p2pnet vs Kazaa: update
p2p news / p2pnet: The Sharman Networks / Nikki Hemming libel suit against p2pnet took an interesting turn when Kazaa owner Sharman dropped out, leaving Kazaa ceo Hemming to fend for herself.
Or is Sharman backing her behind the scenes?
Be that as it may, both The Register and Techdirt have picked up on one aspect of the suit as, no doubt, Sharman and Hemming had hoped.
“Hemming’s lawyers go so far as to suggest that the publicity generated by the lawsuit and subsequent P2Pnet web site hits will counter Newton’s legal costs resulting in ‘a net profit and ensuring the permanent success of [Newton's] P2P Website’. [Cough - Ed.]” – says El Reg.
Says Techdirt, “It really is a unique strategy: accuse the person you’re suing of profiting from the attention you brought him [Techdirt's emphasis] by suing him.”
To quote the portions of the detailed claim The Register and Techdirt are referring to:
Instead of simply removing the defamatory expression at issue from his P2P Website, the Defendant Newton elected to draw global attention to his P2P Website, which generates income for him based on the number of ‘hits’ from website visitors.
And in another section:
Falsely representing that his P2P Website does not log visitors and that IP addresses are not available to him, well knowing that his income from the P2P Website requires him to permit his advertisers to audit the number of visitors to his website and to verify the authenticity of those visit, and, Calculating that the increased revenue that he will earn by increasing the volume of visitors to his P2P Website in consequence of the controversy generated by this libel action will substantially exceed his pecuniary liability to the Plaintiff, thereby generating a net profit and ensuring the permanent success of his P2P Website.
Actually, as I say in an unrelated story:
We’ve always been a non-entrepreneurial site, and we still are, but were it not for our handful of flat-rate faithful advertisers …….
And that rate hasn’t changed since the day BearShare, Blubster, LimeWire, Morpheus and Warez first signed on, although p2pnet now has a very significant audience of readers around the world – much larger than when kicked off in 2002. But we continue to turn down potentially lucrative ads because we didn’t like what they’re trying to sell, because the ads are pop-ups, because they’re pumping products or services from firms we believed are against the p2p community, or because they’re trying to use the ads to sneak in tricky coding.
And this year, thanks to the depredations of Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal, the members of the Big Four Organized Music gang who are trying to use lawsuits to both crush any and all competition and to sue their own customers into buying inferior, over-priced product on- and offline, we’ve actually lost two supporters: LimeWire and BearShare.
In other words, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference how many hits p2pnet gets. Or doesn’t get. And, “well knowing that his income from the P2P Website requires him to permit his advertisers to audit the number of visitors to his website and to verify the authenticity of those visits,” is pure and utter fabrication.
p2pnet doesn’t have these kinds of data and even if it did, I never have, nor will I ever, reveal details of users.
As I say say I in the p2pnet privacy statement (which has been a part of the site for ever):
By accessing p2pnet.net, you’re agreeing to be bound by absolutely nothing.
And as far as stats go, p2pnet doesn’t collect, analyse or do anything at all with visitor information, beyond using it for the occasional advertising inquiry.
Even then, all we reveal is: how many unique visitors surf to the site during a given period.
The same goes for registration. The only thing we do with user information is: keep it in a database so we can send out the newsletter.
There’s no hidden fine print in teeny weeny letters, no opting out of something you’d never have agreed to in the first place if only you’d known about it.
So enjoy, secure in the knowledge that your user rights and privacy aren’t being violated or invaded in any way.
Cheers! And all the best …
And in case anyone thinks I’m getting rich from donations, as I write this, I’ve received a grand total of $1,551.81 which, considering the case will cost somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 by the time it’s finished, won’t go very far.
Does the paucity of contributions mean no one is interested? Nope.
Unfortunately, there’ve been reports of several recent instances of sites appealing for donations to help legal expenses, and then disappearing or using the money as all or part of ’settlement’ fees. I have no idea if there’s any truth in them, but they’ve certainly created a dark cloud of suspicion where appeals of this type are concerned.
On top of that, there are now so many sites asking for money that the well is running dry. But I still have to do what I can to keep the wheels turning, hence the Stop-the-Blogsuit page.
Finally, I don’t want anyone to lose sight of the fact that although we want to come out of this in one piece and still in possession of our house, and as I say here, “I’d definitely rather not be in this situation,” I am in it. And I’ll be here until it’s 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 honestly 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 and when we win, the case will make a huge difference to getting the defamation laws revised. And they must be revised.
Here’s a song I wrote called Freedom of Speech. :
Saying what you want to ain’t a guaranteed right
‘Cause your freedom of speech can be stolen in the night
If you let ‘em,
They’ll take it away from you.
Then they’ll have you where they want you and they’re never gonna let you go.
Saying what you want to is your bottom line right
But your freedom of speech can vanish overnight
It ain’t a gift you have to earn it
They’ll destroy it if you spurn it
If you can’t say what you’re thinking
You might as well not think.
People are still dying ’round the world to buy that right
If you want it you can have it
But it don’t come without a fight
And if you let ‘em. They’ll steal it away from you.
Then they’ll have you where they want you and they’ll never let you go.
Saying what you want to is your bottom line right
But your freedom of speech can vanish overnight
It ain’t a gift you have to earn it
They’ll destroy it if you spurn it
If you can’t say what you’re thinking
You might just as well be dead.
Canadian indie label owner and performer Neil Leyton is organizing a Freedom of Speech benefit concert at the famed Rivoli dinner-dance club on Queen Street, Toronto, on the night of August 5. Neil will be performing a song he wrote for the occasion.
But the stars of the concert will be, in alphabetical order, Aceface; Peterborough singer/songwriter Dennis O’Toole; the Kobo Town band, Lindy and Neil.
If you’d like to be in on the August 5, performance on, there’s still time to contact Neil at nleyton@gmail.com or 416 721 3566. If you’d like to talk to me, use jon@p2pnet.net.
And check this out: p2pnet vs Kazaa: update
For now, Cheers! And all the best …
Jon
Also See:
fend for herself – Sharman drops p2pnet libel case, July 12, 2006
The Register – Kazaa parent pulls lawsuit against P2P site, July 12, 2006
Techdirt – Is Leveraging The Streisand Effect Illegal?, July 13, 2006
unrelated story – Will ads sink The Pirate Bay?, July 8, 2006
Digg this.
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 13th, 2006 at 6:26 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. –
” Instead of simply removing the defamatory expression at issue from his P2P Website, the Defendant Newton elected to draw global attention to his P2P Website, which generates income for him based on the number of ‘hits’ from website visitors. ”
Liar.
It was SHARMAN that brought this to everyones attention,
by filing a libel suit over an article that most of us had
loooong forgotten about. AAAAND it was removed , immediately.
Sue Google for having a very efficient caching system.
” which generates income for him based on the number of ‘hits’ from website visitors ”
Liar.
This sounds VERY familiar ( like someone we know ; )
“Falsely representing that his P2P Website does not log visitors and that IP addresses are not available to him, well knowing that his income from the P2P Website requires him to permit his advertisers to audit the number of visitors to his website and to verify the authenticity of those visit ”
Liar.
Also sounds reeeeal familiar.
Like a tiny broken record.
It’s a huge complement to this site that people like this feel they
must lie, and troll, while hiding under the very anonymity they
seek to destroy.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
If it’s publicity that is sought, the media have assisted in this big time. Until the lawsuit was threatened, the exposure of p2pnet was limited to the “geeks with special interest”. After it hit the news and the Internet, (written in such a way as to draw interest to the site) I would imagine the hits to the site did increase. How did Jon cause the stir of interest?
If anything he’s the victim of repeating the national news. Funny, I don’t see any of the other sites that repeated that news sued. Every site that repeated it had their own reader comments, the same as here. However this one was chosen as the “example”. Apparently, that Jon removed the items in question has no bearing on the intent to pursue this insane idea.
In the end, everyone but the one with the heartache over it has dropped out. We now see the true spearheader to the action by the one remaining. Influincial CEOs can bring other weight to bear and on the surface it looks as if the initial start to the lawsuit was just such. That the corporations that could have brought financial backing to the action have disappeared leaving the sole individual that really had the heartache to finance the action.
So it looks as if a part of the cover has been removed to expose the true wants/intentions and the total source of the action.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
re: “Unfortunately, there’ve been reports of several recent instances of sites appealing for donations to help legal expenses, and then disappearing or using the money as all or part of ’settlement’ fees. I have no idea if there’s any truth in them, but they’ve certainly created a dark cloud of suspicion where appeals of this type are concerned.”
I think that had this lawsuit appeal happened 3 years ago, the donations would have been at least ten times as much, all else being equal.
I donated to the Sharereactor server fund, which (we were told) collected over $8 thousand in about 2 weeks or so. We never got the server (only excuses for the never-ending delays). A few months later SR was closed down by police and Shareconnector absorbed its refugees, and there was a new appeal for a server fund, which I again contributed. Soon after meeting its fundraising goal, Shareconnector was then closed by authorities. Again, donations went into a black hole.
Then there was LokiTorrent, a case probably more familiar to many more people, due to the publicity it generated by promising donors to fight the MPAA in court to the bitter end – but ended up capitulating after only a few weeks, despite having raised $40 thousand in donations the first month. Many of us donated even though we were not even members of the site, just because we thought our donations could make a difference in the world, and help set a precedent that could benefit the entire p2p commmunity.
Although I wanted to contribute again, and this time for something I thought was a very worthy cause, I ended up sitting on the fence this time around. That’s unfortunate, because the P2Pnet case is the one cause that was entitled to receive more donations than all the other failed donation campaigns. I was never suspicious or believed that making a donation would be a waste. I guess it was just that my enthusiasm for contributing was sapped from all the previous bad experiences. Something like “ho hum, I’ll donate later, maybe next week”. There’s little doubt that the timing was just very unlucky.
July 14th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Since they insinuate that you are profiting from this, and hiding this(kinda like the same thing the fat old fake-blonde pig with ugly out of fashion shoes and last years fashion style is sueing you for) can you launch a suit in AUS for libel & defamation since this affects your sole source of income? I think this would be sweet and fair.
Also Since they say this:
Falsely representing that his P2P Website does not log visitors and that IP addresses are not available to him, well knowing that his income from the P2P Website requires him to permit his advertisers to audit the number of visitors to his website and to verify the authenticity of those visit, and, Calculating that the increased revenue that he will earn by increasing the volume of visitors to his P2P Website in consequence of the controversy generated by this libel action will substantially exceed his pecuniary liability to the Plaintiff, thereby generating a net profit and ensuring the permanent success of his P2P Website.
This is in fact damaging to your reputation and your sole source of income (home based business) and more or less calls you a profiting liar. It also says your privacy statement is a load of lying bullpoop, which is damaging to your home based business. Now can you go after the ambulance chasers firm and kazza for releasing this pack of lies? I think you can if you have the stomach for it (not to mention $).
I wish some nice money came your way to pursue this further and stick it right back to them… a little bit of little guy justice is in order here.
I suggest this be brought up in court with a counter claim, in addition to a claim made against the law firm, and a claim made in aus court.
July 14th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
To do that would be expensive, take years, and give Nikki
Hemming and co more attention than she deserves.
It’s time for her and Sharman to vanish from the net as quickly
as they vanish from relevance.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:15 am
leasten up I take great resk at writing the thing’s that I do im 55 years old and have a mind like a eleafont I remember the thing’s of yesteryear and I can call bull when I see it so before you are so quick as to call some one a anonomuss couared just becase he didn’t regeter remember this more people might write you if they didn’t think the snith squad wouldent come to there home and lock them up on one of those ilands for the reast of there lives like they are trying to do to those poor bastared’s from Iran We call ourself humanbeing’s and cry like hell about war crime’s but when it come’s to someone else we won’t treat them with the same respect we exspect.