Slashdot Mirror
RICO Suit Filed Against Skype Founders
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."
So that's what RICO stands for...
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It's quite scary that a group named Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization is allowed to fill suit against honest companies!
Can anyone with a Pacer account get the complaint full text ?
I read the article, but I can't understand StreamCast's involvement.
How would they have been harmed by the allegations, or what would they stand to gain from a conviction?
Is it possible that SteamCast is a surrogate for a larger organization or consortium?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
A picture is worth a thousand words...
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
Exactly right, it was originally intended to recover $$$ salted away in mob compounds on Long Island.
Now they'll use it against kids opening a lemonade stand if they feel like it.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Suave!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The idea of reading a great piece on anything in Forbes leaves me a bit suspicious. That could just be because they keep letting Dan Lyons write for them.
http://wiki.vowe.org/DanLyons
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
This is interesting. Also listed as defendants are other companies that seem to have nothing to do with each other, ie Kazaa, Brilliant Digital Entertainment, etc. Anyone?
Anyone who runs is V.C. Anyone who stands still is well-disciplined V.C.
Door Gunner, Full Metal Jacket
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
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.
1) Violence is NOT tacitly accepted. That is a complete and utter distortion. 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.
2) If in-your-face confrontations were "illegal" you would pretty much ban most union strikes as well as any other demonstration outside of a company that attempted to get a company to "change". Martin Luther King Jr would have been arrested for Racketeering.
3) Clinics have the right to free speech and association, but they don't have the right to limit others' free speech and association rights. Of course, private property rights do exist and protesters should be arrested if they violate these.
4) Threats, if real and physical should lead to arrests. REAL arrests, not RICO suits. But telling someone they are evil and going to hell for supporting abortion is not a real threat.
What is it now? Still pretty much a branding of Gnucleus, or something else? Do they really not have spyware? And I liked them better when they just ran their Music City servers. Or even the spyware-less Kazaa.
But telling someone they are evil and going to hell for supporting abortion is not a real threat.
Exactly.
KFG
I'm not sure finding people guilty by whom they choose to associate with is legal.
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 the new problems they just created. In the end, we might have been better off not having any laws on the subject in the first place. One of those great economists (probably Freedman) once said that Statism and Libertarianism work, but any step towards statism will lead to total statism, simply because anything in between doesn't work.
Latewire
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.
Actually, telling someone they are going to hell is a threat. But I am glad you don't think it is. It makes the following hypothetical statements purely academic. I hope you go to hell when you die, since you support murdering doctors. I wish for you a short life, since you support murdering women by forcing them to continue medically-unsafe pregnancies. But, please, please, don't consider any of the above a threat. It's not. Really, it's not.
Exactly.
Is that like when you drop loved ones off or pick them up at the airport and have to go inside the building for about half an hour? You CAN'T park in front of the airport, you are FORCED to park in their lot at high $/minute rates. See, even the government is involved in this dispicable practice. I gues I could just kick my wife out the door of the car and keep rolling...
FYI this act has been used agains fringe groups in the pro-life movement that attempt to close clinics through inimidation of their patients. usually they can prove that a group is organizing a blockade of the clinic doors. this is illegal. they are not going after protesters, rather people who think that their rights to free speech include barring enterence to a health provider. if this is your idea of acceptable protest, that is messed up.
A good way to determine if your argument is logically sound is to replace the subject with something you personally feel differently about. Let's try that, switching anti-abortion with, say, environmentalism:
"I'm not sure that qualifies as abuse of the act. An organized group of people (Greenpeace) attempting to extort legal businesses (oil companies) 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 oil refineries), and violence (bombings and beatings tacitly accepted as part of the struggle),"
Or entertainment:
"I'm not sure that qualifies as abuse of the act. An organized group of people (slashdot) attempting to extort legal businesses (record companies) 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 court houses), and violence (bombings and beatings tacitly accepted as part of the struggle),"
Aside from the violence bit in the latter, I'd say this fails the test pretty miserably.
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)...
Companies, including clinics, don't have First Amendment rights (aside from a limited subset given to "artificial persons"). One cannot on the one hand declare that corporations are evil and aren't entitled to any of the protections provided to people, then on the other hand claim a company's rights exceed individuals' rights when you happen to disagree with the individuals protesting. "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" means what it says. Once you start picking and choosing who qualifies for those rights, you're no longer operating on priciple, you're operating on political opinion.
What's the point of the RICO statutes if it's randomly enforced?
The Catholic Church knowingly traffiked paedophiles interstate and internationally. Why wasn't it invoked then?
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), take away their tax exemption and send them to the same jail cell as Greenpeace. Just don't stop their campaign of beautiful models and actresses proclaiming I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur from getting up close and personal with my face.
And if Slashdot readers are funding and protecting people bombing the lawyer's offices who are conducting the RIAA's Sue 'Em All campaign against P2P file sharers (as much as they may deserve it), you won't have my support when they're arrested. Maybe they can share a jail cell with the beautiful models and actresses from PETA.
I am not a hypocrite in my views, as apparently you are to have made such a post in the first place. If it's wrong, then it's wrong no matter who is doing it.
The right way is the ballot box. That's how we make changes in society. And just because we have voters dumb enough to inflict Ted Kennedy on the rest of us over and over again, only means that we, the voters, need to get smarter about all this.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I hope you go to hell when you die, since you support murdering doctors.
What the fuck are you talking about?
KFG
morpheus isn't a "technology", it's a crappy adware app.
"Last time I checked, it unconstitutional to prohibit people from peacably assembling."
Conspiring to kill somebody doesn't strike me as "peacable."
I don't think that any of this is about free speech. In a ideal world businesses would financially compete for market share in a fair market environment. If something upsets that balance such as a monopoly, that can in some way because of market position, extort money from others, or otherwise tilt the playing field, in real terms how different is this from kidnapping and blackmail. It does not have to be overt in appearance, it can be covert in appearance, but the result is the same.
Is the purpose of a corporation to (1) make money for the shareholders, or to (2) produce high quality competitively prices goods and services in the consumer marketplace? No. (2) is the only real benefit to the world at large. But don't you think that if corporations could achieve No. (1) without having to make the effort for No. (2), that they would not do that.
It is about time someone woke up to this reality, even so called patents are just legal license to extort and blackmail, and if they make patents "first to file" instead of "first to invent" like it is now, then they have upped the extort capability by disabling challenge under "prior art". Maybe RICO is supposed to stop some of this madness.
To add to this, RICO is designed to go after organizations that have IRS filings, be they corporate or NPO. So the users of Slashdot would not constitute a RICO act, because we are merely a loose affiliation of (possible) confederates. And since Slashdot site owners are pretty much hands-off on any sort of endorsements of activity on the site, they will never be charged with RICO for encouraging piracy or civil disobedience or what have you.
If the PETA officially sanctioned or condoned civil disobedience (or outright wanton criminal activity), they would be charged under the RICO. But the official front of PETA is very much just "don't you feel sorry for the animals?", and rarely extends into the "do something about it" beyond "stop buying the following companies' products." They never suggest that illegal activities which result in increased animal freedom or animal rights are a good thing. They never applaud ALF (officially and publicly), because to do so would constitute a RICO violation.
Whereas Operation Rescue actively promotes civil disobedience and the illegal protests of abortion clinics (and uses funds to do so, in the form of printing literature and maintaining websites), so they are a RICO violator. End of discussion.
Skype would have to do the same thing under an official front. There would have to be evidence that the corporate officers - acting as such (and not as rogue agents) - encouraged some illegal activity and that Skype, directly or indirectly, provided the money to do so through corporate channels, and that this activity directly hurts StreamCast's business ventures.
My guess here is that Skype will be able to demonstate enough plausible deniability to avoid a RICO conviction. With most criminal RICO stuff, the money trails and the linking evidence (phone calls, emails, meetings) are all recorded and filed under valid search warrants, and the cases are usually very clear-cut before they go to trial. With civil RICO, you are essentially accusing first based on gut instinct (and perhaps you "know" that they did it, but you don't know the gory details), and then attempting through legal discovery to prove it. Which, needless to say, is hard to do.
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 field never really gains respect, because, to one degree or another, they are off their rockers, and tear each other down.
The phrase seems to be applicable to the arena of internet companies. Or is beginning to. But your milage will vary.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Mother of God, is this the end of Rico?
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Oh get over yourself, I was just kidding around. Its funny I got modded as "interesting" and not the "funny" I was aiming for.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
Not to defend the actions of OR, but terminating a pregnancy is hardly speech. It is most definately an act, and while I support a woman's right to choose, spouting off about "freedom of speech, freedom from religion" is just as tasteless and misguided as picketing a clinic. Just different shades of BS...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
What the fuck are you talking about?
That hell is not a threat.
You were agreeing with the statement
Well, D'oh!
I am confused as to why this member of our movement murdered a doctor.
Well, perhaps you ought to reconsider your own membership then.
KFG
IANAL, but the last time I checked, the First Amendment guaranteed freedom OF religion, not FROM. The First Amendment was not passed to guarantee atheists freedom from religion entering the public sphere, but rather in the milieu of Revolutionary America, where Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc., each had a large degree to do with the founding of many of the 13 Colonies (Rhode Island, for instance, being founded to escape persecution of Baptists in the Congregationalist Massachusetts colony, which itself was founded by those fleeing persecution in England), that one's religious affiliation could not be used to deny one's civil rights. Furthermore, since each state had a state church, it would guarantee that Congress would not favor one over the other, which would give certain states undue influence over others. It had nothing to do with suppressing religious speech or public display or exercise of religion. The intent was quite the opposite. In fact, before the Civil War, the Supreme Court did not get involved in religious exercise matters and let state laws prevail. It wasn't until after the War, when the judiciary took on a more activist and legislative role for itself, that this started to change. The Constitution is meaningless today thanks to the Supreme Court justices who over the last century have reinterpreted every single word to the point where it just does not have the same meaning as it did in the late 18th century.
actually, Linux isn't as untouchable as it used to be on ./ These days, you're more likely to get modded to minus 3e45 if you dare speak something unfavorable about Apple. I watched my karma go straight from Excellent to the shitter in one week that happened to have more Apple stories than usual. The RDF is taking on a life of its own. Be careful!
For the same reason the EU can sue Microsoft using EU laws when Microsoft isn't in the US. Being a business operating in the US, they have to conduct themselves according to US laws.
To me (a non-lawyer) this seems to be an interesting legal question. Assuming that they do only have a virtual presence in the US suppose Skype just thumbs its nose at the US court and says "so what"? I'm guessing there is nothing that the US court can do.
Yes, but he was just referring to the fact that abortions are legal acts in this country. It's like driving: there are restrictions, but it is legal, and to outright prevent someone from doing it is illegal.
If the Chimp is involved, the Houston company will win.
That would be an interesting question. Even if they didn't have any brick and motar in the US, they'd still be conducting business and taking payments. I'm not sure how their SkypeOut service would work if they didn't have *some* investment in US infastructure, however, and that's how they make their money.
http://jobs.skype.com/
That page shows that they have five job vacancies in the US, so I'm led to assume they do have a US presence.
Last time I checked, it unconstitutional to prohibit people from peacably assembling.
Last time I checked, what groups like Operation Rescue do is about as far from "peacably assembling" as you can get.
There have been many more acts of violence committed by environmental groups for their cause.
No, there haven't been. Maybe more economic damage from industrial sabotage, but industrian sabotage is not terrorism nor violence towards people.
Not to mention unions, who have a history of being linked with violence and ironically the mob.
And businesses have a long histroy of cheating on their taxes, dumping toxic chemicals into the river and sexually harrassing their secretaries. Let's get rid of them, too.
terrorists ... stop calling self-interest groups anti-abortionist religious zealots and merely refer to them as the terrorists they are ...
Question Authority before IT questions You
It seems to me is that what you are stopping short of saying is something along the lines of... "The United States was founded by Christian interests and therefore freedom of religion really means the protection of Christian denominations..." When in reality our founding fathers (of whome I am quite proud of) were far less concerned with religion (see Jefferson and Franklin as prime examples) and far more concerned with ending trade controls and the economic hardships placed on them (taxes) by a foreign body in which their interests were not represented (remember "taxation without representation is tyranny"???). These men were business men that ranged from the those born into great wealth (i.e. Washington and Jefferson), to those who were self made wealthy from humble beginnings(i.e. Franklin), but their objective was to free themselves from the economic burden placed on them the the British monarchy.
..and yes, rejecting the notion of an almighty humanistic God is also protected by this. By the way, Atheists aren't the only people who don't believe in "God", Buddists and Taoists also come to mind...
I suspect that the parent used the word "from" as emphasis since everybody knows the word is "of". "Freedom of Religion," had nothing to do with what you have posted and had everything to do with the habit of monarchs enforcing official religions at their whim (for instance when they wanted a divorce) and making other religions illegal and used to what ever purpose may be suitable such as extorting those who were out of their favor (many people were hung for herecy). The intent was to bar the ruling body from exerting any influences over an individual's thoughts on religion and to keep rulers from using this as a tool for extortion. This was also meant to keep the ruling body from forming power aliances with the clergy, since even by then, the monarchs understood the control the clergy held over the masses through the use of religion.
If one were to use your reasoning and the fact that out of the 56 founding fathers, 51 were slave owners combined a few other tidbits of information, and one could argue that America was meant to be a nation where blacks were slaves and women were posessions of their husbands.
with some scanning problems at that:
Skype RICO complaint part 1
Skype RICO complaint part 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
sig?
"Violence is NOT tacitly accepted." The fact that there was discussion (or arguement) before the vote to kill doesn't mean it isn't an act of violence. People who shoot doctors should go to jail for a long time, and the organizations which supported them in their acts of violence are no better. Please understand that such actions have tainted any possible message, and get over it, and find some other way to express your discomfort with the legal actions of others. Thank you.
"Not to mention unions, who have a history of being linked with violence and ironically the mob."
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."
Big difference between "finding people guilty by whom they choose to associate with", and finding people who conspire to commit murder, guilty. Bottom line is that anyone who knowingly gives aid or comfort to those who commit murder is an accomplice.
They are simply trying to stop global warming by increasing the population of pirates. Did you not read FSM 16:2??
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
As in, I am confused as to why this member of our movement murdered a doctor.
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...
Last time I checked, what groups like Operation Rescue do is about as far from "peacably assembling" as you can get.
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 listen in. However, spying on a whole group, no matter what they're doing, is certainly not kosher. Moreover, just because all of these people were in a group doesn't mean the GROUP organized any killings.
These people were probably also registered Republicans. Does that mean Bush should be sent to jail under RICO?
Say we lived in a police state (some say we're already there). Would Jefferson be against a militia meeting to discuss the matter? Certainly not. In fact, Jefferson frequently said there should be a revolution every 20 years or so, just to 'water the liberty tree with the blood of patriots and tyrants' (paraphrased).
The problem with something like RICO is who decides which organization is doing what, and how. Again, it makes it illegal to even associate with people who may or may not do naughty things. This means it can be abused, and I, personally, don't trust the government to discern who's "good" and who's "evil," especially in this age where the FBI doesn't even need a warrant to monitor an organization which it deems "evil."
Latewire
IANAL, but the last time I checked, the First Amendment guaranteed freedom OF religion, not FROM.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
WTF are you talking about here. I'm talking about protestors rioting or chaining themvselves together to block entrances to abortion clinics isn't exactly "peacefull assembly", not spying on activists.