Slashdot Mirror

Except for the minor detail that it doesn't apply to most things folks complain about. There's a defined list [cornell.edu] of offenses RICO can be used with, but things like "sneaky use of contracts" and "changing opinions" are not in there. Sure, there's a few general items, like "wire fraud", which can be stretched to cover anything done online, but it's a pretty long stretch. RICO isn't designed to make prosecution of corporations easier. It's designed to target specific behavior patterns common to organized crime.

Actually...RICO is a good example of US laws being used and extended in ways there were NEVER intended. RICO has been bastardized to go after regular non-criminal businesses and more...

That's why it is a VERY good idea to argue and almost fight every law, because so far...there's been very few laws passed that the govt. hasn't taken full advantage of...and often used in new and creative new ways that help to squash peoples rights.

In a way, I wish the RICO Act covered this kind of behavior. Conspiracy to Bluff or something.

Hey, now there's an idea, slap MS with a RICO Act. While they've already been found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, this doesn't fit as a violation unfortunately. Well maybe it can be seen as extortion, fraud, or racketeering.

You seem to be under the impression that the RIAA has any shame whatsoever. These people are reptiles! I mean, they insist on deposing 10 year-old girls face-to-face. They file tons of "John Doe" suits and go after people who don't even own computers. And you think they will shy away from this just because it is your music?

If I had the money I'd start a web radio station playing my own music just to get the RIAA to start a lawsuit against me. When they did I'd turn around and file a lawsuit against and sue for every dime they have while saying they're organized crime and use the RICO Act.

i too think that this looks like racketeering plain and simple, which should automatically classify the R.I. Ass of A as a corrupt organisation as definded by the RICO act of 1970:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_ and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/
criminal activity: checked: collecting money for copyrighted works you don't own. (doesn't RIAA always claim that copyright infringement and piracy is a crime ?? here's that claim thrown right back at you dudes)

long term: checked: they have been doing this for quite a while now

statute of limitations of 4 years: checked (for most artists only though, some of them have let too much time to pass): there are surely at least a few artists that have only launched in these past 4 years, and are being 'milked' with this 'protection' tax by the R.I. Ass of A

quote from the article:
--------------
Go to the SoundExchange site: http://plays.soundexchange.com/... and take a look at the hundreds of indie labels for whom SoundExchange claims they have collected royalties. Enter some of those label names on http://www.riaaradar.com/... and notice how few are actually members of the RIAA. Contact the label and ask if they are a member of RIAA and they almost certainly aren't and may not even be aware that SoundExchange is collecting royalty fees on their music.
------------------

They are either in business or they are not. With their back scratching the record companies and Commerce Dept... it is obviously becomming more and more of a 'Money Laundering Operation'.. a clear violation of Rico.

http://www.ricoact.com/

-- Words- they are everything..

http://www.ricoact.com/

Here's your better link. From info in TFA and here, it looks like Streamcast is alleging that Skype(and others) did one(or more) of many things:

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.

This is Slashdot. What do you think?

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/ for more information.

Of course that wouldn't be your only evidence - the bank records showing a withdrawl of X amount and a deposit in the same amount to the spyware providers.

Additionally, you're talking out your ass (which is okay - this is slashdot after all) if you think a criminal RICO charge applies here.

As for civil actions, the courts have continually whittled away at applying RICO in civil cases. And where's the racketeering, the money-laundering (no, taking cash payments is NOT money-laundering, unless you're stupid enough to then convert them to book assets via false receipts instead of just spending the cash), or the appropriation of another business via criminal racketeering in such a case?

Nope, no RICO crimes here.

I'm sure this has been brought up before (though I can't find it right off), but isn't this type of arm-twisting by SCO illegal?

For example, and any input from you legal beagles out there would be greatly appreciated, couldn't a company such as Just Sports use the RICO act as a means of seeking relief?

........., they would have pressed their fist into using the law to compel licensing, instead of sending "invoices" and pressuring companies to provide 'insurance' against their lawsuits........

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act

The BSA is certainly morally corrupt but I must admit I don't understand what the parent poster was trying to say by suggesting they should fall under RICO.
-j

http://www.ricoact.com/ricofaq.htm

Good Idea!

You mean the right of the employees to associate in what the court has now told them are illegal actions? I suppose that's what RICO is for...