Jon Newton is being sued for libel

[eclectica]

Last Sunday 2006-05-14, Jon Newton, owner and primary writer of p2p news site p2pnet.net, announced that he was being sued for libel. No further information was given but later on he said that he was being sued not for what he wrote but for what an unregistered "Reader's Write" wrote. He was held responsible as the site's "publisher". The majority of the posts on p2pnet.net are made by such unregistered guests. Apparently it is important for Jon Newton to allow the freedom of expression for such unregistered, anonymous guests. He provides for them the freedom of expression without requiring their registration.

The situation sounds similar to the one Wikipedia faced when it was criticized by John Seigenthaler in a USA Today article. He ojected to what was written about himself in Wikipedia by an anonymous writer, and he went into hysterics in order to find the writer's identity. Afterwards Wikipedia changed its policy and prevented anonymous writers from creating articles on the site. They were still allowed to edit them though.

Forcing registration of site participants allows site owners to maintain more control over a site. But I don't think it makes the reality of the participants much less anonymous, since registered users can have a false identity.

I find that the charge of "libel" against Jon Newton is threatening for two reasons. For one it threatens the freedom of speech. And the second thing it threatens, is the existence of online communities. If a site owner is held responsible for everything written on his or her site, that would close off and privatize the internet by discouraging any sites that allow public participation.

Jon Newton lives in Canada and the server of p2pnet.net is located in San Pedro California. It is hosted by InterServer, which is based in Secaucus New Jersey.

Until today there was speculation in the filesharing community over what was going on with the libel case. Jon Newton did not provide any more details. That changed when emma of P2P United posted an article on the site showing that the court system of British Columbia had a searchable interface to find court cases. It was found that File Number - VLC-S-S-063039 gave the information and put an end to the speculation. Here is the information from that link:

Case Basics

Date File Opened: 10May2006
Style of Cause: HEMMING, Nikki v NEWTON, Jon
Location: Vancouver Law Courts
Level of Court: Supreme
Class of Court: Supreme Civil (General)
Initiating Document(s): Writ of Summons

Parties

DOE, Jane (Defendant)
DOE, John (Defendant)
HEMMING, Nikki (Plaintiff)
INTERSERVER, INC. (Defendant)
NEWTON, Jon (Defendant)
ROE, Jane (Defendant)
ROE, Richard (Defendant)
SHARMAN NETWORKS LIMITED (Plaintiff)

Documents

1 - Writ of Summons
Initiating Document: Yes
Date Filed: 10May2006
Filing Parties
Plaintiff: HEMMING, Nikki

As you can see this case is being filed by Nikki Hemming and Sharman Networks. Notice that the defendants are Jon Newton and p2pnet.net's webhoster. Also named as defendants are four anonymous people. It appears that like the RIAA in its suits against John Does, this lawsuit may seek to uncover the identity of the offending anonymous poster or posters on p2pnet.net. Jon Newton wants to protect the identity and privacy of the anonymous poster.

I wonder if the webhoster InterServer can disregard the lawsuit, as the webhoster and the server are both located in the United States, and the lawsuit was filed in a Canadian court.

I just ordered for $10 the Writ of Summons as written by Nikki Hemming to be sent by mail to my house. There were two methods of delivery available: fax or mail. When I get it, which will be hopefully within a week's time, I will try in a subsequent post here, to scan it in its entirety and perhaps convert it to text using OCR software, or if it is a long document, just quote excerpts of it.

After doing a Google search for stories on p2pnet.net relating to Nikki Hemming, I found two that had been deleted. But I was able to retrieve their contents by way of Google's cached page feature. The following appear to be the offending articles and single post by a Reader's Write. Particulary see the Reader's Write comment #39880 in story #8678. Here I have reprinted the two articles and the one comment that was removed by Jon Newton:

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8678



Kazaa's Hemming in Oz court

p2p news / p2pnet: Is Nikki Hemming one of the shadowy powers behind Sharman Networks' Kazaa p2p application?

Or is she merely a gullible dupe who has, in effect, been hung out to dry by its real controllers?

The latter, many people believe.

Described by the the Australian Associated Press as Kazaa's Sydney-based developer, Hemming faced an Australian court today, "as record companies considering a damages suit embarked on a fact-finding mission," says the newspaper.

"Nikki Hemming was questioned in the Federal Court by lawyers representing record companies which have foreshadowed a damages claim after winning a music copyright case last year."

And Sharman, now 'her' company, was found guilty in September 2005 of encouraging users to infringe copyright, says the story, going on:

"Representatives of the record companies - including Universal, Festival/Mushroom, EMI, Sony BMG and Warner Music Australia - packed the court today where Ms Hemming, who is Sharman's chief executive, gave details of offshore businesses and prime Sydney real estate."

Big Four Organized Music cartel lawyer Richard Cobden lawyer accused her of selling off her multimillion-dollar home on Sydney's north shore because she knew her company was in legal trouble, says AAP.

But Hemming insists she sold the house because she felt "violated" after the music industry's anti-piracy unit raided her home in 2004.

"Hemming said Sharman bought the Kazaa file-sharing software in early 2002 for $750,000," states the Associated Press.

"She said she envisaged Sharman joining forces with a company called Altnet 'to present a solution for the distribution and sale of rights-managed content'.

"Record company lawyers say that the network was exploited by computer users to breach copyright by swapping music files without paying the artists. Kazaa's owners repeatedly said they were unable to control how people used Kazaa and could not stop such copyright infringement."

Also See:
Australian Associated Press - Kazaa boss quizzed in court, April 28, 2006
Associated Press - CEO of Company That Owns Kazaa in Court, February 9, 2006

(Friday 28th April 2006)


Comments:

Fact by Reader's Write 01 May, 2006 21:53

Mark Dyne and Kevin Bermeister organised Nikki Hemming to "appear" to be the new Kazaa controller after the very scared (litigation and prosecution) pre-Skype duo just wanted out of all interests in Kazaa. This happened at the beginning of 2002. Bermeister and Dyne convinced the Skypers to stay in a behind the scenes role ( fast track, Joltid, Bluemoon,Monthly cash payments, etc) and the convoluted web was designed. This was also about the time that Morpheus was unplugged from the "uncontrollable" fasttrack. Skype money as well as the fortunes of Mark Dyne and Kevin Bermeister are being concealed and protected through all of this and Hemmings activities and words. There is not an altruistic bone in any of them. Hemming is a gullible dupe, but she willingly agreed to serve Dyne, Bermeister and their money for a very hefty salary and a sizeable percentage share of the new company structure. After agreeing to the role (she does have business and PR skills) Dyne promised Hemmings protection. Nikki 's first love is money and she desperately craves significants and attention. Billions of dollars of kazaa/skype money is currently being concealed from The Australian Federal Court and via Hemming all of the above are desperate to keep hidden. Nikki may be hanging out for that tropical island payoff but as she approaches her 40th birthday in jan 2007 ( yes she is vain and lies about her age also, she's been 36 for three years now) she can expect to receive more court action, criminal charges, bankruptcy and disgrace.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8699


Kevin Bermeister

Nikki Hemming's money mansion

p2p news / p2pnet: Nikki Hemming, the woman who fronts Sharman Networks' Kazaa, the p2p file-sharing network loathed equally by both online music lovers and the corporate music industry, claims she didn't hastily sell her, "multimillion dollar Sydney mansion," sending the proceeds to the tax haven of Vanuatu, "to make sure record company lawyers could not get their hands on it," says the Associated Press, going on:

"The denial capped more than four hours on the stand for Nikki Hemming at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney. She was cross examined on two affidavits she wrote detailing her assets ahead of a possible court order for damages against Kazaa's owners for authorizing widescale copyright breaches by users of the so-called peer-to-peer network."

Hemming bought the house partly with a $810,000 unsecured loan, "from a company in Vanuatu with an interest rate of 3.5 percent, well below Australian rates at the time," says AP.

But she denied the so-called loan was actually money controlled by Sharman in Vanuatu, adds the story.

In an anonymous post to a p2pnet item wondering if Hemming is a dupe, "Mark Dyne and Kevin Bermeister organised Nikki Hemming to 'appear' to be the new Kazaa controller after the very scared (litigation and prosecution) pre-Skype duo just wanted out of all interests in Kazaa," says a Reader's Write, going on:

"This happened at the beginning of 2002. Bermeister and Dyne convinced the Skypers to stay in a behind the scenes role ( fast track, Joltid, Bluemoon,Monthly cash payments, etc) and the convoluted web was designed. This was also about the time that Morpheus was unplugged from the 'uncontrollable' fasttrack.

"Skype money as well as the fortunes of Mark Dyne and Kevin Bermeister are being concealed and protected through all of this and Hemming's activities and words. There is not an altruistic bone in any of them. Hemming is a gullible dupe, but she willingly agreed to serve Dyne, Bermeister and their money for a very hefty salary and a sizeable percentage share of the new company structure.

"After agreeing to the role (she does have business and PR skills) Dyne promised Hemming protection. Nikki 's first love is money and she desperately craves significant and attention.

"Billions of dollars of kazaa/skype money is currently being concealed from The Australian Federal Court and via Hemming all of the above are desperate to keep hidden. Nikki may be hanging out for that tropical island payoff but as she approaches her 40th birthday in Jan 2007 ( Yes, she is vain and lies about her age also. Also, he's been 36 for three years now) she can expect to receive more court action, criminal charges, bankruptcy and disgrace."

Also See:
Associated Press - CEO of Co. That Owns Kazaa in Sydney Court, April 28, 2006
Hemming is a dupe - Kazaa's Hemming in Oz court, April 28, 2006

(Tuesday 2nd May 2006)

For related topics on this site here, see:
Sharman Networks 2004-01-02

[slx]

i believe she's wasting money...libel against a public figure is almost non-existent unless she can prove she was financially harmed to the extent of her [alleged] damages

this would be a classic case to exemplify the laws changing that compel the loser of an action brought against another to pay all costs and damages to the defendant for filing a frivolous suit....but so would a billion others

but...in the p2p community, it's drama that creates attention

[eclectica]

Here's an update that was posted on p2pnet.net:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8814

Someone ordered a fax of the Writ of Summons which turned out to be 8 pages long. It is available as a pdf file from p2pnet.net and from The Register. Here I have manually copied the relevant parts of the complaint from the pdf file to a text format, as indicated with gold coloring:

The plaintiffs claim against the defendants John Newton and Interserver, Inc., jointly and severally, for general, aggravated, special and punitive damages for false and defamatory expression, of and concerning the plaintiffs which in May, 2006 they published or caused to be published and continue to publish or cause to be published on the Internet on the website at www.p2pnet.net, and more specifically on that website the following stories and postings in reply to stories:

a) http://p2pnet.net/story/8699 "Nikki Hemming's Money Mansion" -- Story 8699

b) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8699&comment=39923 "Readers Write" -- Reply to Story 8699 -- "02 May, 2006 16:32"

c) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8699&comment=39951 Readers Write" -- Reply to Story 8699 -- "03 May, 2006 10:03"

d) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8678&comment=39880 "Readers Write" - Reply to Story 8678 -- "01 May, 2006 21:53"

e) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8699&comment=40093 "Readers Write" -- Reply to Story 8699 -- "06 May, 2001 00:008"

The plaintiffs also claim against the defendant John Doe for general, aggravated, special and punitive damages for false and defamatory expression, of and concerning the plaintiffs, which the said defendant published to the defendant Jon Newton on or about May 2, 2006 with the knowledge, intention and expectation it would be republished by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. on the Internet at:

f) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8699&comment=39923 "Readers Write" -- Reply to Story 8699 -- "02 May, 2006 16:32"

or alternatively, such republication by the by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. was the natural and probable result of the original publication by the defendant John Doe to the defendant Jon Newton.

The plaintiffs also claim against the defendant Jane Doe for general, aggravated, special and punitive damages for false and defamatory expression, of and concerning the plaintiffs, which the said defendant published to the defendant Jon Newton on or about May 3, 2006, with the knowledge, intention and expectation it would be republished by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. on the Internet at:

g) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8699&comment=39951 "Readers Write" -- Reply to Story 8699 -- "03 May, 2006 10:03"

or alternatively, such republication by the by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. was the natural and probable result of the original publication by the defendant Jane Doe to the defendant Jon Newton.

The plaintiffs also claim against the defendant Richard Roe for general, aggravated, special and punitive damages for false and defamatory expression, of and concerning the plaintiff, which the said defendant published to the defendant Jon Newton, on or about May 1, 2006 with the knowledge, intention and expectation it would be republished by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. on the Internet at:

h) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8678&comment=39880 "Readers Write" - Reply to Story 8678 -- "01 May, 2006 21:53"

or alternatively, such republication by the by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. was the natural and probable result of the original publication by the defendant Richard Roe to the defendant Jon Newton.

The plaintiffs also claim against the defendant Jane Roe for general, aggravated, special and punitive damages for false and defamatory expression, of and concerning the plaintiff, which the said defendant published to the defendant Jon Newton, on or about May 6, 2001 with the knowledge, intention and expectation it would be republished by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. on the Internet at:

i) http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=8699&comment=40093 "Readers Write" -- Reply to Story 8699 -- "06 May 2001 00:08"

or alternatively, such republication by the by the defendants Jon Newton and Interserver, Inc. was the natural and probable result of the original publication by the defendant Jane Roe to the defendant Jon Newton.

The plaintiffs further claim for an interim and permanent injunction to restrain further publication of the above-mentioned defamatory statements, and a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to publish a full retraction and apology to the plaintiffs for the defamatory expression.

The plaintiffs further claim interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, special costs, and such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may appear just.

The plaintiffs do not know the true identities of the defendants John Doe, Jane Roe, Richard Roe and Jane Roe. The plaintiffs will apply to amend the style of cause to substitute their true names once their identities are known.

Full particulars of the allegations contained in this endorsement will be provided in the Statement of Claim which is to be filed separately by the plaintiffs in accordance with the Rules of Court.

DATED: May 9, 2006

Roger D. McConchie
McConchie Law Corporation
Solicitor for the Plaintiffs

McConchie Law Corporation
701-100 Park Royal S.
West Vancouver, British Columbia
V7T 1A2
Telephone: (604)925-8906

From the website of the lawfirm can be found a biography of the lawyer who signed the document:
http://www.libelandprivacy.com/roger-mcconchie_bio.html

As you can see in the complaint, there is much redundancy. It appears they did a quick job copying and pasting, with the mistake "such republication by the by the defendants" appearing throughout the itemized complaints. They also made a mistake by listing a date as 06 May, 2001. Another mistake I caught was the following sentence: "The plaintiffs do not know the true identities of the defendants John Doe, Jane Roe, Richard Roe and Jane Roe." They mentioned "Jane Roe" twice but neglected to mention "Jane Doe". And the charges are against "Readers Write", when the posts were made by people of the name "Reader's Write".

While they itemized a total of nine specific links which they objected to, there are only five unique links involving two different stories. One link is a story by Jon Newton, and the other 4 are comments by Readers Writes. Here is what they objected to:
1. story 8699 by John Newton (complaint a)
2. comment id#39923 in story 8699 by Readers Write (complaints b & f)
3. comment id#39951 in story 8699 by Readers Write (complaints c & g)
4. comment id#39880 in story 8678 by Readers Write (complaints d & h)
5. comment id#40093 in story 8699 by Readers Write (complaints e & i)

In the previous post I made in this thread I already reposted two of the five links. I will now repost the other three, as retrieved from the Google cache dated May 7th:

http://www.p2pnet.net/index.php?page...&comment=39923
Subject: Re: Nikki Hemming's money mansion By: Reader's Write 02 May, 2006 16:32

Nikki gets rich. P2P users get music for nothing ... and what do the creators of the music get ... screwed!

http://www.p2pnet.net/index.php?page...&comment=39951
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Nikki Hemming's money mansion By: Reader's Write 03 May, 2006 10:03

Kazaa violate and screw everyone, they are equally loathed by both the p2p population and organised entertainement and are the scum of the internet, they help no one but themselves. Their greed drove their deeds

http://www.p2pnet.net/index.php?page...&comment=40093
Subject: Re: huh? By: Reader's Write 06 May, 2006 00:08

If you have not encounted Kazaa you are truly blessed. They are being investigated and prosecuted in Australian federal court, for authorising copyright infringement, by the cartels. They are equally despised by the P2P community for the spyware, adware, malware etc etc etc they install with the product.

Further more they hippocritically cut the throats of their major competition Morpheus, Kazaa lite *a hacked version with all the nasty malware removed* and other bullshit corporate like stunts. Basically they wanted to over throw the cartels and replace them with their own cartel, a bit like some dodgy African dictator.

They are now a far less significant player in the P2P space. Solid continuing links to Skype and its creators * who also soldout to corporates ebay and cooperate with evil Chinese censorship controls* have been revealed.

In this case Big Music are dissembling another wanna be cartel, and inflicting a death by a thousand cuts to Kazaa executves ego's and bank accounts, and may be liberty.

Seize the cash from all the execs (including Nicklaus and Jannus), the mansions, the jets, the secret trust accounts and use it exclusively for international humanitarian aid. This things gonna go on for years yet.

Hope that helps your question.

It looks to me like the filing of the lawsuit against Jon Newton has only brought more attention to what Nikki Hemming and Sharman Networks are desparately trying to hide by censoring. At best they can only hope to win the battle by having Jon Newton remove the links from his site, but the attention it has brought to them will surely cause them to lose the war in their fight to stamp out the truth.

Nikki Hemming is getting really desperate and has pretty much lost control of her personal life. She is battling with an addiction to pain killers and with a realization that as she turns 40 and is now past her peak as a woman, her life has been more of a failure than a success. Ironically it is the wealth of Sharman Networks which she is hiding from the Australian courts, that has been for her a curse rather than a blessing. It has given her enough idle time to destroy herself and to lose perspective on reality. She lives in a world of falsehood and deceit and she has no real friends.

In her desperation, unpredictability, and lack of good judgement, Nikki Hemming at one point hatched a plan to flee Australia and take all of Sharman Networks's hidden money with her. She tried to seduce the CEO of Mashboxx Wayne Russo by taking a trip to the United States last year, with the hopes that he would agree to marry her and then she would be able to establish American residency as well as easily transfer funds to his bank account. However, despite several attempts involving her stalking Wayne Russo, and her desperate sexual advances and offers of money, he refused to have anything to do with her.

With comments like that, this sight just might be on the hit list next...