p2pnet - rss feed: Police keep Pirate Bay servers
p2p news / p2pnet: The Pirate Bay has failed in its bid to have its servers returned after they were seized during an MPAA-inspired police raid.
"Internet hosting company PRQ had demanded the return of both paperwork and computer equipment seized by police, saying that the material had no significance for the investigation and arguing that it was vital for PRQ’s work," says The Local.
But Stockholm District Court rejected the application after a hearing held behind closed doors on Wednesday, it says, adding:
"The company said it intended to appeal the decision."
Piratpartiet, Piratbyrån, Grön ungdom, Liberala Ungdomsförbundet and Ung vänster recently staged a demonstration in Stockholm, Sweden, in response to the raid, when more than 100 servers were grabbed.
Also See:
MPAA-inspired - US denies Sweden file sharing threat, June 22, 2006
The Local - Court refuses to return servers, June 28, 2006
100 servers - Swedish ‘The Pirate Bay’ demo, June 5, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win - Mohandas Gandhi
June 28th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Hi Jon,
I’m the guy who arrogantly claimed that Sharman Networks implemented on December 5, 2005 an idea I sent them, which they were clueless of, to block Australians from using Kazaa. That last minute move by Sharman allowed it to continue operating Kazaa from that date until today instead of following an Australian court order which ruled that Sharman must either close down its business or implement a content filtering solution (which basically is the same as closing the business).
You can refresh your memory here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/sharman-denies-lawyers-claim/2005/12/08/1133829710467.html
I’m telling you this because Sharman’s attitude towards me, as well as in general, led me to take unreasonable and irresponsible actions including the claims I make below.
That is the reason why I now wholeheartedly want to claim that:
1. I am the person who posted in Israel the comments on p2pnet stories 8678 and 8699 which led Sharman to sue you (together with the Doe and Roe families).
2. You, Jon Newton, did not collaborate with me in any manner in posting the comments and you had no advance notice of the posts.
3. The opinions stated in those comments were genuine and the info was provided by a third party which is related to the Roes.
Now that we got that out of the way, to me it seems absolutely amazing that a P2P company which is fighting for its life in a court of law sues and tries to take down a site that has the explicit mission to advance the sharing of information and data which is really all what P2P is about. In the name of whatever is decent I think that Sharman must retract the case altogether and of course against you because it is obvious that you had nothing to do with the comments.
It’s not that I don’t feel compassion for Sharman’s situation as I too now claim to have suffered after being publicly ridiculed with false and defamatory expressions in front of my family, friends and anyone else who read the link above. Reading about Sharman’s agony over the posts reminded me of those long nights in which I woke up screaming my lungs out “screw loose? screw loose? Screw loose!” only to return to a vegetative state until the next psychotic outburst. Oh, the horror, the pain, the damages.
Compassion aside, too often do corporations and individuals with power or money decide that the end justifies the means although that sort of attitude should be reserved, if at all, for the weak.
When Sharman wants to save face or avoid answering questions it feels free to discredit with outright defamation a person who obviously had good intentions with respect to it. And when it wants to reveal the identity of an anonymous person Sharman suddenly becomes sensitive to the written word and assigns a famous defamation lawyer to the case which, if successful, can only mean bad news for free speech and the community Sharman regards as customers.
Anyway, it’s worth mentioning that this entire letter, if read by anyone, is unsolicited advice and text and should be viewed accordingly, nothing above should be seen as a solicitation of legal proceedings or may be used in a court of law. Such proceedings shall be initiated, if at all, on the risk of the plaintiffs alone and I reserve all rights and claims I am provided with according to any law, including my right to, with all due respect, reject the jurisdiction of Canada’s courts, the right to defend against and discredit the entire claim as well as to set off and counterclaim with at least two claims of my own I believe I have against Sharman Networks.
Also, if the legal proceedings against you shall continue I offer to legally assign to you all rights and claims I may have against Sharman Networks including with respect to an unjust enrichment claim and the defamatory expressions used against me, if in the opinion of your lawyers this may help.
It’s not too late to kiss and make up.
Thank you for the great work you do here and for your stand on the right side of free speech,
Cheers
Itai Leshem
Tel-Aviv, Israel
ileshem@gmail.com
June 28th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
I have archived this with all the other items related to the suit,
so they never disappear.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Take everything this guy (Itai Leshem AKA Volt) says with a grain, nay, a shaker of salt. The man is a pretentious, attention-starved troll with a dangerously large ego.
I have been a Slyck-goer for some time and witnessed the fiasco he created using the alias Volt on Slyck at http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16996 spamming his ridculous claim that Sharman Networks acted on Dec 5, 2005 in the omission of .au users on his ‘legal advice’ in the form of an unsolicited email.
He is so desperate for the spotlight that he even submitted his unfounded and unsubstantiated claims to the Sydney Morning Herald, which lost some credibility when they actually posted the story at http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/sharman-denies-lawyers-claim/2005/12/08/1133829710467.html although they did at least get feedback on the issue from Sharman Networks who put the guy in his place, appropriately responding that he has “a screw loose.”
June 29th, 2006 at 6:25 am
So basically you confirm everything this guy just wrote only you some how reached a logically screwed conclussion as a result.
In the SMH article (which was linked by the guy itself, why link again?) Sharman admits getting his emails (Julie Fenwick is Sharman spokesperson - google her name) so his credibility, if he had any, only grew. If Sharman was clueless about his idea (not you nor I can know that today) then his need to make that public is understandable.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Whether or not he sent them an email is not in question. Wow, he sent Kazaa an email and then posted about it. That really puts his credibility over the top!
What I challenge is his claim that Sharman acted as a direct result of his email, which is indeed unsubstantiated and unfounded.
Did you even read the thread on Slyck? It provides all the illumination of the topic you’ll ever need, but I’m sure you didn’t read it, seeing as how you obviously didn’t even fully read my post.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:11 am
I read your post, you have not added any bit of information that wasn’t in that guy’s original post except the link to the thread - he even admits being arrogant, you just added some additional superlatives.
I read now his posts on the thread and that guy is sticking today with the same claims he made then, he just added an additional claim regarding the remarks that led Sharman to sue p2pnet, which is a different issue.
You are probably right that this guy has an ego as big as a house, he also seems desperate, but that does not mean that he is lying about the originality of his idea.
I cannot think of any way in which he can substantiate his claims without the cooperation of Sharman, if he is right why should Sharman help him?
The only way for you to discredit his claims regarding his idea is if you find somewhere on the Internet a mention of the idea to block Australians before he did so on Slyck, I didn’t bother, but if it was such a simple issue then Sharman in their response would have mentioned that this idea is not new, they haven’t done so.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:32 am
While I have no reason to doubt what Leshem says, I don’t have, and have never had, a means of finding out who the original poster was. So I’m not in a position to confirm or deny his claim that, “I am the person who posted in Israel the comments on p2pnet stories 8678 and 8699″.
But having said that, thanks, Itai. The ball has been in Sharman’s court for some time, so we’ll see what, if anything, happens now.
I’ll do a post on this later, together with an interesting observation from Patti Santangelo who very much sees herself as a Kazaa victim.
Cheers!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Don’t they like the name or something? What is the big deal?
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
The Police should try and do something more resourceful like cut the crime rate, voilence and stop being a puppet to the politicians or the government. It is to be very clearly understood that just making a rule for propoganda purposes is not representative of a true public opinion. The sheer size of users evidences the fact that the individuals are stepping forward and making their choice and are not going to let some big businesses of pocket filling greedy politicians hold freedom back. This growing army will one day topple the governments/ offices / burecrats / companies that are pushing PIRATEBAY as there is a huge army of members / users / researchers / advocates / propogaters / fans / beleivers that are all support for PIRATEBAY. In the end beware such actions earn the warth of people who support piratebay and mind you are willing to to go to any length to reply with a reciprocal attack of defence to teach a lesson to a blind government.
So Beware and Longlive People Unity for PirateBay