RICO Suit Filed Against Skype Founders 155
Stitch_Surfs writes "Defendant Skype Technologies S A, Niklas Zennstrom, Janus Friis, Kazaa, Bluemoon Ou and a slew of others have been named in a Rico Suit Filed by StreamCast Networks, of Houston, Texas. StreamCast is the company credited with the development of the Peer to Peer Technology called Morpheus. From the little information the courts have released, StreamCast is claiming that the group engaged in corrupt business practices."
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2, Funny)
Question to people with a fragment of common sense left: what does not fit in?
(To make things a bit easier for our US-American friends, I have emboldened the term.)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
I'd like to see the complaint itself. Most of them are pled incorrectly and get dismissed.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:5, Informative)
RICO allows private companies that have been damaged by criminal enterprises to bring suit. It's kind of like the False Claims Act, which essentially allows private individuals who have knowledge of defrauding of the Federal Government to become, in essence, civil law vigilantes.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically, every citizen has a duty to uphold the law and to report any wrongdoings to the relevant authorities. The difference between a private citizen and a police officer is that the police do it as their job and have greater powers of arrest, etc. (Here in the UK at least, private citizens can make an arrest under c
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:1)
Not in the United States. Under US law (with some local exceptions), there is no requirement that an individual report a crime or help in any way to uphold the law. Except when you have a specific obligation to do something (like a police officer, or school offical), inaction is not a crime.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:1)
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
IANAL however, at least one case shows that inaction is largely inactionable even if one is a law-enforcement official. I would challenge anyone to show where the failure of a government official to do their job is justification for anything more than being removed from office by voters, or perhaps a "mandate" from a court to do their job. I'm thinking of one precedent in which a shop owner, having been threatened for refusing to accept a return of merchandise (an engine
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
I'm just saying it's really difficult to force officials to uphold the law. If anyone has an example of forc
Can RICO Act be used against the RIAA? (Score:2, Funny)
Wow! I didn't know that.
Can't this Act be used against the RIAA? Protection rackets seem to be exactly what RICO is about.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
I bet congress would pass it without debate, just like they did for an obviously virtuous bill like the PATRIOT act. Whats the matter, are you against PATRIOTs, man?! What about APPLE PIE?!?!
I swear, law and military op names have been getting more and more riduculous for years.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:4, Insightful)
Ridiculous to the informed, yes. Unfortunately, however, rather functional on the uninformed. Thus, their use. Which saddens me; third-world countries keep their populace uneducated because it helps the leaders defraud them.
Holy shit, is that what the "No Child Left Behind" unfunded mandate was all about? Give props to education, but no financial support for it--so it looks like the government is doing something good, whereas they're really dumbing us down to be the next soldiers or oil field workers?
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
Unfortunately the trend has gotten worse in the past six years with the administration that "makes our own reality". Onerous and dreadful laws are usually given high sounding names for two reasons: 1. They make great sound bites on Fox News, and 2. for political reasons it makes it difficult for opponents to vote against them (they will hear they voted against clear skies, or education).
Recent examples:
USA Patriot
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
When they're something the speaker disagrees with, they're called "unfunded mandates". When they're something the speaker agrees with, they're just called "laws".
The same government that mandated that also lowered federal income taxes. Your people are spending more money in your state now. Use that increased income to meet the mandates.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
When they are blackmale that require that states spend more money or lose funding, they are unfunded mandates. Regardless of whether you like or dislike what the subject is, requirements of new expenses without increasing funding is an unfunded mandate.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
No Child Left Behind didn't include anything that couldn't have been met with existing funds; school boards that chose not to cut unnecessary crap to pay for it did so by exactly that; choice.
By the way, if you school had chosen to spend more money on teaching you grammar, and less on athletics, you might have noticed the grammatical errors in your own reply.
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
Yes, yes. It could all have been paid for with existing funds, after cuts. Which means that you have to pay more money to meet the standards.
By the way, if you school had chosen to spend more money on teaching you grammar, and less on athletics, you might have noticed the grammatical errors in your own reply.
Well, I think that if I'd have bothered to proofread it, I'd have caught the errors. Oh, and the pub
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
At our school we just had this mat... ;-)
I don't know why the other poster a) disagrees with the term "unfunded mandate", or b) wants to pick a fight with you over your typing skills.
We're in agreement: an "unfunded mandate" is a mandatory change which will cost money to meet; and, no additional money is being given to the party who must effect
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
See, the addition of that word "additional" is what makes you look correct, to anyone not familiar with the subject.
Federal funds are provided for education; No Child Left Behind merely places some restrictions on how those funds are spent, because they've been sadly misspent. It is not an unfunded mandate; it's just a mandate.
The de [wikipedia.org]
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/en duser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5&p_created=1095256275&p _sid=8NPbSC3i&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5 PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjAmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF 9jYXRzPTEsMCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTEuMTsyLnUwJnBfcGFnZT0x JnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9bm8gY2hpbGQgbGVmdCBiZWhpbmQ*&p _li=&p_topview=1 [ed.gov]
Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (Score:2)
It's cool that ED runs on a 2% overhead, though.
Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Eating their own young (Score:2)
In this context, it means that in that field, when someone becomes something of a celebrity, for one reason or another, many, if not all of the other celebs and bloggers, etc. in the field have a tendency to gang up on the new comer. If someone is succesful, the others sabotage him as they can. Flame wars and other forms of infighting are routine. The
Re:Eating their own young (Score:2)
Well, yeah. And the fact that there's not one single shred of evidence to back any of the "UFOlogist's" claims might have a little bearing, also.
BTW, What the hell is UFOlogy? Is that a non-field of study like crypto-zoology?
Re:Eating their own young (Score:2)
That should cover it, although there is this recent comment from a former canadian defense minister [unknowncountry.com]
: Former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer stated flatly in a speech in Toronto on September 25 that UFOs are not only real [unknowncountry.com] but that "current and past US activities risk "intergalactic war." Hellyer, Canada's Defense Minister from 1963-67, said, "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."
He then went on to say that the current US effort to create a permane
RICO is scary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RICO is scary (Score:4, Funny)
Re:RICO is scary (Score:1, Funny)
In case anyone else was wondering, RICO is the name of the act that is the basis for the lawsuit. See http://www.ricoact.com/ [ricoact.com] for more information.
Re:RICO is scary (Score:1)
Re:RICO is scary (Score:1)
What, Skype founders can't read slashdot too?
Re:RICO is scary (Score:2)
> "I can't tell if that is sarcasm or stupidity"
I can't tell that there's a difference. Most people using sarcasm in these parts of the Known Universe seem to be doing it as a means of directing attention away from their stupidity.
Re:RICO is scary (Score:1)
Re:RICO is scary (Score:2)
Re:RICO is scary (Score:1)
Re:RICO is scary (Score:2)
Pacer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pacer (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we please stop linking to these damn blogs. Especially ones that are nearly devoid of any useful info.
RICO in a nutshell (Score:4, Informative)
a. use an enterprise to launder money generated by a pattern of racketeering activity
b. a victim business owner cannot make payments to a loan shark; upon default, the loan shark says: "you're either going to die or you're going to give me your business." Given the threat to this life, the victim transfers control of his business to the loan shark. Usually, the victim business owner remains the owner on paper but the loan shark controls the business and receives all income from the business. Thus, the loan shark has acquired and maintained interest or control over an enterprise (i.e. the business) through a pattern of racketeering (i.e., loan sharking and extortion).
c. [Streamcast] has been injured by reason of the defendants' investment of the proceeds of racketeering activity / (1) a defendant person[Skype] (2) was employed by or associated with an enterprise (3) that engaged in or affected interstate commerce and that (4) the defendant person operated or managed the enterprise (5) through a pattern (6) of racketeering activity, and (7) the plaintiff[Streamcast] was injured in its business or property by reason of the pattern of racketeering activity.
Warning: PDF (Score:2)
Skype RICO complaint part 1 [blogs.com]
Skype RICO complaint part 2 [blogs.com]
Looking deeper (Score:1)
How would they have been harmed by the allegations, or what would they stand to gain from a conviction?
Re:Looking deeper (Score:3, Informative)
Streamcast started life as the largest alternative Napster network. When that was shut down by the courts, they launched a rebranded version of Kazaa.
Kazaa a bit later on released a non-compatible version of their software which had the effect of kicking them off the network. Apparently they hadn't paid their bills for the use of the software, but Streamcast deny this.
They then relaunched as a spyware infested
Query... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Query... (Score:2, Funny)
Yes. That is possible.
Is there a picture of PayPal when you look up RICO (Score:1, Funny)
No way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No way (Score:3, Interesting)
They made that software Intel only when it didn't need to be. This was found out (much to no-one's surprise) and they looked terrible.
But did it have to be that way?
The article posited it this way. They should have made that same software, but only bundled it with Intel computers. They wouldn't offer it for download. Other people would find it and put it up for download and it would be discovered that the limit was there and it worked j
that's hard to believe. (Score:2)
http://wiki.vowe.org/DanLyons [vowe.org]
Re:that's hard to believe. (Score:2)
Every magazine seems to have someone odd working there. Don't judge the magazine based on one opinion columnist.
Re:that's hard to believe. (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's been turned around again into a real magazine, that would be wonderful. It would have been a shame to see a great magazine run into the ground by a giant douchebag like Steve Forbes.
RICO use and abuse (Score:5, Informative)
But now RICO gets used and abused for many other things. It is used to go after political groups (anti-abortion groups is one case I'm aware of). In this case it sounds like it is being used in a business dispute.
I swear, if Congress keeps on passing laws that inadvertently (or otherwise) lets law enforcement get involved in what are civil business disputes, this country will be ruined. I was talking with an attorney a while ago who said that these days anyone who is a business leader should have a crim. def. attorney retained or available. There's no way law enforcement can help achieve a fair resolution of a business dispute by getting involved in it.
------------
Contact management, calendar mangement, multiple timezones, sales automation [contempo.biz]
Well said! (Score:4, Interesting)
Now they'll use it against kids opening a lemonade stand if they feel like it.
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure that qualifies as abuse of the act. An organized group of people (Operation Rescue) attempting to extort legal businesses (abortion clinics) into either changing or closing entirely through threats (see what is on some of their websites), intimidation (in-your-face confrontations directly in front of clinics), and violence (bombings and beatings tacitly accepted as part of the struggle), simply because their view isn't your view (First Amendment issue of everyone, including clinics have rights to free speech and association and freedom from religion)...
Yeah, IANAL, but I'd call that a valid RICO case.
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:1)
Exactly.
KFG
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:1, Funny)
Exactly.
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:1)
What the fuck are you talking about?
KFG
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
Because your "cause" gave them a good excuse to do so.
We were just protesting women seeking medical care. It's not like our movement advocated the murder of doctors or anything.
Then maybe your group needs to check out your members a little more closely...
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
Actually it was business that hired pinkertons to attack the unions. Thus any "link" to violence must begin with unions as the victim of organized and well funded violence. To quote you about yourself: "That is a complete and utter distortion."
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
See also: Red Herring.
There have been many more acts of violence committed by environmental groups for their cause. Yet noone is charging Greenpeace and PETA with RICO suits. Not to mention unions, who have a history of being linked with violence and ironically the mob.
No thanks, grandparent, we were talking about Whacko religious nuts who picket abortion clinics and call people who visit them "whores" and worse.
~W
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
Last time I checked, it unconstitutional to prohibit people from peacably assembling.
With this RICO act, you could be procecuted simply by showing up at a meeting and being seen by an FBI agent who is now allowed to monitor the proceedings without a warrant (also unconstitutional).
Isn't it funny how these things compound? The government makes booze illegal, a black market forms, then they have to make further laws to combat th
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:1)
Conspiring to kill somebody doesn't strike me as "peacable."
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
I would not normally respond to something like this, but you should know but the nature of the ammendment referred to the manner in which they assembled, NOT what they discussed.
Like it or not, it's not constitutional to spy on these meetings. If there is reason to believe some or all the members are going to commit murder, it's certainly constitutional to GET A WARRANT FOR EACH MEMBER and lis
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:3, Informative)
A good way to determine if your argument is logically sound is to replace the subject with something you per
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not - Wrong is Wrong!!! (Score:2)
Guess what? You're wrong!
If Greenpeace is supporting ELF (Earth Liberation Front, a designated terrorist group), or their illegal tactics, with money, or even silence where they know of the lawbreakers, send them to jail!
If PETA is funding the ALF (Animal Liberation Front, also a terrorist group),
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not - Wrong is Wrong!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
If the PETA officially sanctioned or condoned civil disobedience (o
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not - Wrong is Wrong!!! (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not (Score:2)
Well, given the people that tell me all the time "atheism is a matter of faith too" and "atheism is a religion" and all that, then freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion.
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
I swear, if Congress keeps on passing laws that inadvertently (or otherwise) lets law enforcement get involved in what are civil business disputes, this country will be ruined.
So you think bombing and the shooting of people who work in abortion clinics are just civil business disputes? Encoura
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
You keep using that subjunctive mood. I do not think it means what you think it does. That horse already left the barn.
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
High school English technicalities aside, the author is simply making a statement about the future consequence of current
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Given the business (interstate phone calls) there's your first hint. "Enterprize" is a slam dunk, and continuing enterprise is self-evident. The trick is to prove unlawful activity - which has yet to be explained.
Re:RICO use and abuse (Score:2)
Of course politicans always tell the whole truth...
Mafia organizations were set up so that the guys running them could avoid personal responsibility for the corrupt actiosn of the organization itself, so prosectutors ended up always going after low-level guys, which wasn't right and wasn't productive.
Hardly a situation unique to the Mafia.
So they got RICO which would let them bust the top guys, even if the top guys were not directly in
Rico? (Score:3, Funny)
Only Skype? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Only Skype? (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=181331&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14998381#15 000610 [slashdot.org]
it sounds like they're claiming their FastTrack P2P technology got ripped off, passed through a number of hands and eventually wound up in Skype. The who invocation of RICO is because all these P2P guys are trying to evade responsibility for Evil P2P by their usual chains of shell companies and foreign business addresses, and the plaintiffs want
Morpheus is still around? (Score:2)
Racketeering? Extorsion? (Score:1, Funny)
I-K-RICO (Score:2, Insightful)
The Catholic Church knowingly traffiked paedophiles interstate and internationally. Why wasn't it invoked then?
Re:I-K-RICO (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I-K-RICO (Score:2, Informative)
correction (Score:1)
Oblig. Gangster Quote (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What on earth are you talking about? (Score:2)
Re:Skype, Etc...Not American (Score:2)
To me (a non-lawyer) this seems to be an interesting legal question. Assuming that they do only have a virtual presence in t