Maybe its early. But I am lost in this article soo sharman networks have pulled out. probablly because Kazaa is crapp now anyway :)

SO bascily she sued the site for posting what the Associated Press siad and sued the annoymuose users for "dissing" her?
the net is not a palce where you can sue soemone for makeing a comment....

This article is a little confusing.

I would think she would sue the AP for printing the article in the first place. Aside from that, I have a little trouble seeing how KaZaA is making ANY kind of money. I thought everyone pulled off of that when the second wave of lawsuits started hitting college campuses.

shes makeing money by hideing it from the MIFIAA lawyers *L*

well this is an updated article so if its confusing its cause the case wasnt being followed, but ye thats pretty much it, P2Pnet and 4 anonymous posters were named in lawsuit by Sharman Networks and its CEO Nikki Hemming. They article in question was using most of its stuff from an AP article and the four posters well..... shouldn't they be al;lowed to say whatever the hell they want? That's like a lawsuit being filed against Borhan9 for saying Kazaa is crap.

But ye, if you're confused (we all are...) - http://www.p2pnet.net

kazaa is crap though, and it seems like as long as you post a sign sayin "piracy" u can bypass any laws

Now wait a second here, is she trying to censor freedom of speech through the courts? Very lame, her lawsuit should be stricken out of court, just for the sheer fallacy of its nature in its entirety.

I hope she does not win, because if she does win, then freedom of speech becomes endangered.

hot_ice
"freedom of speech" is already endangered all it needs is a few more nails in its coffin and to be burried 0-o

The US freedom of speech laws specifically EXclude libel, slander, fighting words, & several other forms of expression, so a finding AGAINST a libellous statement would have NO chilling effect.

But not only is the statement NOT libellous; it wasn't made by the parties named in the suit.

IDK about Kanadia's laws, though.

Steve83
so any of us can be sued by the rich when they get a bug up their butt over a post or 2? 0-o

Legally you can make a statement like "he probablly sells crack", but you can not say "he sells crack" when you have no proof or have never witness it.

Second a statement that puts someone in a bad light is okay as long as it is not a statement of fact, but a statement of your opinion.

Also in order for her to prove that it was libel she would have to prove she didn't moved the money or sold the house.

the point i got from the jumbled article above is that he (with full knowledge of the story's falsity) published without given a rats arse who it hurts, is what i c she is saying. HEY wake up that is what the internet is 4. The fact that the anom person posted comments as an anon should b in my opinion reason 4 that person 2 get off the very fact that they r posting as an anon, could b argued that they were not sure or did not believe their information 2 b true, hence would not put their name 2 the post , however they were fully aware that they were doing it from their IP address . Showing they had no reason 2 fear what they were doing. Its an arguement i would use!!

Dix_Fix
you are never anonymous becuse big brother is always with you so he can tell the rich uncel what you are doing 0-o


what a wonderfull world the rich live in they have the abilty to sue someone for talking about them 0-o

ZIppyDSM im with u, d rich r able 2 afford the rights that should b available 2 all of us, the only 1's who win r the legals, b it solicitor lawyer barister judge these r the real beneficaries of any legal rangling, so a Q poses itself, is it in their (the legals) intrests 2 c each & every case 2 it fullest reguardless of the likley outcome ?

Sorry that was off topic

Yes, in the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. I could sue you for murdering my imaginary hamster a year in the future, if I pay the filing fee & a clerk of court accepts it. That doesn't mean I'll win - it just means I've sued you for it. So yes, you can get sued for your posts.

@steve83

Actually steve, there was a case, where a robber breaked into an old man's house, and the old man, in self-defense, fired on the robber. I don't know if the robber suffered wounds or not, can't remember, however, the robber filed a lawsuit against the old man for excessive force!

WHAT!?!? Can you do that, try and rob someone, the rob unravels with a sour note, use an excuse to justify excessive force, and sue thereafter???

What a joke our judicial system is...

Well hot_ice its not just the U.S. Im from Australisa & the case u just posted is almost identical to a couple of hi profile cases we had here. I.E. Guy robs a pub a closing, owner catches him on the roof grabs him bashes him & throws him into a lockable laundry till the police arrive. The robber getg done for break, enter & steal. the bar owner gets done for/ assult, assult with exssesive force, reckless endangerment (of life), unlawfull imprisonment, (if the laundry wasnt lockable NO PROB)

The robber had 2 pay restitution ($6000) & got community service order on him for 2 years.
The bar owner got 2 years suspended sentence,2 x $5000 fines for assult & unlawful imprisonment & is currently doing community service with the robber & he got 4 years community service

Another small out of town store owner got held up a gunpoint, actually it was his wife he was out the back in the yard. On re-entering the rear of the premises , he realises whats going down & goes back out 2 his shed gets his shotgun & meets the robber as he flees the front of the premises. He orders him 2 stop as he is fleeing. Then unloads into the guys back at 100yards/90meters. (at that distance with a shotgun full of BB or birdshot of some sort i think is an amazing result just 2 bring the guy down or even stop him) So it comes 2 court the robber gets done with robbery with a firearm.6years with 4years on the bottom. The store owner is doing 12years for attempted murder as he planned & to some degree premedditated his actions. The silly prick should have just said the missus shot him & thats where he made it to. They would have been touted as heros. The store owners were in their late 70s didnt matter 2 the law. GO FIGURE EH?