p2pnet - rss feed: Anonymous p2pnet poster named
p2p news / p2pnet: p2pnet is being attacked by multi-million-dollar Australian firm Sharman Networks, based in the South Pacific tax haven of Vanuatau.
Sharman, which cynically claims to be a supporter of the p2p community and which owns the awesomely discredited Kazaa p2p FastTrack file sharing application, almost single-handedly introduced spyware and other malware to the Net.
Sharman and Kazaa manager Nikki Hemming (picture) are suing p2pnet for alleged libel, claiming we defamed them in two articles which mentioned Hemming’s accommodations in Sydney, among other things. In the stories, p2pnet quoted from an Associated Press item, and from an anonymous Reader’s Write Israeli lawyer Itai Leshem now says he wrote, and which we reproduce below:
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.
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 setoff 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
Freedom of speech
There seemed to be a desperate urgency to the claims Sharman and Hemming were making against p2pnet, using high-profile Canadian defamation lawyer Roger McConchie to demand that we “immediately” remove the offending items.
We complied.
In another demand, Sharman and Hemming made it clear they agree with Apple boss Steve Jobs that freedom of speech isn’t something they need to concern themselves with: they wanted p2pnet to name the author of the comment posts.
We didn’t comply.
For one thing, we didn’t know who the author was and for another, we wouldn’t have handed over the information even if we had known because we do believe in freedom of speech, and in the sanctity of anonymous authors which, we also believe, goes along with it. As I said in a response to the new comment, “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′.”
Be that as it may, despite the fact we were initially being strongly told to answer Sharman’s ‘requests’ more or less instantly, presumably to protect the good names of Sharman and Hemming, that’s all she (Hemming ; ) wrote and we’ve heard nothing further.
‘Alleged greed, backstabbing, and conspiracy’
Meanwhile, Sharman and Hemming are under attack in Australia where they’re being pursued by the members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel, and in the US by fellow commercial p2p firm StreamCast Networks, which owns Morpheus.
StreamCast has named Sharman and Hemming, together with others involved with Sharman and Kazaa, in a lawsuit calling for US$4 billion in actual damages, US$12 billion in treble damages, plus additional damages and fines.
“The amended court filing details a labyrinthine story of alleged greed, backstabbing, and conspiracy that culminated in Morpheus being mysteriously booted from the FastTrack network in 2002, a move that StreamCast says cost it millions of customers,” said Ars Technica.
“The shutdown was allegedly done by the original founders of Kazaa (who later founded Skype) with the goal of selling FastTrack technology exclusively to Sharman Networks. In the end, though, like most such cases, it’s about money.”
‘Same subject matter’
Back to the present, the Big Four claim Sharman’s Kazaa facilitates unauthorised file sharing and are trying to have the company and the application nailed in Australia.
p2pnet alluded to the Oz trial and to Hemming’s house.
We can’t show you Leshem’s original posts, if indeed they were his. Nor can we show you our original articles. However, we can quote from a 2005 Online Reporter article which contains assertions relating to the same subject matter, and which are apparently OK with Sharman and Hemming since they didn’t sue this publication.
Nor did they sue the Associated Press, come to that. But that’s another story. Literally.
“Despite their best efforts, the labels’ lawyers were never able to find out who owns and who runs Sharman,” says the Online Reporter. “The best they could discover was a shadowy front company located on the South Pacific island of Vanuatu.
“What triggered the labels to ask for the cross examination into Hemming’s assets is her sale of her Sydney mansion to Sharman’s accountant John Myers, for 2.1 million Australian dollars ($1.55 million). After the sale, Hemming continued to live in the house. She then, the labels allege, gave about half of the sale proceeds to her live-in partner and transferred the remaining 1.1 million Australian dollars ($804,000) into a Sharman-controlled trust fund in Vanuatu.”
‘I never blamed them’
Finally, and not at all incidentally, we recently heard from Patti Santangelo, the New York mother who’ll be the first of the approximately 19,000 people who’ve been subpoenaed by the Big Four’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to take the ‘trade’ outfit on in an open court before a civil jury.
The vast majority of the RIAA’s victims, many of them young children who are also being pilloried, used Kazaa. Many say that when they bought the p2p application, they also believed they were in effect buying a license to legally download music.
They also say Kazaa failed to make it clear that the folder in which downloads were stored needed to be disabled so users wouldn’t be leaving it open for other people to tap into; and, that even if they had known, disabling the folder was beyond the technical ability of average people, especially if they were children.
“When I was first sued by the RIAA, I never blamed them for trying to protect their copyrights (not ever) and I do still believe that even though I totally disagree with how they are doing it,” Patti emailed me, continuing:
“I can never forget that my first response to who should be held accountable was KaZaa.
“To have the capability to make money and abuse an innocent consumer, or in most cases a child, is beyond my comprehension. The owners of Kazaa should be held accountable.
“I’m not sure about the laws of Canada or other countries, but here in the USA we have what is called The COPPA Act (child online protection act). This law was broken by Kazaa. I know this because a requirement of COPPA is have verifiable parental consent for a child to download their so-called ‘free’ service, and this never happened.
“I want so much to be able to stop them from doing this and of course help you in the process. Let me know if you think my experience with what Kazaa has done to me can at all help us in our battles.”
Precedent-setting case
For me, there are two separate issues:
In the first, I’m being sued, and I’m going to defend myself before a Canadian jury.
Secondly, and more importantly, as I say here:
“Although the Sharman / Hemming suit appears to be a straight defamation claim, what’s really on trial is whether or not an online publication - a blog - can be held responsible for something someone else posts. Or put another way, is a blog in reality a content filter acting on behalf of persons unknown?
“And there’s something else: 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.”
“So this is more than merely p2pnet … being bullied by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming …”
I also say:
IMHO, I have three edges.
1 There are millions of potential on- and offline sleuths out there with access to a lot of interesting data which could be used as courtroom material;
2 There are also a lot of people who value a free and open internet; and,
3 The Canadian Charter of Rights enshrines freedom of expression, and even the ancient law of defamation needs to be respectful of that fundamental freedom.
For now, this will be a precedent-setting case and it must be heard not for p2pnet, but in the interests of freedom of speech.
p2pnet isn’t exactly rolling in money (the adverts just about cover site costs and living expenses for myself, my wife and our daughter) and seeing this through to the end will be expensive, and any help you can give will really appreciated.
However, by one means or another, our campaign to highlight the gross inadequacies in Canadian libel law will continue, and we hope it’ll inspire a move to have the laws amended, and as quickly as possible with any luck, before other Candian sites are similarly victimized.
Cheers! And all the best …..
Digg this story
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 29th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
“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.”
Aw man, that’s not bad then. That may very well add some teeth to your case, if the whole ‘living on the other side of the Atlantic’ thing can be gotten over.
Glad to see this fellow has stepped forward, even at the risk of him being named in the suit.
Nads, man. Nads.
Also, I hadn’t thought of that COPPA bit that Patti mentions. Very interesting.
–Tinfoil
June 30th, 2006 at 3:16 am
What a dilemma for Kazaa!
The guy who claims to have written the comments they are suing against is the same guy they said against the following (in the Sydney Morning Herald):
“If anybody thinks that any company would take notice of unsolicited advice, they have a screw loose”
How can you sue someone you publicly said he has a “screw loose” for defamation?
Can they take his claim seriously although his posting is still unsolicited?
If they do, doesn’t that negate their first response with regard to his idea claim?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:49 am
thanks for nothing, for creating such problems for everyone involved! I doubt very much you are a lawyer, I cannot find anyhting on you in Israel as a lawyer, though you can have no doubt that someone will….. canadian libel laws will certainly drag you in to this mess…. shame on you for creating such a mess for no good reason. All because you had a personal gripe!
June 30th, 2006 at 4:30 am
Why do you think he wrote anything wrong? are you against free speech as well?
June 30th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Itai, as one of the many-many-many readers of p2pnet and a few other blog-type sites I’d like to personally thank you for coming forward. While the Canadian laws are still setup ass-backward, your action should likely stop their court from ordering the ip/identity be released (would have been interesting to see how the US company would have reacted given the comments wouldn’t have ‘likely’ been worthy of release on the info, but….).
Again, just wanted to say thanks!
_-Jile-_
June 30th, 2006 at 5:59 am
I suspect that if you were being held to the same standard of canadian law, that his posts were, that they’d probably consider what you just said to be libelous as well…(again, I dont claim Canadian libel law makes logical sense lol!)
Honesty though, someone coming forward vs letting the lame laws as they stand in Canada to set a precident against freedom to post online?
We’re all intitled to our opinions and I’m sure Jon appreciates you’re frustrated with the guy - but if he had not come forward, things could have gotten a lot worse.
Just my 10 cents,
_-Jile-_
June 30th, 2006 at 6:22 am
I live in Israel and am a frequent guest to p2pnet. I don’t know Itai Leshem but I want to thank him as well for the balls he has shown. I hope Sharman would drop the case against p2pnet but anyway this story is getting a lot more interesting now with the Israeli angle and the claims Itai made regarding his idea.
It would be interesting to know what is “unjust enrichment” and whether Itai has any rights with respect to Sharman if he can prove they learned about the idea to block Australians from him. Can someone provide a legal analysis of this?
Ilan
Tel-Aviv
June 30th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Counter sue now! Jab those corporate bastards in the eye…they don’t have the authority to demand you to do anything. Because the bastards have money to sue you with…means you can take it all away from them when they are WRONG!
Take their money away man!
June 30th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Soooooo, what’s kazaa’s next step?
Rick
June 30th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
That’s what I would like to know….What are the libel laws in Israel?
June 30th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I am curious as well. I’m also aware that in Canada the courts frown upon frivolous lawsuits and award damages for this type of thing. This is one of the reasons, beyond cultural differences, why there tends to be less lawsuits launched in Canada per population when compared to the USA.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
I have a feeling Sharman would do nothing on this issue and the case would be deleted. They should be stupid to go after a guy which has 2 claims against them, at least one of them which they cannot defend against.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:22 am
I think you may be mistaken here.
Libel suites (especially in BC, Canada) isn’t frowned upon in the courts at all, regardless if they think its frivolous.
This is actually one of the court filings that award more $ in damages and special damages than if you were to sue for wrongfull death or murder.
You said: “..why there tends to be less lawsuits launched in Canada per population when compared to the USA.”
True, Except for Libel cases. This is the exception.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:46 pm
thats one fugly picture… yeesh
July 1st, 2006 at 10:18 pm
I think she looks OK for a 40 year old woman
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:07 am
no, it was me. i wrote all of it.
or was it me, or maybe russell, or tony or anyone else here who can log in anonymously?
or maybe it really was me.
it’s nice the guy from israel is saying it was he who wrote it, but the point is, no one knows and no one will ever know who wrote it, no matter how many people confess.
so although his “confession” is a nice gesture, it doesn’t prove he did write those things. and it doesn’t prove he didn’t. a million people can confess to it, but there’s no proof that any single one of them actually wrote the comments.
so come one, nikki. why not just sue everyone and their mothers? the law of averages would be on your side, and eventually you might get the right person, but you wouldn’t know it because whoever did write those things here (although they had already been reported by associated press) will forever stay anonymous.
good luck. i hope you’re ready to drop the case and offer jon a substantial settlement before he countersues you out of everything.
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:23 am
I’m glad you are keeping an open mind on this “confession”, all credit to you, but Itai Lesham is quite well known as a person seeking publicity at every opportunity and was derided at Slyck for his continuous stream of BS.
One has to ask oneself, why has it taken him so very long to come forward and make his “confession” and what is it about reciprocative litigation that he appears to have such difficulty in understanding?
We’re all behing you with this, Jon, honestly. But don’t let this nutter distract you from your endeavours. He’s dangerous
July 2nd, 2006 at 5:43 am
I’m not sure that less than a month is a long time, he probably checked his legal standing before coming forward. I do agree that we can never know for sure who wrote the comments, but it is nice of him to claim he did so because Sharman may have gone to sue any other guy which confessed except this guy - its to much of a headache for them because its clear that they also made defamatory expressions against him and they would not want his idea claim to make headlines.
He may be full of BS but how are you so sure he is? do you have evidence to suggest he is lying or have you reached that conclusion because you cannot accept the concept that some guys are smarter than you and the executives of Sharman?
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:58 am
How do you know anyone lied about anything?
The only way for you to claim it’s all lies is if you are someone within Sharman who know the actual stuff, and if thats the case then you would surly claim its all lies even if its all true.
You see the logic why your post is absurd?
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:44 pm
“Itai Leshem” is another one of the many identities that Stephen Cohen of Earthstation V goes by. At one time he had a partnership going with Sharman Networks with the ES5 venture, but things didn’t work out as planned because although millions of people were stupid enough to use Kazaa, they couldn’t repeat the results by getting millions of people to switch over to ES5. Now Stephen Cohen and Nikki Hemming are no longer partners and Cohen is furious that he didn’t get the millions he had hoped for, so he has gone after Nikki Hemming in order to pressure her into sending him some cash from her money mansion.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
howya doin matt? and like the guy sez better stop smoking that shit
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 pm
No, no!!! It was me! I was the poster on the grassy knoll!!!
As to Nikki, Mark and Kev and the rest must be giving her shit for opening this can of worms.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Very fair response, but he has stated that he is a lawer in numerous other (and rather disputateous) postings that he has made throughout the web.
As such, surely it shouldn’t have taken him so very long to make this remarkable decision to disclose his identity. After all, Jon has (very commendably) made it perfectly clear that the identity of the poster in question would never otherwise be disclosed.
Any finding against this individual within one jurisdiction would certainly equate to a compelling case against him within his own jurisdiction. His failure to acknowledge that, his complete ignorance of litigative recipricosity and the international judicial process combined with his amazing posting history as “volt” over at Slyck hardly suggest that he is knowledgable. To be perfectly frank, I found some of his postings rather disturbing, but make your own mind up.
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16960&start=50&sid=fc2b67d69a2f6fab2654c4c165664dab
and
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=234676&highlight=#234676
The fact that Kazaa/Sherman may have maligned “volt” aka Itai Lesham is a total non starter, I’m afraid, as they have not identified him by name. If he were to suffer any damages, it would only have been as a consequence of his subsequent actions - therefore self inflicted.
And as any first year law student will tell you, that the claimant is required to mitigate, not be the author of, his own losses.
Of course I could be completely wrong, and I freely accept that my opinions are based on conjecture. It is hard not to be prejudiced when a person repeatedly makes such a spectacle of himself in public.
I have nothing to gain if I am right, and as this is an anonymous contribution, I also have nothing to lose either. Mr Lisham, on the other hand, certainly craves publicity and also certainly stands to gain notoriety from his apparent matrydom. If anyone takes him at face value, that is.
But as the Slyck posting history will confirm, Lisham has a certain reputation for making claims involving Kazaa/Shaman that he can’t substantiate. He is a wlter mitty character in more than one sense of the word. I really don’t think it would take too much effort on the part of Sharman’s lawyers to thoroughly discredit this guy.
Therefore, it is my opinion that it would be extremely unwise to place any confidence in anything this man says,. No, I don’t know him. But I can and certainly have formed a less than favourable opinion of him.
But as the decision to exercise caution already appears to have been taken, my words are largely unnecessary.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Hmm, junior member of law firm’s staff starts exploting P2P issues to garner self publicity. I wonder where he’ve heard that one before?
Can’t be much of a lawyer if he’s never heard of the internatial judicial process, where one staate will allow a judgement made in another state to be enforced as a summary case
The guy’s a loony. Look at his postings at Slyck uunder the name Volt and also as W Mitty.
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:14 am
He did more than just exploring. He suggested an idea that no one suggested (at least online) before him which was actually the idea (his or not) Sharman implemented eventually. Junior or not he seems to know his way around the law books.
Can Sharman sue him under Canadian law? Both parties are not from Canada and the issue itself has no relevance to Canada, even most of p2pnet’s readers are probably not from here.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:15 am
Well, have a look at the posting here:
http://www.p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=9218&comment=57015
The idea of filtering was first put to Sharman by the Australian courts, not by this preposterous individual. I dispute your assertion that he “knows his way around the law books” given his ridiculous presumption that he is immune from being sued because he lives in Israel.
Of course anyone can sue anyone else in another jurisdiction, either directly or via a local agent, that’s how the Australian firm Sharman Networks are suing Jon in Canada. It happens all the time.
This character from Tel Aviv (who interestingly uses a gmail account and not his office email address) has stopped at nothing to get his name dotted around the internet, and I would suggest that his latest effort to draw attention to himself amounts to nothing more than that.
It seems to me that the crux of this matter is more a question of the (allegedly) defamatory information being posted up at P2Pnet than the actual contents. I won’t risk any assertions that could themselves be libellous, so this is merely conjecture: It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Sharman wish to be portrayed as victims of the P2P movement and therefore distance themselves in the eyes of the courts.
But allowing this distractive clown Lesham to assume some sort of martyr or hero status is a dangerous indulgence, for it offers false confidence.
If he were the lawyer he claims to be (and that is subject to doubt) and as confident of his standing in this matter as he asserts (which is false confidence), then it would be perfectly easy for him to swear affidavits to the effect that he was responsible for this whole mess (which would be admissable in a Canadian court) and thus settle the matter as far as Jon is concerned.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting.
Better to remain focussed on the real issues here, those of journalists’ (bloggers) rights to freedom of expression and the uncensored reproduction of contributor’s comments.
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:00 am
The Australian courts did not come up with the idea to filter Australians, they suggested filtering content – there is a world of difference between those two suggestions to Kazaa.
Sharman sued Jon correctly in Canada because he is Canadian and lives there, that kind of logic does not apply to Itai (if he indeed lives in Israel) and it’s hard to believe that the court would accept jurisdiction in Itai’s case.
If they want to sue him, they would probably need to do that in Israel.
That said, I agree that the focus should be the freedom of speech, the “Itai affair” is an interesting story within the bigger one. Don’t let your obvious dislike for that guy to miss the entire story.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:17 pm
I went over them and found nothing claimed there which was not claimed in this article as well, what did you find disturbing?
The fact that they have not identified him by name does not make any difference in my mind. Everyone understood who Sharman talked about when naming him “screw loose”, just read the remarks of Slyckers regarding the screw loose remark and you can see that they understood very well.
It seems you have a grudge, get over it.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:29 pm
You’re right, of course, I shouldn’t allow my prejudices against this guy dominate my view.
Lesham suggested that the whole idea of fiiltering was in fact his, whereas nationality based filtering has already been employed (eg most streaming radio stations, etc).
We are in agreement that Lesham would have no immunity from being sued in his own country or a judgement obtained in another being reciprocated in his own country.
But the focus is Jon, and freedom of speech, not prejudice
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Well, I went through them myself and noticed a number of disparities that a first year law student would spot.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in your posting, but it is a fundamental fact of civil law that the person claiming a loss cannot be instrumental in that loss. In identifying himself, this self styled martyr has lost all rights to claim defamation against Sharman.
As for the grudge, most certainly not. I am a realist, and whilst nothing would please me more than to find myself in agreement that this guy has saved the day, it would be an exercise in self delusion. But that is just my opinion.
Perhaps it is the fact that I have an opinion that troubles you so greatly, or is it the fact that my opinion is not exactly what you want to hear? But if you shout people down without checking out the legal basics, how can you dismiss my concerns as being motivated by a grudge?
If this person wants to help Jon, then it is a simple matter for him to file an affidavit and have that attested both in his own country and in Canada. But I wouldn’t recommend that you hold your breath waiting for him to do so
Another Walter Mitty, I’m sorry to say. And I’m as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
i am itai.
i am from israel.
i am trying to sue sharman.
*****
don’t you all se? it doesn’t matter who is who, or who says who is whom. we are all anonymous here. that’s the point. anyone can say anything and claim to be anyone.
i wish you all would stop arguing about itai. he is fictitious as far as anything “itai” posts here or elsewhere. there is no proof this itai is who he says he is, or that any of the claims he makes are true or false.
just forget it and move on. itai is a troll.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I’m Batman
July 4th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Thanks, Catflap. I think you got it right
July 4th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
PREFACE ((I live in a fairy tale and all my comments are just that, my own opinion and not a statement of fact - please dont sue me as these comments are ‘not’ libelious))
Interesting idea there - because if it’s not Itai, then it’s most likely Nikki Hemming and she did an excellent job showing the world who she thinks the anon poster is.
As the email was sent to Jon via gmail, I’ve tested through my own account and gmail completely masks the ip of the sender - so you cant even do a tracert on the sender’s ip to at least verify it’s from Israel
_-Jile-_
July 4th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
PREFACE ((I live in a fairy tale and all my comments are just that, my own opinion and not a statement of fact - please don’t sue me as these comments are ‘not’ libelious))
…Though it should be noted, the person claiming to have swayed Kazaa to block Aussie users is using the same email address back Nov-05: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25
So, while anonymous - there is still a shade of ‘possibility’ to the validity of the sender….
July 6th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I’m not sure anyone is necessarily doubting the identity of the sender, more the credibility of his claims and the distractive element of what he says.
The fact that a person regarded by many as a troll usses the same mailing address amounts to little, imo
July 7th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I am getting tired of looking at that ugly SOB’s face avery day on this site’s front page. I don’t know, man. Change it to the Kazaa logo or something.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
just adblock the picture.
problem solved.