Search Slyck
Anonymous
Welcome
Sharman Networks Sues p2pnet.net
May 18, 2006
Sharman Networks retains the intellectual property rights to Kazaa, the P2P client that connects to the FastTrack network. The company is currently facing litigation from the ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) for copyright infringment, while also facing contempt charges stemming from that case.On May 10, 2006, Sharman Networks and CEO Nikki Hemming filed a libel complaint against Jon Newton of p2pnet.net, Interserver, Inc. (p2pnet's webhost) "John Doe", "Jane Doe", "Richard Roe" and "Jane Roe." News of this event was not published until May 15. Details of the case remained minimal until May 17, when further investigation finally revealed the identities of the complaining party.
Serious questions such as who brought the lawsuit, what charges were made, and most of all, why there was no prior warning, were all concerns brought up by various parties. In an update to the lawsuit against p2pnet.net, Editor Jon Newton published he is "being sued principally as a publisher, not for something I wrote."
Considering Sharman Networks' complaint includes four unnamed defendants, it appears likely that at least four comments in reply to a "libelous story" precipitated the complaint.
In response to an inquiry from Slyck.com, Sharman Networks detailed additional information on their motivation for the libel complaint.
“Sharman Networks Limited and Nikki Hemming have filed a libel lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Jon Newton of www.p2pnet.net.
"The Writ of Summons charges that Mr. Newton has published false and injurious statements which are calculated to damage Ms. Hemming and Sharman Networks.
"The writ was delivered following two formal attempts, on May 5 and May 8, requesting Mr. Newton to remove the material in question and post an apology on www.p2pnet.net. Only after being served with the writ did Mr. Newton act to remove – if only temporarily – the defamatory material.
"The libels were so gratuitously offensive, personal and unnecessary that Miss Hemming had little choice but to respond by asserting her rights through legal action after attempts to remedy the matter without litigation failed. The libelous story and postings complained of in the writ were so significantly beyond anything relevant to any business matters in the P2P market that Sharman Networks Limited and Ms. Hemming felt they had no option but to take action.
"Sharman Networks Limited and Ms. Hemming are suing for general, special, aggravated and punitive damages."
Jon Newton has remained quiet on the issue while he seeks legal council. Although he may feel differently about the statements released by Sharman Networks, his conjecture will likely remain silent until the proper time.
Specific references to the exact article and comment posts are currently unknown. Several theories have appeared on the file-sharing forum site P2PConsortium.com, which speculates two articles and associated comment posts that are now deleted may be the culprits.
Update: The speculation surrounding this case appears to have been sound conjecture. In the complaint published on p2pnet.net, the article that earned the ire of Sharman Networks is "Nikki Hemming's Money Mansion."
In the complaint, the plaintiffs contend the article made false and defamatory expressions against Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming. The article features a reproduction of a "Reader's Write" post, which makes several claims against Sharman Networks. The plaintiffs hold Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. responsible for this article, along with four postings in reply to the story.
In addition, there are four independent and anonymous posts which Sharman Networks also finds libelous. Whether the four posts were made by the same individual or not is unknown, therefore they have been given "John, Jane Doe" and "Robert, Jane Roe" designations.
Consistent with Jon Newton's earlier statement, he is being sued as a publisher rather than something he personally wrote. In an updated article, Newton defends his position by stating "...I truly believe this is a 100%, solid gold, carved in rock freedom of speech issue, about people being able to say what they think and express what they believe in without fear."
Contradicting Sharman Network's above statement, Jon Newton states he never received a 'formal' warning regarind the concerns of Nikki Hemming.
"You and she both know you filed this suit before I received notice of her concerns. Despite your clear statement to the contrary, you provided no 'formal' notice of your client's concerns. You didn't send a registered letter or courier your demand letter ..."
The anticipated magnitude of this case will provide a litmus test for the Canadian courts and clarify the lines between free speech and unsubstantiated literature.
Jon Newton has remained quiet on the issue while he seeks legal council. Although he may feel differently about the statements released by Sharman Networks, his conjecture will likely remain silent until the proper time.
Specific references to the exact article and comment posts are currently unknown. Several theories have appeared on the file-sharing forum site P2PConsortium.com, which speculates two articles and associated comment posts that are now deleted may be the culprits.
Update: The speculation surrounding this case appears to have been sound conjecture. In the complaint published on p2pnet.net, the article that earned the ire of Sharman Networks is "Nikki Hemming's Money Mansion."
In the complaint, the plaintiffs contend the article made false and defamatory expressions against Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming. The article features a reproduction of a "Reader's Write" post, which makes several claims against Sharman Networks. The plaintiffs hold Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. responsible for this article, along with four postings in reply to the story.
In addition, there are four independent and anonymous posts which Sharman Networks also finds libelous. Whether the four posts were made by the same individual or not is unknown, therefore they have been given "John, Jane Doe" and "Robert, Jane Roe" designations.
Consistent with Jon Newton's earlier statement, he is being sued as a publisher rather than something he personally wrote. In an updated article, Newton defends his position by stating "...I truly believe this is a 100%, solid gold, carved in rock freedom of speech issue, about people being able to say what they think and express what they believe in without fear."
Contradicting Sharman Network's above statement, Jon Newton states he never received a 'formal' warning regarind the concerns of Nikki Hemming.
"You and she both know you filed this suit before I received notice of her concerns. Despite your clear statement to the contrary, you provided no 'formal' notice of your client's concerns. You didn't send a registered letter or courier your demand letter ..."
The anticipated magnitude of this case will provide a litmus test for the Canadian courts and clarify the lines between free speech and unsubstantiated literature.
This story is filed in these Slyck News categories
Legal/Courtroom :: Other Lawsuits
P2P Clients :: FastTrack
Digg this article.
You can read the complaint here (PDF.)
You can discuss this article here - 60 replies
| Giganews |   |
| NewsDemon | |
| Thundernews | |
| Binverse |  |
| Newshosting | |
| UseNetServer | |
| Astraweb | |
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com