p2pnet - rss feed: Dear P2PNet ……..
p2pnet.net News:- “Dear P2PNet,” writes an anonymous emailer. “I have been following your loud-mouthed progress with your so-called Freedom of Online Speech ‘campaign‘ for some time and I have also delved around in your archives to see what else you have been up to. My conclusion is that people like you are the main reason that the Internet is taking an over-long long time to achieve its potential.”
It goes on:
However, I am encouraged by your progress. But wait! That is wrong. I am encouraged by your lack of progress.
I see that your donation fund is at a stand-still, Nikki Hemming is continuing with her lawsuit in spite of your constant attempts to smear her name and that of Sharman Networks, I am told your Online Freedom of Speech panel in Toronto on August 5 and the so-called benefit concert that night were both huge flops, and now I see your phony Online Benefit concert scam is also faling [sic] flat on its face.
What have you really achieved in sum? Nothing, which proves that the on line community is bestowing on you what your [sic] deserve. Nothing. No one is listening, Newton, and your attempts to use ………
The email, which I received yesterday, goes on in that vein and I’d be interested to see what p2pnet readers and others think about it and its views.
In case you’re new to this and wonder what it’s all about, below are a few story links.
Kazaa parent sues, er, P2P site - The Register, Great Britain, May 18, 2006
Crybaby Kazaa sues P2PNet for libel - Boing Boing, United States, May 23, 2006
Free speech in Canada - p2pnet, Canada, June 2, 2006
Anonymous p2pnet poster named - p2pnet, Canada, June 29, 2006
Sharman drops p2pnet libel case - p2pnet, Canada, July 12, 2006
Kazaa boss sues Canada blogger - The Australian, Australia, August 16, 2006
The pic is me at the Benefit Concert. I had a great time and did something I didn’t think I could do - sing in front of a night-club crowd. And thanks to canadajam’s Wenda and Steve, we’ll be bringing you videos of the show which was, in fact, pretty damned good.
To be continued, so for now, stay tuned.
============================
ADD ON @ 7:48 Pacific: Several emails and comment posts ask about the balance of the p2pnet donation fund. Sorry. I should have pointed out that thanks to MUTE p2p application author Jason Rohrer, who wrote the script, hosts the script site AND who put the Online Benefit Concert code together (and who hosts that as well : ) there’s a permanent donations site which updates automatically every time someone, somewhere, makes a contribution. It also has code which’ll allow anyone with a site to add a p2pnet donations button.
And it hasn’t moved for a long time, as the p2pnet critic observes. But as Russell McOrmond points out in his comment post, the reality is:
“Collecting money is hard, especially when it is for the public good. We have the public goods problem. While every Canadian would greatly benefit by bringing defamation law into the modern age, and ensuring that it conforms to the legal norm of “innocent until proven guilty” that all other Canadian laws follow, it is hard to motivate people to volunteer their own resources towards this public good.”
He also says, “There is nothing unique to … the problem that Jon Newton’s case is exposing. Anyone who publishes online, and increasingly this is becoming every literate citizen, risks being targeted by special interests . I am quite confident that a court will find that what Jon published was lawful protected speech, but the court costs of having to prove himself innocent will be substantial - even with the lawyer doing pro-bono work. (My emphasis.)
And that’s what they count on. This Kazaa Kase is the exact equivalent of someone being sued by the Big Four record labels, with whom Nikki Hemming and her bosses, Mark Dyne and Kevin Bermeister of Sharman Networks which, at one point, was also suing p2pnet, are now allied.
It isn’t a case where things are balanced and each side can present its case fairly against the other. Instead, the opposite is true. As with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and similar vested interest sue ‘em all suits, the plaintiffs are playing with loaded dice or, to thoroughly mix the metaphor, Hemming has a battery of howitzers, an endless supply of high explosive shells and a non-stop stream of loaders while I have a pea-shooter and only a handful of of peas (no offence, Dan 
“This site is an example of the potential of the internet, an average citizen (possibly with an advantage with his journalistic background) being able to set up a popular website to publish his own and the views of other. This is what the Internet is all about: decentralization of media, allowing audiences to choose what they will read, and allowing audiences to become full participants.”
And that’s what it’s all about. Ordinary people with ordinary resources must be able to stand on equal, or nearly equal, terms against huge vested interests with deep pockets and, consequently, access to all the law can offer them and, as things stand, only them.
Meanwhile, where does the p2pnet fund stand? It’s at $1839.63.
Cheers! And thanks …
Jon
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
August 19th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Anyone who describes the events of that day as a “huge flop” is attempting to disseminate misinformation and/or add some negative PR spin to the events. Sure the crowds were on the thin side, The Rivoli wasn’t a sell out crowd, but it was a good crowd (quality vs. quantity) and it was the long weekend after all - a lot of people that attended both the round table and the concert told me they had a great time, and rallied strongly towards the cause. Not to mention we collected enough signatures to present the petition to parliament in one fell swoop… to be continued. Neil Leyton.
August 19th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Don’t feel bad about receiving such emails. The anonymous feeling of the Internet encourages people to say things online that they would never say to someone in person.
I had a great time at the benefit concert and earlier round-table. Even though we were competing with a long weekend and many festivals in Toronto, there were still many people who attended. I had a great time discussing some of the details of copyright and related laws with a few of the lawyers that attended (Yes, a number of practising lawyers took time out of their busy lives to attend the concert).
Collecting money is hard, especially when it is for the public good. We have the public goods problem. While every Canadian would greatly benefit by bringing defamation law into the modern age, and ensuring that it conforms to the legal norm of “innocent until proven guilty” that all other Canadian laws follow, it is hard to motivate people to volunteer their own resources towards this public good.
Jon Newton didn’t have a choice in any of this: Nikki didn’t offer him the option of removing the messages, offering her a platform to refute any of what was said, or any other reasonable action. He made all of these offers, acted in a professional manner, and she rejected all reasonable options. She seems intent to bring her critics down by removing websites and putting innocent online publishers into a financial situation where they might not be able to publish again.
There is no negotiating with someone whose goals are not to protect their own interests, but to punish you for some alleged wrongdoing. Nikki has not been reasonable in any of this : she wants Jon Newton to disappear.
I wish I could offer more than just words to Jon, but unfortunately my own volunteer activities on copyright reform have meant that I’m not a rich person. My financial contribution to the cause was the travel and other expenses to attend the weekend events.
There is nothing unique to Jon in the problem that Jon Newton’s case is exposing. Anyone who publishes online, and increasingly this is becoming every literate citizen, risks being targeted by special interests . I am quite confident that a court will find that what Jon published was lawful protected speech, but the court costs of having to prove himself innocent will be substantial — even with the lawyer doing pro-bono work.
This site is an example of the potential of the internet, an average citizen (possibly with an advantage with his journalistic background) being able to set up a popular website to publish his own and the views of other. This is what the Internet is all about: decentralization of media, allowing audiences to choose what they will read, and allowing audiences to become full participants.
August 19th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
hi nikki!
to paraphrase your new parents (MPAA, RIAA, et al):
“You can post anonymously, but you can’t hide.”
August 19th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
There’s nothing like a fishing expedition in hopes of getting information is there? It’s fairly plain what camp this person has his/her camp in isn’t it?
Wouldn’t it be sort of neat to present the court with a set of changed laws when it came time for the court to preside? Whatta hoot that would be.
Best of luck, Jon. It’s the folks that want to use SLAP to control free speech and the idea of opinions that make the world a dangerous place. One only has to look at the present day suicide bombers to see this sort of mentality in action when taken to the extreme.
August 19th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Thanks, Russell. And thanks to the other posters (and emailers, pro and con ; )
On your point “Nikki didn’t offer him the option of removing the messages”, The Australian recently ran a story (http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20128455%5e15319%5e%5enbv%5e15306,00.html - - sorry; you’ll have to cut-and-paste the entire link) for which the author, Simon Hayes, asked me:
“Hemming’s lawyers claim to have requested an apology prior to serving the writ. is this correct?”
I responded (but not in time for the story, through no fault of Simon’s) ——-
“It isn’t. I didn’t receive their original demands until May 11, three days AFTER their take-down deadline (May 8 in a letter dated May 5), and one day before the writ was served. They claim Hemming (and Sharman’s - it, too, was suing me) reputations were of prime importance and yet they sent their urgent demands by regular, unregistered mail instead of by courier, say. Meanwhile, I offered to let Hemming write anything she wanted, and at any length, and promised to publish it unedited, leaving it on p2pnet’s most prominent position for a minimum of seven days. She wasn’t interested.”
Cheers!
August 19th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
The phrasing, the goals, the targets, the language …
It’s Gachnar.
He’s taken it to e-mail.
Take note Jon, That’s our resident troll, I guarantee it.
August 19th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
… Gachnar has trouble putting more than three words together in sequence ;p
Cheers!
August 19th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
well gee Jon there’s your problem. you should’ve offered the blood of your first born sacrificed on the alter in Hollywood. she may have dropped it then
August 19th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
You even sang?? wow. Did you pay your royalties to ASCAP??
Rick
August 20th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Jon,
whats the balance in the \”fighting fund\”. There isnt much point in asking for our support if you don\’t keep us informed about where things are at.
August 20th, 2006 at 2:54 am
Jon,
whats the balance in the \”fighting fund\”. There isnt much point in asking for our support if you don\’t keep us informed about where things are at
August 20th, 2006 at 5:46 am
What about a drain on the Canadian Welfare System? Should one be making an income and drawing welfare? An interesting question I should suppose! Or is this one you would rather not discuss in this Free Speech debate?
Is Free Speech truy Free when it is paid for?
August 20th, 2006 at 5:49 am
What about a drain on the Canadian Welfare System? Should one be making an income and drawing welfare? An interesting question I should suppose! Or is this one you would rather not discuss in this Free Speech debate?
Is Free Speech truy Free when it is paid for?
August 20th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Maybe she wanted something else….. Jon is kinda sexy :Þ
August 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
The person who posted the “anonymous” posting exposed themselves, so that isn’t the issue.
All the possible things that Nikki could have legitimately wanted — the message removed if it had actually bee defamatory, the identity of the person who posted it — she has already received. The fact that she is continuing the case only indicates that she is doing this because she is (or her new employers are) vindictive, not because there is any actual harm allegedly being done.
August 20th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
I have to admit I don’t understand what this issue has to do with social welfare, or even the far more costly corporate welfare.
In the Free Software community we previously said that we meant “Free as in Free Speech, not as in Free Beer”.
I think it would be sad if people thought that Free Speech has anything to do with money. I now say Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) to emphasize that I’m talking about Free/Libre and not Free/Gratis. The same is true of Free Speech which is not supposed to have any connection with finances.
August 20th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Nearly every bar in Canada pays a fee to SOCAN (Or the Quebec equivalent) in order to play CD’s to this “public” audience. The same fees allow for live musicians playing cover songs as well. It’s not the performer that pays the royalties, but the venue.
August 20th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Is this a reference to the fact that Jons pitch for Free speech is in fact a thin disguise over the fact that Jon is supported by MORPHEUS who is suing Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis and Nikki Hemming and a gazillion others …. THATS NOT FREE SPEECH!
JON stop being a mouthpiece for MORPHEUS!
August 20th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Jon, can you confirm whether you get paid by Morpheus- if so that would raise concerns obviously about the comments raised as there is a big battle going on as everyone knows between Morpheus (Streamcast) and Sharman (Kazaa and Niklas and Janus - The Skype guys).
August 20th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
You really shouldn’t feed the trolls: they do nothing more than impede the flow of discussion.
But if by “whether you get paid by Morpheus” you mean, “Do they pay for their advertising?” - they do. So do Warez and Blubster. But I don’t receive any other kind of payment or support from StreamCast.
LimeWire and Bearshare also used to be paying advertisers. But they aren’t any more and to help make up the lost income, I’ve been thinking of billing Sharman, Kazaa and Hemming for all the free publicity I give them.
Cheers!
August 21st, 2006 at 3:43 am
Hopefully Jon and his family will get through this relatively unscathed, and Nikki will finally be seen by all for the truly evil garbage that she clearly is. I’m sure she, and those obviously backing her in secret, think that their true motives are obscured and clouded from the general public, but really the truth of this matter is really quite plain as day and will be to any court of law. Because of that, I absolutely guarentee to everyone who frequents this site that she will NOT win in the end, and will only end up being further disgraced and humiliated. I can just imagine all the headlines spread far and wide across the internet already, and she won’t be able to do a damn thing about them at all after this is said and done with. She won’t even be able to show her face in public again, or at least not for a very long time. Sad really, but she is bringing it upon herself. You really do reap what you sow after all, and I do so intently hope that Nikki reads this message, because I want you to know that you are going down hard. Your course is set. Make no mistake, the light of truth is going to burn you to a cinder, and there is no way too escape it.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:45 am
It was only to sell my old bicycle, but the entire editorial staff are now my bitches.
</sarcasm>
August 21st, 2006 at 5:16 pm
sorry was just making a joke.
Rick
August 21st, 2006 at 6:18 pm
It’s obviously from a troll. Couldn’t be more transparent.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Maybe I should charge the Riv for being allowed to host my first semi-live performance (ahem)?
Maybe not ;p
Cheers!
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:56 pm
the one who’s been bombarding the boards with SPAM. That’s obvious. The second you put a stop to the SPAM you get an ‘annonymous’ e-mail……
How DOES one e-mail ‘anonymously’?
BTW: Your site and e-mails are working right again now, too?
Yep, they could no longer get to you one way so they E-MAILED you!!! THAT is RICH!!!!!!!!!!
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:16 pm
KEEP UP!!! READ the articles about the lawsuit. There is LESS than 2000 in the account. Now go find the article I got that info from!
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
“How DOES one e-mail ‘anonymously’?
”
It’s not all that difficult.
Sign up for an e-mail account at any of a number
of free e-mail providers, using bogus information and
an anonymous proxy.
Send the e-mail while using an anonymous proxy.
“Yep, they could no longer get to you one way so they E-MAILED you!!! THAT is RICH!!!!!!!!!! ”
That’s one of many reasons I still believe this is gachnar.
He’s posted using a several of different ( identifiable ) writing
“styles” to pretend to be different people, yet the underlying
themes, consistent targeting, and some key usages are still
pretty identifiable as the same person. Plus the absolute PERSISTENCE.
It’s the same person, I’m very certain ( but I have been wrong
before, only human, after all ).
It’s the real MOTIVE behind his persistent attacks on this site,
that’s the REAL question.
If it was just a massive “Hate-on” for this site and Jon, I think
even the most hateful of trolls would have moved on to more
“fun” places, where they were moe effective at angering people.
Leads me to the belief that gachnar is a professional person,
paid to attack the site. I note in particular the more subtle posts
in which he hints at ip logging, and identifying users, etc.
Trick posts in which answering
could be misleadingly self incriminating, or misleading to the
readers here.
This e-mail excerpt smacks of the same person, in more ways
than I have space to type here, and, as usual, he hides behind the
very anonymous shield that he seeks to destroy for everyone.
Everyone but his wealthy masters, that is.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Boy! YOU sure know a LOT about this ‘person’!!! I think YOU are gachnar! E.G.: You ‘know’ gachnar is a *he*? You know ‘he’ has been using different typing styles. You know EXACTLY HOW to compromise this site…hmmmmm.
>It’s the real MOTIVE behind his persistent attacks on this site, that’s the REAL question.<—<<< THAT is OBVIOUS…it’s a weakassed attempt to ‘force’ Jon to install identifying software here or shut down altogether.
AND, YOU are the ONLY one still checking out AND posting on this particular board besides me. AND, look at your LOOOONG post. You know too much and thou protesteth too much >…..as usual, he hides behind the very anonymous shield that he seeks to destroy for everyone. Everyone but his wealthy masters, that is.< YOU have NOT been signing in (thereby staying anonymous) and even if you did what’s to stop “gachnar” from creating a new account and s-n??? eh?
STFU, stay off this board and leave p2pnet and the rest of us who come here ALONE!!! BTW: your ISP knows who you are
HA!
August 25th, 2006 at 1:51 am
You Right Ray and its a Stupid Troll most of us in the “indistry” come to Jons blog to see what publicity we are getting
August 26th, 2006 at 5:50 am
Please lay off the personal abuse. That’s how all of this started. If you disagree with other posts that’s fine - but let’s treat each other as decent human beings.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
maybe they are trying to prove that you are uncontrolable and this current article seems to show that so maybe they will try and show criminal intent. Yes, in Canada, defamation can be criminal!!
August 28th, 2006 at 3:17 am
So is harrassment.