www.lss.bc.ca/Legal_aid/Legal_information/law_line.htm :
LawLINE, a legal aid service, is a toll-free hotline for people in BC that provides:
information about print and website materials and resources that can help you resolve your legal problem,
referrals to other services if another LSS program or another agency could help you resolve your legal problem, and
legal advice that may include written opinions and advice, correspondence, help writing documents, and contact with third parties, but does not include being represented in court or other hearing.
-Lots of good stuff here: http://www.lss.bc.ca/Resources/links.htm
http://www.cba.org/BC/Initiatives/main/lawyer_Referral.aspx
provides the opportunity to have a consultation with a lawyer for up to 30 minutes for a fee of $25 plus taxes.
If you donât have a lawyer representing you, the BC Supreme Court Self-Help Information Centre in Vancouver can help you get the information you need to prepare your Supreme Court family or civil case. (this may include free legal clinics):
http://www.supremecourtselfhelp.bc.ca/
http://www.cba.org/BC/Public_Media/dal/default.aspx
Call Dial-A-Law If You
think you may have a legal problem and want practical information on the law involved,
want to find out about your legal rights and responsibilities, or
want to learn more about the law and the legal system in British Columbia.
If anyone has the time and Jon’s permission, Someone should write a good letter to these people see if they can refer a pro-bono or give a hand.
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com
http://www.cippic.ca
May 21st, 2006 at 8:31 pm
this is all helpful stuff and jon might not see it. why don’t you email it to him to be sure he gets it?
he has already posted that he has a lawyer, but every bit of info helps.
May 21st, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Hey catflap – I did see it. You can be sure I’m tryihng to keep an eye on post : )
Otherwise, I didn’t say I actually had a lawyer – I said I’m getting interest from a couple of people who are thinking about it.
May 21st, 2006 at 11:14 pm
I thought i read he had some console but no legal representaion.
perhaps i misread???
May 21st, 2006 at 11:16 pm
no, i misread it. jon corrected me above.
thanks.
May 21st, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Sorry if i always post anon… just an f’n lazy poor schmuck…. thats me…
However, I think Jon needs to generate publicity, as shity as it sounds.
As my posts said on a diff thread.. Ebay it. Gernerate as much attention as is will bare. MILK IT FOR ALL ITS WORTH. You have no choice. This will genarate debate and hopefully genrate revenue for your defence and sticking up for all of us.
Many say.. “right on Jon”… very few will say k Jon here’s a f*ckin 20$ bill for you to keep it up and protect what we all believe in.
I AM A POOR MOFO WITH 2 KIDS WIFE ETC.. I HAVE 20$. Jon is getting my 20$. All i can afford with the family and one person working for this month. AND this comes comes from my B-day money i got :/
RALLY to the best of your capabilities NOT ONLY JON, BUT YOU! YES YOU THE PERSON READING THIS. SPREAD IT. Put is on every CDN site possible.
SUPPORT WHAT U ARE DOING. If you can’t mail jon a lousy 20. Mail a 5$.
I have never even heard of this friggin site till the article was posted on slyke or whatever its called.
BUT I AM CANADIAN.
I AM F*CKING PROUD TO BE CDN.
I support CDN.
1$ 2$ 5$ 20$ 1000$ SUPPORT whAT yoU (YES U) beleive in. Even if you’re a poor f*q like me with a family who can’t give much of anything. :/
Jon like i posted in a diff msg i don’t know you… never been to this www. BUT I WILL BE F*CKING DAMNED if i don’t support what i have been preaching and what i believe in.
/me gives the finger to kazzaa et al.
I never ever used P2P before to top it off… I never heard of this site before this lawsuit…. FTP man myelf :/
ITS THE F*CKING REASONING AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION THAT CAN BEFALL ALL OF US CDN’S.
Make a stand for what u F’N believe in, I DARE ALL OF U.
thanks….
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Let us ignore the important issues of feedom of speech and freedom of press. Let us analize the merits of the (assumed) claims in the lawsuit.
On a difamation lawsuit, plaintiff may ask ask for the following if a damaging, untrue story is published:
a. Retraction.
b. A damage award for proven damages.
My undesrtanding of this case is that:
a. The story has been retracted (removed) from p2pnet.
b. Damages cannot be proven to have been caused by one published story that says what other similar stories had said earlier. In such a scenario, the damages were cause by the first publication of the damaging story.
But then we have the fact that Sharman Networks has already been driven to the ground by the actions of the copyright cartels. Therefore any reduction in sales or profits must be attributed to that situation and not some published story that could not have driven away some customers and the resulting profits, because all customers had already been driven away.
It seems to me that this case is dead on arrival.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
jon has to prove that the comments were not libelous. sharman does not have to prove a thing because the court where jon is assumes the defendant is guilty from the start in libel cases and it’s jon’s responsibility to prove otherwise.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Apparantly in BC the onus is on jon to prove they lost nothing, wern’t defamed etc..
(please read links given in this thread on bc law and the links on the other original thread).
In BC when a libel suit is made, the court assumes automatically that they (kaza et al) suffered damages, and is biased towards them.
Its all up to Jon to prove everything, not kaza et al.
I don’t think the case is dead in the water at all since the courts are biased (by law) towards kaza et al.
If anything the outcome of this will force Jon into bankruptcy forcing him to sell assets etc… Hope everything is in his wifes name.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all for Jon 100%.. but it appears this is the likely outcome from everything i have read.
I would personally try to settle this out of court, if possible, and if they gave him this opportunity to do so, or if jon communicated his wishes to do so.
I also read last night that if p2pnet is jon’s sole source of income he can also be entitled to legal-aid for free. If he surpasses the monetary value for the number of people in his household for legal aid, this is another way to get it. I’m sure Jon read the links in this thread and criteria for legal-aid though…
As for what you said about merit of damages… I agree with you. Some kid replying to jon’s article about off-shore accounts etc… There were no damages. The AU courts (which kaza et al) are already fighting have also raised this question if you google the AU court happenings.
I wonder if all this can be delayed somehow till the AU courts publish all their findings….
In addition, I think court awards damages (this could be ON and not BC though, or maybe both, not 100% sure) based on how many people had access to read the libelous material.
In order to reduce monetary damages, the courts will consider if the infringing material has been removed and weather an apology was given for the material. So jon HAS to remove the material from public access in order to appease the courts and lower possible monetary damages.
anyhow….
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:08 pm
If Sharman does not have to prove damages, then all Jon has to do is “prove” (”persude the court” is more correct) that Sharman could not suffer additional damages because of an article published on p2p net.
Surely Sharman must allege they suffered damages and surely proving that the allegations od suffered damages are wrong should not be difficult.
It is like proving that beating a dead horse did not kill the horse.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
“Its all up to Jon to prove everything, not kaza et al.”
Does this mean that if a person of which nothing is known about his/her finances and income, alleges that he/she was defamed and as a consquence has suffered $XXXXXXXXXX damages and the defendant cannot prove that the claim of $XXXXXXXXXX in damages is false the damages for $XXXXXXXXXX in damages are awarded to plaintiffs by the court because of some silly rule that says you are guilty until proven innocent?. All without a shread of real evidence the damages were actually real?
If yes, then Canadian law is really as screwed up as American law. Then Canada should be on the list of countries where basic freedoms do not exist.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
hmmm I ~think~ the court decides on awarded damages in the final outcome… taking into consideration where/how the libelous material was spread, distribution, number of readers and also upon the actions of the defendant (Jon) in removing it or trying to the best of his abilities to remove it and publishing an apology for it. All this plays into the final court monetary decision.
however, as far as libel/defamation goes, yes it appears in BC you are considered guilty in valid libel/defamation cases unless you can show otherwise.
Once the defamatory character of the statement is established, the court will presume that the words of the publication are false.
The Plaintiffs in a defamation case need only prove that the words refer to them, either directly or by reasonable implication. Thats it.
read it all at: http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/defamation/
This is very general site though… 3 provences in Canada (excluding QC) have a couple of things different than the above link, BC, SASK and another is in the 3. So the above link should be used as informative only.
I seem to have lost my links that points out the diff in laws with BC and the rest of Canada in libel/defamation cases… Will try and find it..
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“hmmm I ~think~ the court decides on awarded damages in the final outcome… taking into consideration where/how the libelous material was spread, distribution, number of readers and also upon the actions of the defendant (Jon) in removing it or trying to the best of his abilities to remove it and publishing an apology for it. All this plays into the final court monetary decision. ”
Nothing said can help a reasonable person or court establish economic damages, which, on the instant case can only mean loss of income and legal expenses.
To begin with, only the difamed person can really know what the damages are, so it must be the plaintiff to make a claim for damages. Then Jon has to prove that the claims are wrong or exagerated.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Are YOU going to donate to Jon’s cause? Through all your drivel in these msg threads, NOWHERE did you offer such a$$i$tance! It seems to me that all you do is troll here in order to promote YOUR OWN site
So why don’t you put your $MONEY where your MOUTH is and ANTE UP along with the rest of us TRULY poor folk?!?!?!?!? EH?????
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:19 pm
you’ve got the wrong end of the stick on this.
rafael is one of p2pnet’s most outspoken proponents who has written extensively here on copyright infringement and other issues based on first-hand experience, not least detailing how his family has been ripped off by the cartels.
this lawsuit and this website are not the arenas for this type of argument. and this type of silly argument has the force to split the p2p community into sides. there are only 2 sides. it’s us vs. them. that’s it. and if you allow it to fester and grow, it will have achieved exactly what the cartels and sharman want to achieve.
please refrain from pointing fingers and daring people to put up or shut up. you’re anonymous but at least rafael signs his name. where’s your money, huh? see how silly it is? i don’t know who you are and would have no way of verifying if you’ve donated. so what business is it of yours if rafael donates or not? what business is it of mine to even ask you if you donated?
there are plenty of people who will donate and plenty who can’t but who will support jon in other ways that can’t be measured in dollars and cents.
don’t fall into the blame game. do what you can and leave it at that.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:11 am
Broken record.