Now we need to clearly define a blog and isolate it specifically from all online activities.

If not…

Kazaa should then be held responsible for the “postings” there too. The network is set up by them and their postings are files. To argue that the physical locations separate a P2P from a blog is bogus. So the company hosting the blog service is responsible for the blog content as all virtual or actual sites or networks should be.

Blogs will change…

Blog postings will have to be setup so that the poster “owns” the space, where ever it is physically. This way a blog becomes similar to Kazaa network and even what we can consider a virtual network. Now all postings will be made by unknown owners in their site. File downloads will be available as well as the posting at these sites if this formation is forced.

Hemming is after the developing concept of the blog itself. It is bigger than P2Pnet. She is just trying to foul on someone for a bigger goal kick rather than play with the rules.

Hemming is sitting on a Kazza like network whereby the blog files become a posting like a file on Kazaa except they are tied to a mother blog through a software like Kazaa. This way the blog postings are up when the poster is “online” and down when they are not connected to the network unless the files are “shared”.

This is not a bad concept whereby you do not have to pay a blog service but must buy into the software. So how do you compete? You hold the blog services responsible for what is posted on their physically controlled space.

ferrel1

ahh the tyranny of semantics.

You’re still missing the point.

Regardless of whether you believe the law (or the application of the law) is fair, just or reasonable – it is “the law” which has rules people must follow. Without those rules we would have anarchy. The rules say Jon must prove what was said was true. The law isn’t asking whether what Hemmings did was “fair” and if you notice in my previous comments I didn’t either. The judge can interpret the law and decide if Hemming’s case is frivolous (or not) based on the rules and go from there.

BUT my initial point, which you seemed to have completely glossed over, was about The.Rules.Of.The.Game, NOT the FAIRNESS of the game.

I don’t know why you continue to debate a simple point I made … unless you like arguing on the net and you know what they say about people who like to argue here … its kinda like being in the special olympics, even if you win your still retarded

Jile said: by the sound of it the LAME Canadian libel law needs re-written

This is in works, BC’s laws are behind the times compared to other cdn prov’s. Its not all of Canada, Just a few prov’s, BC being one of them.

Also, there has been cases where a UK court held a CDN responsible for libelous writtings on the net. CDN court refused to honor the UK court ruling of monetary compensation on behalf of the cdn person. Mind you, that person will probably be picked up if ever he steps foot in the UK again…. I found on a google one other similar case.

Hence the reason (My thinking) that Jon is being sued. The host and Doe/Roe’s may get tossed on jurisdiction. Jon being in the libel friendly prov of BC could get nailed alone on it. So kaza protects their lawsuit in the event of jurisdiction by including Jon as the publisher.

Since they say he is a publisher, Jon has the right to conseal identity (including his own) when writing in Canada. Anonymous publishing is allowed. But, this right is not afforded when there is libelous material. Which is what they claim the doe/roe did.

Maybe i am completely wrong here… dunno.

But lets look at a scenario. Porn servers. (my g/f started one years ago and we are familiar with these laws in case you are wondering <schwing>)
In many states and in many CDN prov’s running a porn site has alot of legalities or is not legal. So most porn servers are run out of porn friendly states. The law tends to follow the LOCATION of where the material is located (ie. the state where the porn server is). Not who owns the material or runs this material in a lawfull manner. Many can’t be prosecuted or held liable if they live in ontario (for example) since its the laws of where the server is located that come into play.

K, now lets look at a case in Ontario in which an american (washington post i think it was) posted material the Ontario person found libelous. The courts found that the suite could go ahead because the material was available online in Ontario. But later on appeal it was found out of jurisdiction.

back to the porn now…
This jurisdiction of the server making the published material available to all has to be a deciding factor. It is in Porn server cases.

If anyone doubts this, google the laws and porn servers.

So i think Jurisdiction is the thing the plaintiff’s are most worried about. I do think Jon has to exploit the fact of the jurisdiction to the best of his capabilities… even if he decides to go on appeal afterwards.

If server jurisdiction is not observed, this would open a can of worms for all BC people who do things (like porn) on american servers where its legal. Is BC going to round up all people in its provence for doing what may be illegal in BC but not in certain states where its legal to have certain things on the server (in that state)?

Libel, porn, not the same. But the server issue is.

Sure Jon is the BC writter who published material to which an anon poster replied to. Jon has to respect the laws to where the server is located and to which he publishes to. This would have more standing on kaza’s case IF the server were in BC.

Location location location…. very important factor. For all I know Jon publishes for the american public, not the cdn public.

“The question isnt so much as to whether a post is libel as it is whether Jon can turn a post into a story and therefore make it look like a fact. ”

No, actually.
Do you read ?
Read the complaint, try to understand it, then, come back
and make an intelligent comment.

It looks much more like Sharman desperately wants the identity of one of the Doe’s. And …..

You are a %$^%$ and a (*&^*)&^

* The post above is the opinion of the author at the time of writing. It should not be read as fact. p2pnet, it’s owners and/or editors did not pre-approve, edit or comment on the ideas or expressions contained within it before it was posted.

Will you sue me if I use your disclaimer on all of my future posts ?

Dreddsnik

// looks like you just may have started something …

——-*Sad times when we need to start adding those preface comments but I guess I should start getting used to it*

Of course, this leaves another couple questions in the air now doesn’t it. While Jon is a Canadian, what if the 4 Doe’s in question are Americans, or frankly, from any other Country than Canada?

If the Doe’s in question are Americans then would American law prevail over their posts? If they’re Russian, would Russian law be held against them? etc etc

The internet isn’t the same venue as making public statements – where you’d actually be located where your listeners are.. This wasn’t a public speech where some person was talking, then another came out of the audience and spoke and so on, which then you could accurately apply the local laws if any were actually being violated, on to the people in question – this is the internet and it’s coming time that all Nations come to a standard, agreed upon law that applies globally – regional laws make no sense relative to the internet – it’s just plain silly! No – not a law for everything but definitely a law for something trivial like libel.

This case isn’t going to be easy for Kazaa to win. If they DO get the IP addresses, their attorney’s will contact the IP’s respective ISP’s and request via subpoena their identity – but, should the users be outside Canada then Kazaa and the court’s in Canada will meet up with External laws and protections. Though if a publisher of a paper newspaper can hold their sources as confidential I see no reason why the Jon and his Host should be forced to reveal IP addresses in this case. There was no risk to National Security, which in the US seems to be one area they will not allow a publisher to hold private their ‘source’ but I don’t know how Canadian law treats them.

This battle is going to be long and hard – it’s not cut and dry – I have a hard time understanding why Kazaa would take such risks of filing a lawsuit in the first place when it only made to have the posts stand out more – globally – when otherwise the story, which I didn’t even read before the lawsuit was filed (through using a cache I found on a search engine – since it was deleted before I had known about this happening)…It makes it feel like the allegations had some area’s of truthfulness or Kazaa would have simply ignored it and counted the posts off as worthless…but I guess as the case progresses we’ll all know one way or the other. It seems like an ill choice of lawsuits… by the sound of it the LAME Canadian libel law needs re-written, so perhaps this is a good time to get that done.

***Again, I’m living in a fairy-tale, so don’t listen to my opinions above as anything more than that – no fact’s are above and I know nothing factual about the case or anyone involved to base an opinion.***

Just my (opinion) 10 cents,
_-Jile-_

It’s not up to us to decide if they are opinion, gossip, heresay, fact or the gospel according to Jon (that’s a joke btw). It’ll be up to a judge who must work within the confines of the law and the Libel and Slander Act. There are rules of engagement and the Roe’s, Doe’s and Jon will have to follow them, just as Hemming’s will. The american lawyer who wrote the article was wrong about who must prove whether the statements are true or not … IN COURT.

I also think his analysis of the reasonable man is off kilter but that is another discussion entirely.

Which means that anyone who writes anything on the Internet should know what are the difamation laws and jurisprudence of every country and their jurisdictions of the world that has Internet. But that is not enough to prevent a prevailing lawsuit, as there are places in the world that are the judicial equivalent of towns with speed traps where the police and the judge are in cohoots to extract money from every passeby.

Yes, there are places where the local police, lawyers and judges are in cohoots to extract money from every sucker they can. Wait until they find out what a beatuful scam can be made with “difamation”.

My opinion is that this is a bullshit suit.
That is neither true nor false. It is what I believe.

My opinion is that by bringing this suit, Nikki Hemming has shown
that those statements are probably true, since she fears them
so much. You know, “Thou dost protest too much”.
That is my opinion, not a statement of fact, or presented as fact.

I urge everyone to use the google cache and read those statements she fears, and form your own opinion, and VOICE IT loudly at every possible site, not just this one. Voice your opinion, and be sure to stress it’s your opinion.

They don’t have to prove squat. It’ll be up to the Doe’s, Roe’s and Jon to defend the accuracy of the statments made. That is the beauty of this from Hemming’s perspective, she can sit back and relax, while the defendents sweat it out trying to prove what was posted was true.

I don’t agree with these SLAPP methods. It seems that corporations think that appearance is everything in business and this is a poor way to bring silence on critizim, how ever richly it may or may not be deserved.

I commented to someone once that theres a saying that ‘in Cyberspace no-one knows you’re a dog’ and I said that I had adapted it to be ‘in Cyberspace no-one knows youre a woman’ – they were genuinely surprised when I said that I deliberately use gender neutral names when I contribute on line because I reckon I am treated better when people dont know my sex….

people like you just reinforce this problem

I don’t agree with what you say or your reasoning, but watch what you write – if someone doesn’t like it they may decide to come after you just for the hell of it.

I wonder.