Kazaa sues p2pnet
p2p news / p2pnet: It’s now public knowledge that Kazaa owner Sharman Networks and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming are suing p2pnet for alleged libel.
I’m just a very ordinary person with a very ordinary family living a very ordinary life. The people who advertise on the site keep it going and in a very real way, pay all my bills on- and offline.And I thank them.
But there’s literally nothing left over and the preparatory work that’ll be needed to simply get this to court, and to retain a lawyer who’s expert in cases of this kind, will cost $30,000 ——- and more will be needed as the suit proceeds.
As I said earlier, I’ll post a Help Page around the middle of next week with more information, a donations button and a snail-mail address. I don’t live on the BC mainland: I’m on Vancouver Island and our mail is delivered to post boxes. So anything sent to my street address could be returned to sender.
For now, since time is going to be very short, I’ve put a temporary button on the left.
I’ll also need to spend a lot more time than I have so far on research and investigation, which means my writing and posting time will be more curtailed than it has been already. So if there’s anyone out there with editorial experience who’d like to help, please contact me at jon@p2pnet.net.
I can’t promise payment, but I can promise by-lines, if they’re wanted, and a chance to underscore the fact that p2p – people-to-people – is the new reality.
United we stand takes on an exciting new meaning.
I’m also going to need a lot of help with background so if anyone has any knowledge they think will help, and which they’re willing to share, please contact me.
ALL confidences will be kept. No matter what. I give you my word.
And two more promises: every penny will go on defending this case, and to expenses related directly to it; and, I’ll account in detail for every penny spent.
On the surface, this appears to be about a fight between p2pnet and Kazaa, but there’s much more to it than that.
Cheers! And thanks. And all the best …
NOTE: p2pnet is currently being sued for alleged libel by Kazaa owner Sharman Networks and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming. In the interests of freedom of speech, we’re determined to fight this case before a jury but we don’t have the financial or legal resources to meet them on level ground. Any help you can give will be very gratefully received. Please go here for more.
May 21st, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Jon,whatever I can give to help,I will..
Come on,people,rally round!!!!
May 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Jon has my support. Kazza has bitten off more than it can chew.
Rick
May 21st, 2006 at 4:46 pm
you need to make that donate button a lot more prominent.
May 21st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
I just sent 2%4 – hope it helps!
May 21st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I just sent 25$ – hope it helps!
May 21st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Jon is there any way you can provide details into what’s alleged as being libelous and what damages are seeked? Thousands of users searching the Internet could literally turn this case on its head. Lots of contradictory dirt can be found on the web, especially concerning a public figure (to be polite) such as a CEO.
May 21st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
At this point, you know as much as I do. The link inthe story points to the summons, which is here:
http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/p2pnetsuit.pdf
As to the button, “you need to make that donate button a lot more prominent,” says a poster.
It’s just temporary to get things happening. The main button will be on the forthcoming Help Page, which’ll be up permanently (or, at least, until this is resolved).
Cheers!
Jon
May 21st, 2006 at 5:25 pm
The problem is that Doe & Roe comments are no longer available. They have been taken down and you’re still being sued so why not make them available in a news story or something similar. The idea is to find infromation that backs these comments up or any other brilliant ideas people can come up with.
May 21st, 2006 at 6:05 pm
>The idea is to find infromation that backs these comments up
Agreed and actually as I understand it the onus will be on Jon (and the does and roes) to prove the comments are true.
ps: this is my opinion any attempt to construe it is as fact would be misleading
May 21st, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Jon, please clarify what you mean when you say “every penny will go on defending this case, and to expenses related directly to it”
Any guarantees the collection fund won’t go straight into Sharman’s bank account as a quick out-of-court settlement to the lawsuit?
Many of us got burned by the Lokitorrent scandal. We were promised that our donations were going to fight the MPAA in court to the bitter end, but instead our money soon ended up in our enemy’s pocket as settlement payoff. Plenty of suspicion that it was the plan all along, and that soured many of us on making any future donations to someone’s legal fund.
I strongly believe in helping out friends and comrades in trouble, but I’m not willing to contribute just so Nicola Hemming can buy gold-plated fixtures for her next Money Mansion in some Pacific island paradise. I’d like some sort of guarantee that the money raised for legal expenses will absolutely not wind up in some easy-out capitulation settlement.
May 21st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I really think that this suit will be a true contest of attrition, and with Sharman’s extensive legal problems, they’re almost certainly going to want a quick settlement (as in payout) It’s going to be very difficult to either prove or disprove the more serious allegations made against them, such as fraud and embezzlement, since their financial dealings in Vanuatu are behind a cloak of secrecy and beyond the reach of any court. Although it certainly appears that they’re funneling money to secret offshore bank accounts, proving this is is going to be both difficult and costly.
May 21st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
“every penny will go on defending this case, and to expenses related directly to it”…
************************
“I’ll account in detail for every penny spent.”
this means that every penny will be accounted for publicly. obviously jon wants to avoid any comparisons to the scam artist Ed Webber and Loki and i’m sure that all expenses will be detailed and provable on the website that’s set up for donations.
don’t worry, you can get any more honest than jon. i know he’s putting everything on the line for the entire internet community. it’s not just p2p or news sites that will be affected. it will reverberate throughout the entire internet.
May 21st, 2006 at 8:25 pm
the information is out there. you just have to know where to look or ask. this isn’t the place at the moment.
May 21st, 2006 at 9:31 pm
This is about more than Sharman suing p2pnet and whatever happens, I won’t vanish into the sunset: I won’t pull a Loki.
I’ve said I hate like hell asking, and if I had a mere fraction of the resources Sharman has available, I wouldn’t. But I’m just an ordinary guy. Not a corporate entity.
I have a daughter, Emma, almost 10. My wife, Liz, and I home school her. This libel suit is already having a bad enough effect on our family and I’m certainly not going to make things worse by trying to run away from my responsibilities or promises. What kind of a lesson would that be?
Liz and Emma are both behind me, and this is for them as much as it’s for anyone. Trite though it may seem, we honestly believe we’re doing our part to stand up a future where Emma will be able to go online to say what she wants to say without fear.
Cheers!
Jon
May 21st, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Would you be sued again/further if I made a guess that the true motive behind Hemming’s lawsuit is to use it somehow as evidence against something the RIAA (or Oz’s version of the RIAA) has on her and Kazaa?
I think it really stinks that the wealthy blokes can use the expense it costs via law & the courts to thwart freedom of speech for their own benefit. (Or in this case, perhaps, to save their own ass over their own shady dealings.)
It’s the same sorta crap the RIAA pulls with virtualy every one of their extortionist lawsuits vs. non-commercial p2p users. Bigger $$$ forces the little guy into submission, with the “right or wrong” of the matter making no difference.
——-
Folks, Jon isn’t gonna pull a “Loki” (of that I feel sure.) He may be a ‘rival’ of mine for your readership and website participation, but I personally am very confident of his integrity.
Signed,
(me)
Support Local and Independent Music!
(Good luck Jon!)
May 21st, 2006 at 10:16 pm
OMFG!!! Unbelievable. Who uses that crap in the year 2006?
May 21st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
I don’t think Ed Webber was a scam artist. His settlement cost him much more than the $70 thousand he collected, so it was not as if he personally profited. He just never mentioned what would happen with any leftover donation money if he changed his mind and settled. Since many of the donors were anonymous, he obviously could not return it all.
The vast majority of lawsuits are settled out of court. Unless someone has enough money to not only go to trial, but to stick with it all the way through the appeals process, then it’s likely to end in some sort of out-of-court settlement.
If Sharman or any other deep-pockets plaintiff were to offer to drop the case for a small sum, any competent lawyer would advise their client to accept it in order to bring a quick end to what could turn out to be a very expensive court battle.
There is nothing that says that settlement costs could not be classified as (in JN’s own words) “expenses related directly to defending this case”. Unless it’s specifically and unambiguously stated to the contrary, we should consider any defense fund to be a de facto settlement fund. Not that it’s a bad thing, as a settlement can be much less expensive than lawyers fees.
The larger issue here is whether this battle should be viewed as an idealogical quest or as the best practical solution. In other words, should our primary goal be to keep P2Pnet solvent and the Newton family out of the poorhouse, or should this be viewed as an all-out jihad against Sharman? Just like paying a kidnapper’s ransom, most people will end up doing whatever it takes to protect themselves and their family. There was only one Job.
May 21st, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Catflap .. kind of important ….
Have Jon doublecheck and make certain that all items referenced
in the suit have been reomoved …..
Particularly item d
May 21st, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Yup,
Got all of them now.
Will be passing them around as much as possible.
After reading them ( something I would not have bothered with
If they hadn’t have focused attention on them by suing, btw ),
It looks really weak for them.
I wonder if canada has an “unclean hands” doctrine, like the US ?
May 21st, 2006 at 11:32 pm
as i remember it, webber claimed he “collected” approximately, $40K. so using your numners, he earned $30K profit.
he was a scammer in the end. he never proved where his “donations” were going to that could be easily verified by anyone.
he gave up ip addresses, nicknames, website logs and tracker logs.
and he was never heard from again. he never explained himself or his actions. he took the money and ran. the public really has no idea how much money he “collected” nor how much of it went to legal costs or settlements. that’s a scammer.
i’ve worked with jon for over a year now and whether or not people agree with anything i write about, they must know that jon is one of the hardest-working and honest people out there. he lets anyone have a voice here (including myself) and there’s no way he’s in this for money. if he was he would have sold p2pnet long ago and made a hefty profit.
this is about principals and freedoms and the courage to defend them. no one who writes for jon is paid and he doesn’t pay for interviews with celebrities, politicians or people in business.
whatever the outcome, pro or con, the result will have a profound effect on every aspect of the internet, especially message boards and news sites with reader’s comments and polls. every website owner and admin will be afraid to allow certain types of comments (besides lude and obscene ones) in order to avoid a lawsuit. opinions are opinions – whether based on fact, court documents, newspaper reports or idle gossip, and jon will defend this principal. that’s the total opposite of what webber did.
May 21st, 2006 at 11:35 pm
LOL ….
I know who you are, my friend
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:35 am
I DONT GET IT> IF YOU ARE A NOT FOR PROFIT SITE THEN WHAT HAPENS TO ALL THE CASH YOU GET FROM THE ADS YOU RUN ON YOUR SITE! CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO US SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND AND ARE YOU REGISTERED AS A NON PROFIT COMPANY?
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 am
I DONT GET IT> IF YOU ARE A NOT FOR PROFIT SITE THEN WHAT HAPENS TO ALL THE CASH YOU GET FROM THE ADS YOU RUN ON YOUR SITE! CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO US SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND AND ARE YOU REGISTERED AS A NON PROFIT COMPANY?
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 am
JON- I DONT GET IT> IF YOU ARE A NOT FOR PROFIT SITE THEN WHAT HAPENS TO ALL THE CASH YOU GET FROM THE ADS YOU RUN ON YOUR SITE! CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO US SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND AND ARE YOU REGISTERED AS A NON PROFIT COMPANY?
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 am
If you get an order from a judge to hand over all the IP and information on your posters are you going to do it? Or are you going to go in contempt to protect privacy of posters?
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:54 am
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90l12_e.htm
“”"Notice of action
5. (1) No action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given to the defendant notice in writing, specifying the matter complained of, which shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim or by delivering it to a grown-up person at the chief office of the defendant. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 5 (1).”"”
Im no lawyer but does that statement mean that they have 6 weeks to bring about a libel case? Cause wasnt that story they are suing about written in November. Seems like they waited a little to long to file a complaint.
Also alot of that act relates to newspapers and broadcasts and I would think p2pnet is more like a blog site about curent news.
And my other concern would be if Jon removes the posts and story wouldnt that be destroying evidence?
And I would consider filing a counter suit against them for anything you can think of.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 am
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/L/96263_01.htm#section6.1
“”"Fair comment
6.1 (1) If a defendant published alleged defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment must not fail merely because the defendant did not hold the opinion if
(a) the defendant did not know that the person expressing the opinion did not hold the opinion, and
(b) a person could honestly hold the opinion.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a defendant referred to in subsection (1) has no duty, before or after publication of an opinion referred to in that subsection, to inquire into whether the person expressing the opinion does or does not hold the opinion.”"”
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:00 am
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/L/96263_01.htm#section6.1
Security for costs
19 (1) In an action brought for libel in a public newspaper or periodical publication the defendant may, at any time after the filing of the statement of claim, apply to the court for security for costs, on notice and an affidavit by the defendant or an agent, showing the following:
(a) the nature of the action;
(b) the defence;
(c) that the plaintiff is not possessed of property sufficient to answer the costs of the action in case a verdict or judgment is given in favour of the defendant;
(d) that the defendant has a good defence on the merits;
(e) that the statements complained of were published in good faith;
(f) that the grounds of action are trivial or frivolous.
(2) The court may order that the plaintiff give security for the costs to be incurred in the action.
(3) The security ordered must be given in accordance with the practice in cases where the plaintiff resides out of British Columbia.
(4) The order is a stay of proceedings until the proper security is given.
(5) If the alleged libel involves a criminal charge, the defendant is not entitled to security for costs under this Act unless the defendant satisfies the court that the action is trivial or frivolous or that the circumstances which, under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 entitle the defendant at the trial to have the damages restricted to actual damages appear to exist, except the circumstance that the article complained of involves a criminal charge.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the plaintiff or the defendant or their agents, may be examined on oath at any time after the statement of claim has been filed.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:08 am
Case history in ONT regarding the “more then six weeks clause”
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:AoCHhiBA2jkJ:www.robic.com/publications/Pdf/274.09-AST.pdf+canada+Libel+and+Slander+Act&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=10
(copy and paste the whole link)
pdf format
http://www.robic.com/publications/Pdf/274.09-AST.pdf
“”"….The Trial Judge therefore concluded that if the posting of defamatorymaterial on the internet was a “broadcast” in accordance with the OntarioLibel and Slander Act, then the Plaintiff had the obligation to give notice tothe Defendant of her intention to initiate proceedings for slander within sixweeks of her knowledge of the slanderous statements and she also had theobligation to commence her action within three months of such knowledge.She the Plaintiff had failed to act within the limitation periods, Pierce J.concluded that there was no genuine issue for trial as concerned the actionbased on the internet “broadcasts”.The Plaintiff had also argued, in order to counter the Defendant’s limitationargument, that since the defamatory material continued to be posted on theDefendant’s internet web site until June 2002, her November 14, 2001 noticeto the Defendant captured the “broadcast” of the prior month. Pierce J.disagreed, ruling that the monthly posting of the defamatory material did notgive rise to a new cause of action based on republication. The Trial Judgeruled that had the Plaintiff given her notice and commenced her actionwithin the delays set out in the Libel and Slander Act, she then could haveclaimed for any defamatory broadcast by the Defendant up to one yearprior to the commencement of the action in accordance with section 6 ofthe Libel and Slander Act.The Trial Judge therefore granted, in part, the Defendant’s Motion forSummary Judgement ruling that the Plaintiff’s action for slander on theinternet was barred by statute.”"”
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:17 am
A total of 9 complaints (a) through (i) were put on that load of crap complaint from Nikki Hemming, but there are only 5 unique links involving 2 stories. The one to check is comment 40093 which is cited in both (e) and in (i). However, since the date of the post in the complaint is 06 May, 2001 00:008 that may explain why that one can still be found here, because of the confusion caused where Jon couldn’t find one to delete with that date.
See here for a breakdown:
http://www.dionysians.org/forum/showthread.php?t=985
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:20 am
More stuff regarding “Fair Comment”
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:zwwAlzT4ezYJ:www.bcpresscouncil.org/BC-Press-Council-Jan2005-Newsletter.pdf+british+columbia+Libel+and+Slander+Act&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=7
.pdfhttp://www.bcpresscouncil.org/BC-Press-Council-Jan2005-Newsletter.pdf
There are plenty more things on Google………….
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:24 am
This looks like the the problem not the solution. The article was published just 1 week before the action as far as I can tell and were not republishing.
The problem is that there is a perception in various communities that p2pnet is actually effectively thevoice for various other p2p networks not KAZaa which means it will be looked at like a business….. i cant find its non profit filings in BC- can anyone find p2p filings as a non profit?
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 am
I was just reading the summons and noticed that the date of the so called libel statements was the beginning of May. I thought that the story was longer then that. Maybe im getting stories mixed up.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:41 am
You dont get much for the ads. Any money recieve im sure would pay for the hosting of the site and time writing articles and such and maybe pay for a few home expenses. Im sure he isnt living in some million dollar mansion driving fancy expensive cars.
I trust Jon 100% with any money I would send. Think about it everyone knows his name and what he looks like and has been a respected journalist for years. He isnt some internet guy out to make a quick buck, and doesnt hide behind some nic’ that noone really knows who he is aka Loki and anyother person running post internet sites around these days.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:51 am
I dont think those things are saved. ANd if courts cant be convinced to give over details of people downloading music then why would they do it here. Plus those comments may be from people not in Canada and therefore dont have juristiction to give out.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:51 am
See here for a breakdown:
http://www.dionysians.org/forum/showthread.php?t=985
*****
No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:55 am
I dont consider p2pnet to be a voice for oterh p2pnetworks. I view it as a p2p news site much like slyck wiredfire and the many other p2pnews sites. p2pnet has always been for everything to do with peer to peer news.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:56 am
copy paste the whole link the t=985 isnt included in the link when you click it
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:58 am
http://www.dionysians.org/forum/showthread.php?t=985
copy and paste the whole link as the t=985 is not clickable
i forgot to post the link in my above post. I would login undr my name so im not a coward but forgot my pw lol
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:17 am
I started the original Questions thread thinking the comments must be outrageous, but I can’t believe that’s all there is to it and she would sue on such feeble content.
Every CEO has the expectation of being blamed/accused/defamed somewhat when the shit hits the fan. I’m sure worse comments about Nikki Hemming are floating around the Net, guess she decided to prey on what appears to be the weakest target. She may yet find out otherwise.
As Jon says, stay tuned…
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 am
” that may explain why that one can still be found here, because of the confusion caused where Jon couldn’t find one to delete with that date. ”
I thought that’s what may have happened. That’s why I posted, so he could remove it. They have very little ammo as it is, that should leave them with none.
They are trying to claim that Jon won’t comply, confusion is in their favor.
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:41 am
The links on P2Pnet’s comment section have always had that problem for as long as the site has been around. Unless this ever gets fixed, we just need to copy and paste the entire text of the link.
Although this might seem ridiculously obvious, some of the new visitors here (like CatFlap?) might not yet have noticed this.
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 am
yeah, but the others is straight up and at least requires you to register so you don\’t get dome of the crap from postersthat you do on this one!
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 am
Perception to be like a business does not make it a business.
p2pnet is more of a sponsored news site with open commentary than a business. I don’t see why Jon would need to go through all the legal channels needed to establish oneself as a business just to take on sponsors and donations to pay for the site’s operation. I don’t know about Canada, but the US generally (state-specific rules apply) considers a stream of income to a person not involving retail sales, operation within a structure not designated on tax filings as a business’s location, etc. as merely income. It’s the same reason you can organize a non-business event and take in donations from others to help pay for the expenses of the event, without having to file all kinds of paperwork with your local government offices.
Of course, I could be totally wrong. Canada might think selling your own car is operation of a business for all I know. I’m just a stoopid American, after all!
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:25 am
lol, this site thinks the United States is a link
U.S.
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:05 am
heh, i’m not new here.
i just hadn’t noticed the missing part of the link until it was pointed out.
thanks.
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:52 am
everything to do with Lowkee was based on FUD – and there is no evidence to prove his guilt or his innocence. He was bound by his legal agreement as part of the settlement.
I don’ blame him – I would have done the same. Sometimes the fight just ain’t worth it.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
That is to say, the aim of p2pnet is not to make bigger and bigger profits.
Jon is an individual, not a company. p2pnet is basically a job he created for himself, so all the ad revenue you mention goes towards hosting costs for the site and paying for Jon’s groceries and gas bills.
Jon also has a family to take care of. If he was out to make the big bucks he would have done it already.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
probably don’t exist. As far as I am aware, there is no “company” behind p2pnet at all – It’s just a lone individual.
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
“yeah, but the others is straight up and at least requires you to register so you don’t get dome of the crap from postersthat you do on this one! ”
… trying really hard to understand this post ….
…. Still trying …….
gives up.
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:44 pm
dont know where you live in the USA, but you have a serious misconception on tax laws.
You cannot state you are a non profit in the USA OR Canada unless you are registered as a non profit.
There is no such thing as a sponsored news site. Does that make the New York times a non profit? As to organising an event to take in costs to run it, that would certainly not make it tax exempt.
If you state you are a non profit, in the USA you need to file as a 501 (c) 3 . If you don\’t you can be liable for criminal action. There are very strict rules governing non profits both in the USA and Canada.
The worst thing we can do on this site is give Jon wrong information and then he relies upon it. If you dont know what you are talking about on an issue, then rather remain silent.
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
___MORON___, YOU NEED to LEARN how to ___READ___!!!!!!!!!!
If you are THAT much of a stupid, idiotic, moronic fool/TROLL then STAY the HELL OUT of here!!! We do NOT need people like you here for ANY reason!!!
The ads on this site pay for its upkeep and for Jon’s personal bills IF there’s any left over after paying to keep this site up. His family is a one wage earner family…HIM. So STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:56 pm
You are nothing but a TROLL!!!…not to mention SPAMMER posting the SAME thing more than ONCE but under different headings. STFU!!!!! Go AWAY! We do NOT need you here
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:57 pm
What you ask has absolutely NOTHING to do with this suit. TROLL!
May 22nd, 2006 at 5:08 pm
>If you dont know what you are talking about on an issue, then rather remain silent.<
In other words STFU, TROLL!
May 22nd, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Jon, I really respect you. I wish everyone would look at things the way you do.
I wish you and your family best of luck. This is so much more than a lawsuit…the a lesson.
May 22nd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Make sure you take money out of yor paypal account as fast you can Jon. You know paypal rips people off as much as they can. Just a little warning…don’t let it build up.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:23 pm
you’ve got the wrong end of the stick on this.
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 22nd, 2006 at 8:25 pm
you’ve got the wrong end of the stick on this.
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.
don’t fall into the blame game. do what you can and leave it at that.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Dont know where you are living but how do you think the record companies RIAA are getting to file these thousands of lawsuits if they dont have the IP information? Of course all ISP\\\’s have the info. Basic Internet 101.
Everytime you hit a site it records your IP…just try going whatsmyip.org – simple it will tell you what your IP is! You shouldnt be using the net if you don\\\’t know the basics! There is less protection of identity here than anywhere! Jon can look up anyones information from them hitting the site, so can his ISP, so can your ISP and a court can order any of them to hand this info over.
Also you don\\\’t need to live in Canada to have this handed over. This information is already in Canada by hitting the site!
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:17 pm
but if Jon doesn’t log this kind of information (http://www.p2pnet.net/privacy.html) then he can’t just hand it over…
What use is an ISP in this as well, besides providing Jon with his Internet connection, I believe his webserver is hosted with someone other than his ISP, so it’ll be his webserver that could log who views the site….
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Which is why the ISP, p2pnet and Does are all named in the lawsuit. It’s standard sue-em-all practice when you’re not sure who you’re going after and if they’ve got funds to pay for damages. This begs the question though, why aren’t they going after the Associated Press? Is Sharman taking clues from entertainement industry tactics? Like why Google isn’t hit with lawsuits for referencing torrent files and “joe hobby” tracker sites are.
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
neither Jon nor the ISP can just hand over private information. A persons IP is considered private information in Canada. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/
In addition if the ISP or Jon just forks it over, they can be sued by http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ and the person to whom the private info belongs to.
Also, BC has its own privacy laws in addition to those at http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ he can also be sued by that prov’s privacy comm.
So no, he can’t just fork it over, nor can the ISP. Would take a court order and in addition to that, the person has to be contacted and that person can deny the request and normally has a week to legaly file and block private info from being given. Which is another court issue.
All this can be read at http://www.privcom.gc.ca/
And also on BC’s provincial privacy site.
This issue will be determined by the court and the lawyers of the jane/john Doe’s (if need be) not by the lawyer of the kaza people, Jon or the ISP.
Its not that simple to get (or give) someones private info in Canada. Its easier to sue for libel.
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:49 pm
that Jon isn’t a company and therefore isn’t worried about 3rd quarter profit margins, private jets for the executives and…offshore tax shelters…
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:12 am
I read all the comments before on a different computer and now when I come here I don’t know where I left off, because some goes on the bottom of the page and some new posts go on top. You would be better off with a forum with its linear mode than this messaging system with its threaded mode.
Anyways I noticed in the pdf file complaint that they mentioned “Readers Write”, yet here in the thread links they provided everybody was “Reader’s Write”. So who is the complaint directed against? And there was a date posted of 06 May 2001 for (e) and (i), so it looks like the complaint is loaded with errors and should be dismissed.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:37 am
You are reading this incorrectly. An IP address is not considered private in Canada. Nor is it in the USA. Case law has already determined that. If you use a website, you are giving your IP address automatically. It is no different to sending a letter with your return address on the envelope, or mailing a check with your personal address on it. This is not private information as in a libel case, it is part of the discoverable evidence!
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:30 am
it would only be evidence if logs of the ip are kept. Some sites do keep logs of ips to see where people may be viewing there site from. but it doesnt take much to delete the logs. Some sites that dont want to take a chance saving ips routinly delete the ip logs. And a ip doesnt mean they can find out who it is that made the post. There is no way a court would release the info on the ips if they existed. People can use proxies or even their neighbors wireless connection and most places nowadays have free WiFi so ips can basically be pointless.
May 23rd, 2006 at 6:44 am
IP’s are not private but the identity of the IP user is and that should take a court order for it to be released by the isp.
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:22 am
A court would never do that. At least not up here. If this was even going to court which Im sure it wont. This bad press is not what Kazzaa is going to be wanting. I mean come on suing someone who is for the support of p2p networks. Im already seeing several sites pulling their support for Kazza. Anyways before the courts would even think about releasing ip info the story would have to be proved libel. And seeing several other sites have the same story makes me wonder why they are picking on Jon.
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:15 am
“…the story would have to be proved libel.”
**********
no…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 23rd, 2006 at 11:30 am
This whole situation is a joke but not for Jon unfortunately, I am not sure about Canada but I know that a case in |Germany springs to mind and the ruling was that the site owner was responsible for posts made by people but that is Germany, perhaps there has never been such a case as this in Canada and this will set a precedent.
) and that is assuming that libel is proven, it all starts getting rather messy and very expensive and do they really think they will recover thier costs even if they were succesfull, and regardless of the outcome people will still have thier own personal opinions.
However I should think that Sharmans solicitors are having a laugh (all the way to the bank)Yes of course the IP’s could be traced but that then means that even if they were granted a court order that will need to be done in the country that the isp owner is in I would also imagine that a new case would have to be brought in that country for libel against the poster ( assuming they didn’t use a proxy
And another point is why have they issued against the hosting Co, I believe this stands in most countries that Isp’s and hosting Co’s can not be held responsible for what is hosted, and have to be told if something is hosted that is objectionable, not just issue proceedings against them.
And my last little rant (sorry to go on) Where I am a judge would laugh his head off at the spelling mistakes and gramatical errors on a legal document.
I agree that to me this seems like a personal vendetta which a judge worth his salt would see straight through.
Sorry that was so long
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:51 am
There has already been cases such as this in canada where the Hosting party was lso sued. Court found them not liable.
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
you do aparently…..if they are so irrelevant then why did this site publish something that caused Sharman to take action and lets not forget that they probably sent a standard publisher letter asking for co-operation but got all this crap……..any denils on that one Jon?
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
go back to your day job at the record company
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
“There has already been cases such as this in canada where the Hosting party was lso sued. Court found them not liable.”
Now would be a good time for you to back up this statement with links to case files.
June 7th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Take that. Claimed infringment is permanent and the combat target is unstoppable and spreads like the cockroaches. No need to pay the laywers. You will be driven to bankruptcy just like TSR did to GDW ( http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_gdw.txt, http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_gdw2.txt ) Make sure to remove the ads and comments (most of top/left/right/bottom framing) to control archive size.