p2pnet offensive in Kazaa case
p2p news / p2pnet: p2pnet publisher Jon Newton is going on the offensive in a case in which Kazaa owner Sharman Networks and Kazaa boss Nikki Hemming are trying to sue the site for alleged libel.
If Sharman, based in the offshore tax haven of the Vanuatu, and Hemming win their case against p2pnet, online freedom of speech would be seriously impaired in Canada.
Canadian media lawyer Dan Burnett is now working with Newton on the case, which both men say will shine a spotlight on serious questions and deficiencies in Canada’s libel laws.
“Canadian courts have barely begun adapting the ancient law of libel to the internet age and Charter of Rights,” says Burnett, who represented the CBC and others on media access issues in the Robert Pickton serial murder trial.
“The p2pnet case is going to require the courts to deal head on with some fundamental, precedent setting issues.”
“Freedom of speech is the most fundamental of all rights,” says Newton.
The p2pnet story quotes an Associated Press report of court proceedings in which Hemming was questioned about the sale of her “multimillion dollar Sydney mansion.” As well, p2pnet contained a reader’s comment, and Sharman and Hemming are also demanding the identity of this, and other, posters.
Sharman Networks ran its marketing efforts under the slogan Join the Revolution saying it was, “encouraging users to show their support for peer-to-peer” and “changing perspective,” urging them to, “publicly” show support, “for the peer-to-peer revolution which we believe is unstoppable”. Sharman also tried to strike deals with the corporate music and movie industries.
Its Kazaa p2p application currently features prominently on stopbadware.org, formed by the Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute, with support from Google, Lenovo and Sun Microsystems.
Meanwhile, it and other companies, which include Skype owner eBay, are being sued by Morpheus distributor StreamCast Networks under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act.
StreamCast is claiming US$4 billion in actual damages, and US$12 billion in treble damages.
Sharman and Hemming are in addition embroiled in litigation in Australia.
Last year, “a federal court judge ruled that Kazaa’s owners, including Hemming, did nothing to rein in widespread copyright infringements by Kazaa users,” says AP. “Lawyers for the owners have appealed and no decision has yet been handed down on the appeal.”
“When we’ve won this case, we’ll be taking other actions, including representations to the Canadian Parliament, about online freedom of expression issues” says Newton.
================
NOTE: For good reason, I decided to take the stories down when asked and I don’t approve of them being cached or zipped or otherwise kept available. I know the intentions were for the best, but if anyone’s preserved them or put them online, you’d be doing me a big favour by removing them.
Thanks a lot,
Jon
Also See:
Associated Press – CEO of Co. That Owns Kazaa in Sydney Court, April 28, 2006
Join the Revolution – Sharman launches huge campaign, November 19, 2003
stopbadware.org – Spyware Kazaa slammed, March 22, 2006
being sued – Named in StreamCast vs eBay, May 27, 2006
May 30th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
-= Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment -
- following this preface is true.In fact -
- I live in a fairy-tale and nothing I -
- say should be taken seriously. -
Good luck Jon.
A victory for Sharman would make Economic Censorship,
or CBTL ( Censorship By Threat of Litigation ) a powerful
Corporate AND government tool.
May 30th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Take that ya frivolous lawsuit stinking wallabies.
May 30th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Right-on!
3 cheers for Mr. Dan Burnett!!
May 30th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Does Canada have laws concerning SLAPP Suits? Might be a good time to start the process.
What is a SLAPP Suit?
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
http://www.ired.com/news/lieberman/000806.htm
May 30th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Hey Jon is there a way you could put a link on the front page to point to the pay pal tracker so we can see how you’re doing in raising funds?
Rick
May 30th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Well, p2pnet may be stating their case using strong language, but I don’t think they are being offensive…
If the Canadian legal system is not all farked up by dirty corporate money, blatanly partisan judicial appointments, and rank cronyism like the US system this case should be open and shut victory in favor of free speech.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
i believe that was brought up in a previous story… Canada has no SLAPP legislation on the books if IIRC
May 30th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Here it is
http://www.northcountrynotes.org/newton/
it’s about to hit 1k
For those of you who want to donate precise amounts, use the PayPal calculator
http://www.ppcalc.com/
May 30th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
SLAPP has been used a many times and courts are see’ing more of it..
try googling it
May 30th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
BC’s ancient libel laws have been around since the neanderthals…
May 30th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I’ll figure something out, Rick.
Cheers!
May 31st, 2006 at 12:36 am
AFAIK, there are no anti-SLAPP laws in Canada.
California is one of the few places that have them ATM and the CA laws look pretty damn harshly on SLAPPers. Google the California laws or there might be something about them in Wikipedia
May 31st, 2006 at 4:44 am
SLAPP suit, sounds like what you might hear with one hand clapping
May 31st, 2006 at 5:03 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:03 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:04 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:34 am
truth has a habit of repeating itself
May 31st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Congratulations, we’ve broken 1K.
And by that, I mean $1024.
May 31st, 2006 at 11:33 am
This troll post is the same as, or along the lines of, of similar rants found elsewhere and has therefore been deleted.
NMFR means No More Free Rides
Cheers!
May 31st, 2006 at 11:34 am
This troll post is the same as, or along the lines of, of similar rants found elsewhere and has therefore been deleted.
NMFR means No More Free Rides
Cheers!
May 31st, 2006 at 11:35 am
This troll post is the same as, or along the lines of, of similar rants found elsewhere and has therefore been deleted.
NMFR means No More Free Rides
Cheers!
May 31st, 2006 at 11:36 am
This troll post is the same as, or along the lines of, of similar rants found elsewhere and has therefore been deleted.
NMFR means No More Free Rides
Cheers!
May 31st, 2006 at 11:37 am
This troll post is the same as, or along the lines of, of similar rants found elsewhere and has therefore been deleted.
NMFR means No More Free Rides
Cheers!
May 31st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
the troll didn’t even take my challange to comment on everything as a whole :/ instead all it can do it take one little thing and turn it into BS and hate towards one person.
TY to the mod or whomever for finally seeing the hate for what it was.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Does anyone else see the coincidance of 1024?? Its a sign i tell you!
May 31st, 2006 at 1:08 pm
and the lie told more often is STILL not the truth
May 31st, 2006 at 1:09 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Anyone who wants to know the situation can …
Start here ..
http://s5.quicksharing.com/v/4797947/P2Pnetsuit.zip.html
I checked this link out.
It is a free file host site.
The zip file contains a PDF of the court papers, and
a text file with additional info … virus free
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 31st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
As I say at the end of this piece, “NOTE: For good reason, I decided to take the stories down when asked and I don’t approve of them being cached or zipped or otherwise kept available. I know the intentions were for the best, but if anyone’s preserved them or put them online, you’d be doing me a big favour by removing them. Thanks a lot, Jon”
May 31st, 2006 at 8:01 pm
I kinda like Nicks comments personally, he makes good comments.
May 31st, 2006 at 8:31 pm
they werent parker posts. thedy were sharman posts
May 31st, 2006 at 8:44 pm
This troll post is the same as, or along the lines of, of similar rants found elsewhere and has therefore been deleted.
NMFR means No More Free Rides
Cheers!
May 31st, 2006 at 8:49 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
You missed my point.
Nick has posted about some legal issues in a couple of other
threads, and signed them as … Nick
As I said,
Nick posts openly, and well, with sound reasoning.
I don’t agree with his conclusions, but he does an
excellent job of supporting his opinion.
That’s why Nick is DIFFERENT than the current troll
That was my point.
May 31st, 2006 at 9:17 pm
The most important thing to me is, I am sexier than the troll.
Luvie.
May 31st, 2006 at 10:04 pm
yeh I understood what you meant. and all i meant was the troll is a Sharman shill. maybe if it had kept the posts down a litttle it would have kept on getting away with it but it got too clever
June 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Please everyone follow Jon’s advice. This can get everyone into trouble and sets up for add’s to the lawsuit- the plaintiff’s are going to go after everyone who posts libelelous statements. They will find out who the posters are. Its only a matter of time. Even sophisticated hackers using multiple proxies and remote locations eventually get caught.
SEE THE COMMENTS BELOW FROM JON NEWTON
Zips, etc By: Jon Newton 31 May, 2006 10:03
As I say at the end of this piece, “NOTE: For good reason, I decided to take the stories down when asked and I don’t approve of them being cached or zipped or otherwise kept available. I know the intentions were for the best, but if anyone’s preserved them or put them online, you’d be doing me a big favour by removing them. Thanks a lot, Jon”
June 1st, 2006 at 3:46 pm
SLAPP doesn’t even exist in most US states . California is the primary and most the courts are throwing those out. Wrong path.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
nice scare tactic.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
This IS an interesting post ….
“This can get everyone into trouble and sets up for add’s ”
LOL, reminds me of when the link first appeared, the troll
tried to keep poeple from looking by saying it had a virus.
I checked it my self after that , and of course, it was clean.
Now, as then, Bullshit.
“This can get everyone into trouble and sets up for add’s to the lawsuit- the plaintiff’s are going to go after everyone who posts libelelous statements. ”
There has been only 1 person, throughout the whole of this,
that has insisted that was anything libelous.
Our pet Troll.
“They will find out who the posters are. Its only a matter of time. Even sophisticated hackers using multiple proxies and remote locations eventually get caught. ”
This is clearly written by someone who knows less about the
internet than most 2 year olds.
I won’t post the link anymore, at Jon’s request, but ….
I didn’t put that file there.
I don’t know who did.
But I am certain it will not disappear, for a long time.
That link could be handy … if you have it don’t lose it.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Just suppose, for the sake of argument …….
The original, Associated Press story’s source is, anonymous.
I couldn’t find anyone credited for it except for Associated
Press.
What if,
The interested parties wanted to know the name of the AP
source so bad they couldn’t see straight ?
Would they go after AP ?
That’s a LOT of legal and financial muscle to go against, pretty risky, so probably not.
Now, What if …….
Someone posted anonymously on a small blog, or aggregate, that
sounded an awful lot like ( in the minds of the “interested” ) the
writer of the AP article ??
A small site like that could EASILY be bullied into turning over
the name ( if he had it, LOL but he doesn’t ), right …
After all, a small site does NOT have nearly the cash flow to
defend itself. So the “interested” manage to bully a smaller site
into giving it information that it could NEVER get from a large
press conglomerate. A slick way of getting around the protections
offered ( and affordable ) to Mainstream press anonymous sources.
VERY slick.
But, just a random thought.