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.

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.

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.

” 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.