Dear Nikki: Don’t drop p2pnet case
TO: Nikki Hemnming, ceo, Kazaa
FROM: Jon Newton, editor / founder, p2pnet
DATE: July 19, 2006
PLACE: Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Dear Nikki:
You and Sharman Networks are both being sued in Australia by the Bg Four record label cartel and in the US, by fellow commercial p2p application owner StreamCast Networks.
And you, in turn, are suing me.
Kevin Bermeister and Mark Dyne are said to be behind Sharman but as the Online Reporter said last year:
“Speculation continues about who is the ultimate owner of Sharman Networks and who actually owns the FastTrack network that Sharman’s Kazaa software uses for file swapping. The latest rumbling is that a shadowy figure named Mark Dyne owns both Sharman the company and FastTrack the network. Mark Dyne was once a partner in the operation with Kevin Burmeister who operates Brilliant Digital and Altnet and is a defendant in the Sydney trial against Sharman Networks.”
Dyne’s, “public facing these days” seems to be his, “California-based companies EuroCapital and EuroPlay,” the story says, going on, “Dyne owns over 25 million shares of Bermeister’s Brilliant Digital and was issued eight million options for his service as Brilliant’s CEO. The US-based Brilliant was formed by merging the Australian-based Brilliant Interactive Ideas and Sega Australia New Developments.”
There are any number of similar reports online, together with attacks on you personally. Yet you’re not going after StreamCast, or any of the many other large, well-funded companies and sites which have published these stories and comments. Instead, you’re after me, someone who’s barely breaking even on a non-enterpreneurial news site which, I honestly think, you should be supporting, not suing.
p2pnet is based on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, and when you and Sharman launched your libel suit, I thanked you. Nor was I being sarcastic, as I wrote at the time.
The Kazaa Kase case has, since, garnered all kinds of international attention because what’s at issue isn’t whether or not you manage to win. Rather, it underscores in unforgettable terms that Freedom of Speech in Canada is in terrible danger.
Sharman Networks has abandoned its end of the lawsuit, supposedly leaving you to continue alone, and I hope you’ll do so. But I can’t help wondering if Mark and Kevin really have pulled out, or if they’re now in the background having acknowledged an urgent need to distance themselves because of the deleterious effect the case and the surrounding publicity is having on their already seriously compromised Kazaa p2p application?
One thing is certain: they’re involved in other projects, such as trying to get Altnet DRM, described by Freenet creator Ian Clarke as a lame duck, accepted by the corporate entertainment cartels, and they certainly don’t need the mud sticking to Kazaa to be splattered any further afield than it has been already.
Last year, “Crookes versus openpolitics.ca” focused on a wiki used by OpenPolitics.ca, which is being sued in British Columbia by businessman/politician Wayne Crookes. OpenPolitics.ca’s Mike Pilling and I have just come across each other, thanks to your lawsuit. Not at all incidentally, he and I plan to work together but for now, “As with Wikipedia, users of openpolitics.ca edit articles without the service having prior clearance of the content,” says a story in USGovernetics.com, going on:
“They rely on what Mike Godwin calls the ‘right of reply’and for those aware of factual errors or other problems to edit and refactor pages. Mr. Crookes rejected these options and other offers to have editors change the pages using facts provided by himself, and pursued the lawsuit with no attempt to answer to the claims or charges made by the resignation letters which were reported on pages. He pointed out no factual errors on any page, but only claimed that they implied he was “dishonest” and had “abused power”. Which was already implied by the strong language in some of the resignation letters and the other insider information cited in the articles.
“Accordingly, the case was being closely watched by civil liberties lawyers as a good test of how little the plaintiff in a libel action was obligated to do to reply or respond before they could succeed in a suit – even one regarding political speech and critiques of actions in the public arena. And also closely watched by wiki users who edit news with public input, receive information from whistleblowers, or collaborate anonymously to expose political insider activity.
“As Crookes had filed against an Ontario-based service in BC, and as BC has reciprocal judgment enforcement with many US states, suits of this nature could be filed by anyone who felt any version of any article in any wiki visible to the public had defamed or derogated them.
“If plaintiffs could require exposure of anonymous sources and shut down wiki-based news services by holding them strictly responsible for every word of every version of every page, (law professor Michael] Geist argued, all forms of journalism would suffer: ‘In order to persuade sources to reveal information hidden from view, they depend upon assurances of absolute confidentiality… online journalism… deserves the legal protections crafted for the press’ He echoed the principles avowed by users of openpolitics.ca, Wikipedia, SourceWatch and similar news services that “we can all play a role in keeping our leaders accountable. We are all journalists now’.”
Meanwhile, Nikki, although I confess I really don’t know what motivated you to start this in the first place, and I don’t know why you’re keeping it going, I can tell you where it’s at for me:
We should all be able to express ourselves without fear. People around the world are dying to buy that right but here in Canada, all I have to do to is explain to a jury of my peers why our laws have to be changed.
So although IMHO you’re doing yourself, your customers and the people you work for a very serious disservice with the Kazaa Kase, by the same virtue, you’ve handed me something I’d never have had otherwise. You’ve given me the chance to stand up for the most fundamental of all rights – freedom of expression.
Canada’s defamation laws must be changed and ensuring the Kazaa Kase is heard before a jury of Canadian peers will help that process immeasurably. That’s the bottom line truth.
I’d like to say there’s no rancor on my part, but that wouldn’t be true. You and Sharman caused me and my family a great deal of worry because we really are ordinary people and to receive a letter from a heavyweight lawyer, carefully crafted to be unpleasant and frightening was, well, truly unpleasant and very frightening. But no worries because Liz, Emma and I are over it and we now see it for what it was.
For you, this may simply be yet another lawsuit, and a minor one at that, but to me and to a lot of other Canadians, it represents the thin end of a very sharp wedge.
But it’s never too late to change and in spite of my request at the start of this, perhaps you should give the case up after all. Then you can pick up the theme that you are indeed an important part of the evolution of the Net, and someone who’s running a company which really does have the interests of its customers at heart, and which supports freedom of speech.
This started out as Sharman Networks and you against me, by myself. However, thousands of other people now see the case as a means to an end that’s far more important than a victory for you and your associates over me, or the other way around.
Don’t you think it might be interesting to see what we could achieve together in a positive instead of negative way?
Yours sincerely,
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 20th, 2006 at 4:21 am
Well put Jon. Well put.
July 20th, 2006 at 9:32 am
“But it’s never too late to change and in spite of my request at the start of this, perhaps you should give the case up after all. Then you can pick up the theme that you are indeed an important part of the evolution of the Net, and someone who’s running a company which really does have the interests of its customers at heart, and which supports freedom of speech.”
You are so naive that you have still left open the door for Nikki Hemming to become a good person. Do you not see the fundamental rottenness of her?
I think for all your hype here Nikki has still won because your original links remain self-censored and unavailable. Meanwhile the lawsuit against you continues. The links are:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8678
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8699
If you want to be courageous and to actually start winning against Hemming, then restore those links or repost those articles along with their offending comments.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
He still has to abide to rules. It offeneded someone who contacted a lawyer. Best to keep it retracted till a later date.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
personally jon i think you’re wasting words with hemming. let the jury have her. they’ll know what to do with her.
– js.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I agree that the jury needs to get ahold of Nikki. BUT, have YOU sent a donation to the Stop the Blogsuit Fund so Jon can do just that??? At last count he only had a little over $1,000!!!!! THAT is NOT enough to even START proceedings allowing the jury to get ahold of Nikki!!!!!!!!!!!! Have YOU contibuted????????????
July 20th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
why are YOU ASKING???!!!?!?!?!?! is it your business TO KNOW?!?!?!?!!!!!?????
maybe that PERSON HAS already donated. HAVE YOU thought of that?!?!?!????!!!!
you, or someone else, have posted this type of message several times in the past. and you know what? it’s STILL NONE of YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!!!
have YOU DONATED?!?!?!?!?!?! why don’t you prove it then instead of posting anonymously? oh that’s right. because everyone here has the right to anonymity and no-one here has the right to question that.
i’ll tell you…i have not donated, and probably won’t. and jon knows why. but YOU don’t need to know why.
get it?
please stop asking this question and flaming people in this way. my “flames” above were meant tongue-in-cheek and not to be taken as flames, but as a take-off on your postins.
just go on with whatever you can do to pass the word around, nicely.
July 20th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Though i’m all for Jon and respect what he has to say, i have to whole heartedly give him a slap upside the head with this statement:
“Don’t you think it might be interesting to see what we could achieve together in a positive instead of negative way?”
Do you really need someone like that in your life? I wouldn’t. Nothing positive in people like that who look to profit by destroying someone else, or someones home based small business. Which is what she tried to do for pursuing this since the begining.
My opinion.
Luv…
July 21st, 2006 at 12:55 pm
The fact is that the only publicity this has generated is on a few other websites, when it comes down to it this is a very very minor story , there is so much more going on in the world for people to worry about than this, most people really couldnt give a damn about the nitty gritty of how kazaa works etc and if you think you can motivate enough people to make a difference i would be very surprised.The crooks will always win in our society simply because they have the most money and power and believe it is their god given right to shit over the little people and their familys.
Let it drop.
July 21st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I’m Batman
July 21st, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Don’t get hope to have conversation on a human level with a rotten person like nikki. She is only interested for one thing. This thing is money! Read informations about her what she has done in the past years 199x. She was already involved in dirty business. If she find the ‘right’ lawyer and pay him good money she is gonna to win anyway. Today you can buy lawyers. It is not human law it is ‘money law’.
July 21st, 2006 at 6:45 pm
“If she find the ‘right’ lawyer and pay him good money she is gonna to win anyway ”
No, I don’t think she will.
If it was such a sure “win”, Sharman wouldn’t have
decided to hide in the background.
I think it’s all over, she’s just too stupid to admit it.
3 posts in a row saying .. quit Jon .. Give up Jon .. you can’t Wiiiin Jon ….
That tells me that Jon has them on the ropes for sure.
July 21st, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Hey Jon,
Lets have it fair and square on your site. You are a p2p site and yet the biggest story of the week has hardly been mentioned here.
The court hearing against Streamcast- every major paper has picked it up!
What does it mean to p2p?
What does it mean to you who depend on their support?
How about a feature on the hearing!
Sounds like the judge said its over and Baker their main lawyer (I assume) has said it looks like they will lose. That could be in a week!-
Whats the future of p2p if Streamcast loses a multi million dollar judgment?
C’mon jON, WE KNOW THEY SUPPORT YOU, (and love them for that) BUT LETS HAVE A STORY!!
July 22nd, 2006 at 8:04 pm
i have to agree isnt it time you reasessed your prioritys after all its not like fighting for human rights or anything really worthwhile that 99% of people care about – at the end of the day its not worth risking your home and family to argue a few points against the music industry/hemming because you wont win etc i think you should concentrate on presenting p2pnews and let the big guns duke it out after all ordinary folk are like ants to these people and they wont hesitate to step on you.i would also suggest you make registration compulsary so if anyone else makes libelous comments you can comply with the lawyers requests for information on the individual after all you dont want to end up shit creek again without a paddle, do yourself a favour and keep ip records at the very minimum.if someone made detailed libelous comments about me on this site or wherever i would sue them or the site owner for deliberately not keeping records.
July 23rd, 2006 at 12:30 am
“i have to agree isnt it time you reasessed your prioritys after all its not like fighting for human rights or anything really worthwhile that 99% of people care about ”
Funny, that’s precisely what it is about.
” i think you should concentrate on presenting p2pnews and let the big guns duke it out after all ordinary folk are like ants to these people and they wont hesitate to step on you. ”
That’s precisely why this should go to the end.
To demonstrate, once and for all, that they can’t be allowed
to step on ANYONE, big or small.
“also suggest you make registration compulsary so if anyone else makes libelous comments you can comply with the lawyers requests for information on the individual after all you dont want to end up shit creek again without a paddle, do yourself a favour and keep ip records at the very minimum.if someone made detailed libelous comments about me on this site or wherever i would sue them or the site owner for deliberately not keeping records. ”
Look, Gachnar,
As shown before, no libelous comments have been made, and it
is a meritless suit, but you know that.
As Jon has said, no records are kept nor will they ever be kept.
Not keeping those records is precisely what keeps sites like this
from being “up shit creek”
You are a liar and a repeat troll.
You have herpes, and bad breath.
Your mom is a hooker.
Sue me, I WELCOME IT.
See , you are anonymous.
No one is harmed unless they know who you REALLY are
You sue me, Everyone will know who you are, and the damage
is done to you, by YOU.
Kind of like THIS case.
The story she is suing over was repeated at many sites, all over
the web, and had been pretty much forgotten about.
Then, they decided to sue THIS site over all of the others, where
similar anonymous opinions were posted. No one would be talking
about her at all if SHE HERSELF hadn’t created the situation.
NO IP records will ever be kept here, so no one ,no matter how
wealthy, can force any one to reveal what they don’t have ..
period.
Posters here will never have to worry about that.
ever.
July 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 am
He sees that the fight is almost over, and P2Pnet will come out on top.
Now desperation is seeking in.
He’s lying.
( note John, not Jon, as always. )
July 23rd, 2006 at 1:08 am
My best guess is that they withdrew their support because they realized at some point that they stand to loose alot more than what they’d gain if this goes to trial. I mean, imagine it going to trial, somebody would have have to examine this company *very* closely, which means that a few hidden things might pop up to the surface.
As for Nikki and Sharman networks initiating this suit, I’m baffled, it’s possibly the worst corporate decision since sony decided to put that rootkit onto their cd’s. What were they thinking?
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 am
considering this site advertises the worst p2p clients in its adverts such as shit like morpheus and blubster it deserves to get taken down a peg or two!!!!!
July 24th, 2006 at 1:54 am