SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Tenenbaum Appeal

quantr writes "The Supreme Court has declined to hear Joel Tenenbaum's appeal. A jury in 2009 ordered Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., to pay $675,000 for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs. A federal judge called the penalty constitutionally excessive, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it at the request of the Recording Industry Association of America. Tenenbaum's attorney, Harvard law professor Charles Nesson, said he's disappointed the high court won't hear the case. But he said the 1st Circuit instructed a judge to consider reducing the award without deciding any constitutional challenge. Nesson said 'Tenenbaum is just entering the job market and can't pay the penalty.'"

Comments

The Supremely Stupid Court

[tomkost]

They have failed us more so than the other branches of government. They should protect us from unreasonable laws, judgements and crimes. But they are now a rubber stamp for abuse. Sure, they throw us a bone every now an then (cops can't throw a GPS on your car anytime the feel like it), but for the most part, they confirm the abuse of the constitution and the ongoing pillaging of this country by the special interests with deep pockets.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[sideslash]

I disagree. The legislative branch (i.e. Congress) is most at fault here. If you think the default solution to society's problems is for the judicial branch to override the laws of the land, you are asking for trouble. That's appropriate in a few cases, but it's better to blame those who wrote the bad laws in the first place.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[squiggleslash]

The Supreme Court's job is not to protect you from the democratic system. If you don't like the current set of laws, running around like an over-caffeinated teabagger shouting "Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!" isn't going to help.

What constitutes unconstitutional is relatively narrowly defined. Tenenbaum violated laws that have been on the books, in one shape or form, for centuries and are expressly blessed by the constitution. He did so knowingly, willingly, and unnecessarily. He may possibly have been unaware that the violations he committed would result in such a large financial penalty, but it's not as if he's going to suffer prison time, death, or injury as a result of this judgment. At worst, he's going to have to declare bankruptcy, and possibly have his wages garnished for the rest of his life.

Plenty of people suffer worse without breaking any laws. People are losing their homes because of a combination of a loss of income as they lost their jobs and their mortgages being too high. Others are going to suffer the same fate as Tenenbaum not because they did anything wrong, but because the cancer they've contracted that their insurance won't fully cover will result in a seven digit debt.

The Supreme Court ruling on this always struck me as somewhat ludicrous. If Congress does not have the right to set ballpark figures for fines to deter people from violating a law it has a constitutional mandate to pass, then what rights does it have?

You want to change things, get more active in your democratic system. That's it. That's about your only option. That was always your option. You just couldn't be bothered. It's so much easier to whine about how "unfair" everything is, and expect seven judges to agree with you and strike something down as "unconstitutional" because it violates the "It's so unfair, OMG, I didn't ask to be born, you people suck" amendment than it is to actually push for the laws you want.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Hatta]

You want to change things, get more active in your democratic system

Fuck you. The system is rigged to prevent any change by average people and you know it. Money buys you access, access buys you laws. Period.

You want to change things? Hit the streets.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[mdarksbane]

Because hitting the streets has been so effective.

Groups of people have money. You think the NRA is funded by gun industry big wigs? Ha. It's funded by the 40-50% of the country who owns guns. Combined action generates money, and gets your cause access.

How many people download songs? They may have been idiot teenagers and college students to start, but they're growing up, getting jobs, starting companies. Go get involved and maybe you'll have a lobby useful enough to write some legislation.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Cytotoxic]

If anything I would say the Supreme Court and its lower branches have shown FAR more fidelity to the constitution than the other 2 branches, or the Member States, which often act as if the Constitution does not exist.

Well, yeah. But that's an extremely low hurdle. Kinda like being the fastest snail, or the best-tasting turd.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[KingSkippus]

The system is rigged to prevent any change by average people and you know it. Money buys you access, access buys you laws. Period.

It is rigged. How do you think it got that way? Because people didn't care.

Is it beyond all hope? Depends. What are you going to do to change it?

Oh, right. Nothing.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[chemicaldave]

What constitutes unconstitutional is relatively narrowly defined. Tenenbaum violated laws that have been on the books, in one shape or form, for centuries and are expressly blessed by the constitution. He did so knowingly, willingly, and unnecessarily

He's not upset because he thinks the law is unconstitutional. He's upset that the penalty was $600k+ for downloading 30 songs for personal use. Common sense would tell you that is unreasonable and might go against the 8th amendment against "excessive fines."

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[betterunixthanunix]

constitutional mandate

There is no constitutional mandate for a copyright system. The constitution expressly allows such a system, but there is no requirement that congress create such a thing, nor is there any requirement that it look like our copyright system.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Groups of people have money. You think the NRA is funded by gun industry big wigs?

Yes, it is, and you're depressingly naive to think otherwise. What, did you just fail to notice that any time some law comes up restricting or banning the importation of foreign guns or ammunition for domestic sale, the NRA doesn't give a damn? They're in the pocket of American arms manufacturers. They don't care how high the price of ammunition gets for the consumer as long as there's a protectionist market on it.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[medv4380]

Eight Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It is clearly not "narrowly" defined. Excessive is an abstract concept which is intended for the Supreme Court to define since $100 would be excessive when the amendment was written but a $100 now would be reasonable.
Tenenbaum being aware that a large fine maybe imposed is irrelevant.
The suffering of others is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court's job is in fact to protect you from the democratic republic that we have. It is un-American to think otherwise. The entire system is intended as a System of Checks and Balances to protect the People, or did you fail your High School Government and Civics classes. The Hypocrisy of a Nat like you lecturing other about how the US Government works is Sickening, and that you would be willing to exerciser their right to vote and yet be so ignorant of how the system is supposed to work.
The only reason that the Supreme Court shouldn't have listened to it has to do with why they've never come out with a clear ruling dealing with the patent mess, and that is that they've clearly stated that they want the Legislature to fix the mess.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[mhajicek]

There is nothing any reasonable person can do to change it, unless you have a miracle plan that you'd care to share. At his point, one cannot attain significant public office without "playing the game". The media is controlled, the voting machines are controlled, and the lawmakers are controlled. The time for working within the system has passed.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you on principle, but given the recent abuses by the last two presidents and Congresses, and the importance of SCOTUS to the civil rights movement, at this point I feel like judicial activism is our last hope for a free society.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Shadow99_1]

The 'game' of politics is corruption. It's also in knowing the right people and presenting the 'correct' image. Not religious? Not going to get elected in the US (this is statistically true even other non-religious people won't vote for you which makes no sense, and it can actually keep you from getting on the ballot). Not a democrat or republican? Then not much chance to get on the ballot for any state or federal offices in many states. Local office? County office? Probably, but you don't have much authority at those levels.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[jamstar7]

The Legislative branch deserves the blame for crafting these shitty laws in the first place.

The lobbyists deserve blame for writing these shitty laws. The legislature deserves blame for rubberstamping them. The executive branch deserves blame for not vetoing them.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Grishnakh]

But that's not the case. Tenenbaum's in a position that many people get into who haven't committed any crimes get into. He has debts that are very high. So do people who lost their jobs and become unable to afford their mortgages on now underwater properties. So are people who contracted cancer and have whopping create health care bills to settle.

Wrong. You don't have to stay in debt on underwater mortgages or whopping health care bills. There's something called "bankruptcy" which will erase all those debts (assuming you didn't already declare bankruptcy within the last 7 years). Yes, you'll lose your house and have shitty credit for a while*, and you also don't get to hang onto a lot of valuable possessions if you have any, but you get away scot-free and don't have to pay any of your creditors back.
(* - actually, people these days find that as soon as their bankruptcy filing is complete, they immediately start getting offers from creditors trying to convince them to buy a new car, since they can't file bankruptcy again, they look like a good risk to creditors.)

I'm pretty sure this isn't the case with court judgments; they can't be evaded with bankruptcy the way other debts can.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Phrogman]

Never going to happen. The people in government are too busy plugging their ears - with corporate dollars - to hear anything you say.
The Rich *own* the common people. You who were so anti-nobility have simply replaced it with a social class based on wealth instead of birth (and of course a lot of the very wealthy inherited that wealth in the first place).
In the meantime you have an illusion of democracy to give you the impression that anything can change - but nothing really does or ever will.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[hairyfeet]

I'm sorry friend but frankly the SCOTUS has been crippled since they let FDR mangle the commerce clause to keep him from simply stuffing the court with enough votes to get what he wanted. Honestly i wish they had stuck to their guns because at least then SCOTUS wouldn't have this air of impartiality when there are so many blatantly unconstitutional rulings on the books from previous courts it would probably take them a couple of decades just to fix the mess that the previous courts allowed.

So I'm sorry friend but once they let the commerce clause be "anything you want it to be" things have just gone downhill. Now you have justices like Thomas getting bribed through his wife, Scalia taking trips with the VP, the impartiality is simply not there.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[Eskarel]

The commerce clause isn't "anything you want it to be", it's just a massively powerful constitutional clause. Perhaps one which the founders didn't anticipate being massively powerful, but one that was written that way none the less

When the founders wrote the constitution, the US was, for all intents and purposes a federation of states, largely speaking the states were independent and the federal government was essentially the arbiter of disagreements between them. That was fine and dandy back then because that's how things actually were, there were very few multinational or even interstate corporations in existence and to most people the neighboring state may as well have been make believe because they'd never see it.

The world has changed, interstate companies and even international companies are now the norm. Pretty much every commercial transaction you take part in is interstate, and so the commerce clause applies to pretty much everything you do.

It's sort of one of those problems facing most federations(including the EU for all that it was formed in the last few decades). The model works great when states are largely independent, but it falls down very quickly when they're not as you end up in this situation whereby either the arbitration powers of the federal government become all encompassing or the federal government can't do its job due to extensive restrictions. In reality it's probably time for a lot of countries to take a fresh look at their constitutions and make a judgement as to what should actually be the domain of the states and how exactly that's all going to work now that states aren't, for all intents and purposes, independent countries. How do you regulate Goldman Sachs? Which state or local government controls them? Do we regulate them where their corporate office is(City of New York)? Where the client lives? Where the transaction took place? Which level of government is closes to Goldman Sachs? To the Mississippi River? To Microsoft, or Google, or Apple, or your bank? Perhaps unfortunately there is very little that can still be effectively regulated by the states, let alone local government.

That's not to say the court isn't corrupt and partial(though I'd suggest that has more to do with the process of picking judges than anything else, Supreme Court appointments are not based on merit, but on politics, so unsurprisingly Supreme Court Justices are political creatures), but the explosion of the commerce clause isn't really a result of that.

Re:The Supremely Stupid Court

[hairyfeet]

Then explain how a man growing wheat on his own land to feed his own chickens is covered under INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Go ahead and try, I dare you. It was THAT ruling that FDR pushed through that turned the commerce clause from being just a normal clause into "anything you want it to be" and it is only in the last few years that they have even attempted to reign it in at all.

But go ahead and try to say its not unconstitutional, because i have seen some real doozys trying to weasel word their way through that ruling and they simply can't. FDR wanted power he didn't have, he did an ass pull with the commerce clause and told the court "Rule my way or I'll stack the court until I get my way" and they basically laid down. That was the end of the impartial supreme court friend, it died on that day.

Oil the ol' gun

[cpu6502]

Owing ~$700,000 is like a life sentence of servitude towards RIAA and its CEO/managers.

It will take the rest of this man's life to earn the money & pay it off. And slaves have a right to terminate their masters in order to regain their natural right to freedom. IMHO. "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is freedom's natural fertilizer." - Thomas Jefferson

 

Re:Kick-backs

[Dahamma]

Umm, that's not how lobbying (or kickbacks) works. Lobbyists work *for* the RIAA, so they are the ones who will now give the kickbacks to the judges deciding in their favor ;)

Re:Clueless court

[elbonia]

He admitted to copying and sharing hundreds of songs according to the article. His defense was that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional which is obviously a ridiculous and a desperate act which is why the court didn't listen to it.

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. ------Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

What is exactly is there to listen to when the Constitution makes it clear Congress has the power to enforce copyright?

Everyone should be outraged. Even RIAA employees.

[0x537461746943]

That fine is way out of line from what a person could ever pay back. I can't even save enough for my 3 kids to go to college let alone 675,000. I can understand they would want some amount of penalty but that is way out of line. Hmmm.... I wonder how much the judges get every year salary. Maybe that is the disconnect. They think the person can just save for 5 years and pay it back. We need a part of the government that is working for the people to look for punishments that are way out of line for the crime. Why don't we have a part of government that does this? They would have to not be allowed to accept third party donations of any kind. Congress is supposed to be doing this job but based on verdicts like this it is obvious they are failing us.

What about the jury?

[Kupfernigk]

The jury awarded the ridiculous damages. You should be asking what is wrong with ordinary Americans that they can so easily be persuaded that inordinate punishments are acceptable. At least in Europe such things can be challenged under human rights legislation, which is presumably one reason why the media companies* in the UK are anti-EU; it has some weird idea that law should be on the side of ordinary people.

*(Barclay Brothers, Murdochs, Rothermeres.)

Re:Clueless court

[Hatta]

What is exactly is there to listen to when the Constitution makes it clear Congress has the power to enforce copyright?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

That's what there is to listen to. Unless you're arguing that the Copyright Clause supercedes the Bill of Rights. In that case, why should the 5th and 6th amendments apply either? Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Re:Clueless court

[Hatta]

Which is an idiotic procedure. We know this guy is factually guilty. A new trial will find him guilty. Since damages are prescribed by statute, he'll get the exact same unconstitutional verdict as before.

The remitteur process accomplishes exactly nothing in this situation. All the justices are doing here is looking for an excuse not to enforce the constitution.

Re:Not the most sympathetic victim

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Looking for facts on the original infractions, I googled and found this. An excerpt:

Suing Tenenbaum were Sony Corp. (6758) and its Arista Records, Warner Music Group's Warner Bros. and Atlantic labels and Vivendi SA's (VIV) Universal Music Group. They said he...

You realize you are quoting the plantif, right? Those aren't "facts" those are the words chosen by a multi-million dollar PR company to make the guy look as least sympathetic as possible. They even tried to make him look like a bad son disobeying his father, it is hard to get more manipulative than that.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[betterunixthanunix]

you can't argue that the award was excessive.

Sure you can: if Tenenbaum is unable to escape this through bankruptcy, he will basically become an indentured servant, forced to work for decades to repay this debt. That is excessive -- it is decades of his life where his ability to be self directed will be negatively impacted, where he may have trouble affording food because he must make payments, where he may be forced to choose between feeding his children and paying the RIAA (and perhaps even forced to choose between having children or paying the RIAA), etc.

Re:Everyone should be outraged. Even RIAA employee

[Tynin]

Why can't you afford college? It's about $60,000 per kid at a state school, or $180,000 for all three. I was able to save $180,000 in just 4 years. No reason you can't do the same over 20.

In terms of cars $180,000 == 9 cars. So stop buying cars every 3-4 years and stash that money away in the bank. Then cancel your cable TV (it's trash) and your unlimited cellphone calling (luxury not necessity). That's $2000 saved per year, or $40,000 from baby kid to college-aged kid.

Cut corners other places like buying the smaller home for $150,000 instead of $250,000. Buy a $350 refrigerator instead of the $1500 stainless steel beauty, and same with washers and dryers and other appliances. And on and on.

As someone earning $60k a year before taxes (which I understand to be an above median amount), I've never owned a new car, I don't have cable TV, I'm still using the first cell phone I ever purchased, and my home was $120k. You are suggesting saving (assuming a biweekly paycheck) $1730 a paycheck, I think after taxes and everything I'm clearing just a few more dollars than that. I just had my first kid and the amount I can save has gone down to $50 a paycheck now. I cannot imagine how much extra 2 more kids would cost me. I think you may have a bit of a disconnect on the average persons earning power.

Re:Kick-backs

[TheRealGrogan]

Even when they are properly impartial, they are manipulated into not considering circumstances, only "The Law". It says the proposed damages/conviction/sentence or whatever the case may be, are valid.

I sure wouldn't want a panel of righteous prigs deciding my fate, either. (There's of course that involved too in reality)

Re:I HAVE AN IDEA!

[marcosdumay]

And? If he is sending RIAA all his money for the rest of his life, what difference does if he buys nothing from them?

Re:Wow

[Cajun Hell]

At what point does corporate America get the clue that people will actually start leaving over this kind of penurious legal system?

Maybe at the point that people actually start leaving over stuff like this, or even bother to do something less drastic, such as vote against it. We are not at that point, yet. In 2012 we will probably vote for the same people to stay in Congress, who created the silly statutory penalties. America is approximately 100% in favor of the judgement amount, and we will prove it in November when we re-elect those people.

Re:Wow

[hairyfeet]

I'm sorry but this is NOT insightful, because to "vote against it" one has to actually have someone to vote for that IS against it. As we have seen again and again BOTH the Ds and Rs are as corrupt as they come and our system is designed to make sure third parties have less of a chance on the national stage than a snowball in hell.

In my own state we had a choice in the general election of a DINO that kissed corporate ass or a RINO that kissed corporate ass, and the primaries were the same, a handful of asskissers in training. tell me friend how EXACTLY can one "vote against it" when your choices are "Check this box to vote for el presidente" and "Show the world how mad you are by...voting for el presidente!". Because if you think either the Ds or Rs give a rat's ass about anyone who can't write 6 figure checks I have a bridge you might be interested in.