Sharman drops p2pnet libel case
p2p news / p2pnet: Two months after receiving a summons telling me I was being sued for alleged libel by Kazaa owner Sharman Networks and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming, I’ve at last received the detailed notice of claims.
Filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, it includes two intriguing new documents.
One, from Sharman, reads:
No. S-063039
Vancouver Registry
TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Sharman Networks Limited, wholly discontinues this proceeding against the Defendants John Newton, Interserver Inc., John Doe, Jane Doe, Richard Roe and Jane Roe.
The other, from Hemming, states:
No. S-063039
Vancouver Registry
TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Nikki Hemming, wholly discontinues this proceeding against the Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe, and Jane Roe.
Why has Sharman suddenly abandoned its claims against me and p2pnet, leaving Hemming by herself?
At this point, we don’t know, but we’ll find out when she tries to justify them to a Canadian jury of my peers at some date yet to be decided.
For now, I have to admit that as very ordinary father and husband with a very ordinary income, I’d definitely rather not be in this situation. But in it I am, and I’m here until it get resolved, whatever it takes.
My wife, Liz, and my daughter, Emma, almost 10, have told me they’re behind me and corny as it may seem, I honest-to-God believe this case points up the dangers ancient laws, which automatically assume guilt, present to Freedom of Expression in Canada.
They have no place here.
Hemming and Sharman say I defamed them in an article outlining Australian court proceedings into Hemming’s assets. They also demanded the identity of a p2pnet reader who posted an anonymous comment which I included in the same story.
Israeli lawyer Itai Lesham has since come forward, but be that as it may, as I say in Stop-the-Blogsuit, “as far as I’m concerned, an anonymous post is the same as a confidential source. I don’t have to like a post, or even agree with it. But I believe that as an honest and responsible human being, I do have to safeguard the poster, if indeed I know who he or she is which in this case, I don’t.
“If Sharman wins it’ll make life a potential hell for bloggers in Canada, at the least. And you can bet the case will be used as a reference for similar actions around the world.”
People come here, “from all over the world to file libel suits,” as Jeffrey Shallit, a professor at Canada’s University of Waterloo, emphasises on his web site.
The laws must be brought into the 21st century and winning this case will go a long way towards achieving that.
Cheers! And thanks for all the good wishes and support …
Jon
Digg this.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
jon, that’s wonderful. you’re 50% there.
i predict hemming will drop her case before the end of the month.
sharman knows now who they’re dealing with – their potential customers (haha).
hemming will soon get the picture. no woman is an island – not even the tax haven of vanuatu.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Go for it Jon we are with you and what is in the bottle in the bottom right corner of your picture?
July 12th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Glad to hear this is 95% done. Must make you feel a little better – though you are stuck and still cant sigh the final relief… I cant understand why Hemming is still trying though…. makes me almost wonder if it was just an oversighted mistype on their part only to be followed by removing her desire to have a case against you later.
Guess we’ll see.
_-Jile-_
July 12th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
I think that was more than likely a typo… I agree with the above comments that the remainder of the law-suits will be dropped soon.
Jon, I for one want to thank you for being who you are and what you stand for. Which goes beyond the world of cyber rights, you stand for the average person (Canadian, American, Euro, etc…).
You fight against big machines that wish to have us plugged in and tuned out of our own souls.
Thank you for having stong enough legs to stand on, whether the cyber-world knows it or not, they will some day appreciate frontliners such as yourself.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
congratulations p2pnet… no need to keep the banner about kazaa vs p2pnet
good luck
July 12th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
While I am extremely happy for Jon at this time ….
They have played this the same way the RIAA plays it.
Bullly, and if it looks like a negative precedent ( for THEM )
might happen, drop and run.
This way, no precedents are truly set, nothing gets decided,
and they can still try it again against someone else, with ease.
Now coporations know that they need to get laws changed in
Canada in their favor, as they have done in the US, before they
can push people around safely.
In some ways, a victory in court would have been better.
Sooner or later they WILL screw up and sue someone who can
AFFORD to pull no punches.
Congratulations Jon on this partial victory tho. I am certain
Nikki is going to “cave” as well.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
I don’t know the woman. I’ve no clue to her thoughts and feelings beyond what has been published here.
I can make some speculations that apparently she is wrapped up with the idea she believes her personal life is “sacred” to media eyes if it doesn’t put her in perspective she feels is her due. One of the issues becomes when does a private figure become a public one? Public figureheads don’t enjoy quite the same “right” to privacy as more private individuals that are not in the limelite. Ask any famous actor or political figure about it.
The Nikki Hemming name has gained world wide recognition due to past events. Not only the ties to Kaaza but to the court rounds in Australia. Such are the methods that ordinary private names become household recognised names. When such recognition exists, I beleive you will find that their requirements of proof reach another level. One that most public figures don’t want to go into for various reasons, including that of gaining a public “black eye” in reputation. Merely by the act of claiming liable and seeking court action starts that process, undermining a reputation far quicker than the lack of it.
I would suggest that should she continue in her action that you ask your legal representive if there is not a “higher standard” that as a public figure she will have to meet.
Just a thought from my personal opinioins. What was that about a dream land and nothing coming from me should be held as a reasonable presentation of current events?
July 13th, 2006 at 12:58 am
the tax haven of vanuatu was recently named “the happiest nation on the planet” – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5169448.stm
there will be one less happy person in vanuatu when hemming loses the case, if she doesn’t drop it.
the happiness formula doesn’t seem to take into account bogus lawsuits. i think the formula should be changed to reflect the incredibly bad PR curve it’s earned.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:15 am
Great news.
My guess is that Sharman was sucked in by a lawyer.
This weakens the remaining party who will cut her losses by quitting too. She too was sucked in by a lawyer.
BTW, will Sharman pay the defense legal exprenses?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 13th, 2006 at 3:43 am
I hope your fund is going well and that you will have enough to fight to the finish!
Good Luck!
btl@};-
July 13th, 2006 at 5:32 am
how could there be any costs, John had an ambulance chaser working on contingency, only the libelled party had any costs
July 13th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Contratulations Bro !!!
Remember we are here to support you
July 13th, 2006 at 7:16 am
couner sue her for stress and generally causing your life to become a living hell!!
July 13th, 2006 at 10:28 am
For libel, the usual rule is that if a plaintiff withdraws before trial, or the plaintiff looses the plaintiff must pay the defendant his legal expenses.
If that were nor the rule you would be seeing more of these stupid libel lawsuits.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:49 am
the “usual rule” is that a plaintiff must prove libel and defamation.
as we’ve seen here with the Canadian courts, the “rule” (law) is that the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove a thing and the defence must prove it wasn’t libelous of defamatory.
unless you are sure you know what the “rules” are in Canada, let’s wait to hear from Jon. there was enough guessing when the case began, and most people were wrong.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
” how could there be any costs, John had an ambulance chaser working on contingency, only the libelled party had any costs ”
Hi Gachnar old pal
Pretty pissed eh ????
Looks like all you can do now is call names and shake your fist,
cuz it’s almost over.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
“how could there be any costs, John had an ambulance chaser working on contingency, only the libelled party had any costs”
LOLOLOLOLOL ROFL haaahaaahaaahaahaahaaahaaaaa
hee heeeeeeelolololololol *gasp*
LOLOLOL HAAHAAAAAAAMUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
July 13th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Ok let them blow it out of their ass.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Just take one day at a time. And this has been a good day.
Hopefully Hemming’s action will soon follow the same path.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
is it so bad that you have to conserve electricity and use an oil lamp?
or has the genie in that lamp just granted you your first wish?
July 13th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Nikki Hemming is in love with Jon Newton and desparately seeks his attention. That’s what this is all about. She envies Jon for him being everything that she is not. He is a man who stands up for what he believes in. She has no principle and is only motivated by greed. In her gilded money mansion she has found that she has no friends and no supporters. I guess money by itself can’t buy you happiness.
She must read this site daily and while realizing that Jon Newton is a principled man who does well for filesharers, her own legacy with Sharman Networks by contrast has been overseeing the largest poison ever spread upon the computers of people with the Kazaa program. Jon Newton is a happy man raising a family and building a better future for all of us. That will be his legacy. Allah willing, Nikki Hemming will die barren, for nothing good can come out of her cursed womb. I hope she dies alone in her money mansion surrounded with her treasures.
Nikki you ought to just kill yourself right now. YOU ARE A WASTE OF LIFE.
July 15th, 2006 at 12:15 am
I think there should be a kaza ad here.
………with the link pointing to the .edu report on how it is badware and installs all sorts of spyware
July 15th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
i am itai, the magical, mystical lawyer from israel.
i am nikki, the bee-aaatch from down under.
i am a troll. forget me and move on.
July 16th, 2006 at 9:28 am
lol, that s quite a good idea
Personally i’d update the images first of all, the p2pnet is being sued by Sharman is just a tad incorrect now
July 16th, 2006 at 11:19 am
“Personally i’d update the images first of all, the p2pnet is being sued by Sharman is just a tad incorrect now
”
Maybe
Maybe not.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
If Sharman has dropped the case but Hemming has maintained the case, there is going to be more, way more. These people are very very experienced when using the court system and they have very expensive lawyers. Maybe they have discovered the does, but notice things carefully:\’+ they havent dropped against \”Richard Roe\” which means they are still coming after posters!
July 18th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
” they havent dropped against “Richard Roe” which means they are still coming after posters! ”
Wrong …
Read carefully …
“TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Sharman Networks Limited, wholly discontinues this proceeding against the Defendants John Newton, Interserver Inc., John Doe, Jane Doe, Richard Roe and Jane Roe. ”
Notice the name .. Richard Roe .. included in the list of those
folks in which the proceedings have been dropped by Sharman networks.
In NAME, at least, Sharman is no longer suing anyone.
Now, Read again …
“TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Nikki Hemming, wholly discontinues this proceeding against the Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe, and Jane Roe. ”
Only Jon, and Richard Roe are left off the “Nikki” list.
She is not “coming after posters!”. I wonder why you would
want readers to think that … hmmm
Sharman is probably only out of the suit in name only, and still completely backing Nikki, offstage. It protects what name they
have left, while leaving a somewhat smaller financial target for
a countersuit. It’s kind of like hiring a homeless person to file
a frivolous lawsuit. If the Homeless person loses and gets
countersued, the cash award is likely to be less ( nothing to
take ). Clever … and common.
No one knows how to steal using the law better than corporate
entities.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“very expensive lawyers”
Not always good lawyers. Just better connected within the jusdicial-lawyer buddy system. It is the connection that is expensive.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Richard Roe is the unkown poster, so as Jon claimed they are coming after the posters.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Once again …
Wrong …
READ CAREFULLY …
“TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Sharman Networks Limited, wholly discontinues this proceeding against the Defendants John Newton, Interserver Inc., John Doe, Jane Doe, Richard Roe and Jane Roe. ”
Sharman dropped out.
Nikki is going after ONE SPECIFIC POSTER …
Now .. READ CAREFULLY …
“TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Nikki Hemming, wholly discontinues this proceeding against the Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe, and Jane Roe. ”
Continuing against Jon .. AND ONE POSTER .. Richard Roe.
This does not translate to ..
“which means they are still coming after posters! ”
She is going after one specific poster.
As for …
“so as Jon claimed they are coming after the posters. ”
Wrong.
As Jon has mentioned .. the OUTCOME of this case has very
large ramifications, as it applies to free speech on the net.
He has never said “OMG WTF they are comin to get us .. !!”
This statement ..
“they havent dropped against “Richard Roe” which means they are still coming after posters! ”
is actually yours, and yours alone.
It seems calculated to convince the posters here that Sharman
is coming after everyone who posts on this site.
Fearmongering, basically.
And, not true .. and you know it
It is precisely because I ( and nearly every regualr reader here )
am NOT stupid that I recognize an attempt at fear spreading for
what it is
Besides, if the only counterpoint you can come up with is
to call me “stupid” … I honestly am not worried about any
form of real debate coming from you.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
The fact that I called you stupid should not have brought you to conclude that you should not be worried from a real debate coming from me. And if we are on this subject, based on your words, why is it that you feel you should, in general, be worried from a real debate?
Now to the stupid remarks you made before.
When Jon wrote that they are coming after the posters he meant just that. If Sharman would succeed in this case and make a precedent against the (alleged) one poster then basically this would intimidate other posters and they would think twice before posting any wording againt Sharman, and for that matter against any other company who would use that precedent to sue posters.
So basically the actions taken by Sharman against one poster is an action against other posters, hence the use of that word in a plural.
If you still find it hard to understand the above obvious explanation please feel free to post here again, I am at your service.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
“When Jon wrote that they are coming after the posters he meant just that. ”
Source please
July 18th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
I take it back, your are not stupid, I am.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
And since Jon has NO ip info on anyone, the method
isn’t just madness …
It’s worthless.
The posters here are safe, since NO IP information is kept
by this site .. ever.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Since the topic of IP and the owner of the IP is being brought up… figured i would add my out-take on it.
1. When CRIA went to court a couple of years ago to get those MP3 trader identities from sympatico, telus, rogers and videotron (did i leave an ISP out?) Court ruled against it citing the IP does not prove WHO the person was behind the IP. At most it can ONLY show WHO pays the ISP.
2. Hence, even if someone did give the IP of whatever doe/roe, It does NOT prove who the person was. As was already ruled in court.
3. matter of fact, I recall opening a proxy on my computer for 12 anon posters here, and at this very moment i’m on an anon proxy. Sue me pls.
The roe/doe claims hold no water at all, and if the bitch and kaza (who distribute an abundance of malware with their kaza program) think it does in canada or were led to believe so by a moron lawyer then let them try.
This IS probably why it was dropped, it holds no water or burden of proof.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:16 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. –
She is attempting to drain Jon’s finances and support, and
make him say ..”uncle” using an obviously meritless suit.
This opens the door for a countersuit tho.
She has tried numerous times to show that she is .. heh .. broke,
therefore limiting the amount Jon could get in a countersuit,
IF she sues as an individual. If Sharman remained party to the suit,
their large financial base leaves a bigger target for a countersuit.
By removing themselves ( in NAME ) they remove the incentive to
countersue, even though they can fully back Nikki with cash, and
limit their financial and name exposure. It a work of genius.
Legal extortion is an amazing technique.
In the meantime,
Please, no one worry about Sharman “coming to get” readers and
posters of this site. First off, P2Pnet does not keep ANY IP info to
give them. Ans second, The previous poster gave us a wonderful
example of why this won’t happen in Canada, with real case examples.
If the goal is to frighten people away from this site, it has failed.