Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

31 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. The Supremely Stupid Court by tomkost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not really.
      Historically the Supreme Court has left decisions to the lower-level State and Circuit Courts, while they maintain a hands-off policy. They only hear a case where there is discrepancy (multiple union courts reaching opposite conclusions) in order to set an official precedent for the union judges.

      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.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by mdarksbane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by chemicaldave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

    8. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by medv4380 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Given that the vast majority of new laws are blatantly unconstitutional, that's precisely what I would expect the judicial branch to be doing.

    12. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by mdarksbane · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, screw the NRA. Buckeye Firearms. Funded almost entirely by individual donations. Run by a volunteer who has to read briefs for his day job in between committee meetings. Has completely rewritten Ohio concealed carry laws over the last ten years.

    13. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're way off into hyperbole. The OP is right, the vast majority of the NRA's funding comes from members. Those members are people that own and use guns. Just because you don't know any NRA members doesn't mean they aren't all around you. The NRA is actually one of the largest member organizations in the US, dwarfed only by the AARP. I personally know half a dozen members, and let me tell you they are all rabid anti gun control.

      I don't support the NRA (or some of their positions) but I agree with them that in general gun control is a bad thing. And as a person that lives in the western US I can tell you very affirmatively that outside most major metro areas the people that are members of the NRA are more common than those that aren't. This is particularly true the more rural the area is. It doesn't help that the NRA appeals to those that believe the yuppies in the cities are trying to tell them how to live their lives.

    14. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      By a problem in the design of the US election system combined with having a large country. The primary problem in the design is that there's a first-past-the-post election system combined with simple plurality voting. This leads to very heavy strategic voting ("Don't vote for a third party or your vote is wasted") locking in a bi-partisan situation (and, through "Attitudes follows behavior", mentality). A secondary problem is the use of campaign contributions for the main thrust of political campaigning; this leads to politicians being dependent on contributors to make the cut.

      This means that for areas where people do not strongly care, the parties will not risk offending the contributors, as that may lead to the loss of the next election.

      Having a large country strongly compounds that. If you have a country of three million people, an industry can spend 2 million in lobbying to do something that takes one dollar from each citizen, and make a million - 50% return on investment. In a country with 300 million, they can spend 200 million for the same law and get the same return on investment.

      An individual citizen's relative voice scales the opposite way.

      This makes a 100x difference in size into a 10,000x difference in relative influence. There's a couple of factors that bring these relative factors back a little bit - primarily, the time of politicians are limited, so you can't apply 100x more lobbying expense effectively in convincing people, and people get demotivated by being such a small cog, so the people that *do* have motivation have more access than they proportionally should. Also, much of the money goes to advertising, and that has some proportionality to the number of people reached; though there is a large fixed base.

      But overall, these things taken together makes it hard to get influence. Things have to really enrage people to get them blocked if there's "bipartisan support".

      Because people didn't care.

      People didn't care because they feel like they have no chance of actually changing things - and unless there's work to fix the system, they're often right.

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

      Oh, right. Nothing.

      I try to convince people that they need to hit the hydra at the base: Election reform. By informing people about it. (I can't vote in the US, and my care for the US internal politics is to a large degree compassion - I think the US people deserve a system of government that isn't unduly influenced by corporations.)

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    15. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If someone stole and destroyed my $20,0000 car, and I sued him for 4.7 Million, do you think a court would award me such damages? No, the would laugh me out of court.. So how is it that 30 songs is worth over a half a million? And this is fair and reasonable? Some one please explain it to me..

      To bring the money into perspective, in the widely reported Apple vs. Psystar, Psystar was ordered to pay $30,000 for making about 800 illegal copies of MacOS X for commercial gain. I think the software was sold for $129 a piece at that time. So $675,000 for an unknown number of copies of 30 songs that can be bought for $0.99 each seems a bit exaggerated in comparison.

    16. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Certainly, congressman, you can think of a better reelection slogan than that.

    17. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    18. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by Phrogman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    19. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by bug1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm now going to use that line as my own. Thank you, kind sir.

      So you are just going to take it, and use it as your own eh...

      Would you also take his CAR ???

    20. Re:The Supremely Stupid Court by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Oil the ol' gun by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

     

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  3. Re:Wow by themaneatingcow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, lots of other G7 countries where the same RIAA/MPAA companies and their subsidiaries also exist.

    There, fixed that for y- wait, nevermind....

  4. Re:Clueless court by elbonia · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

  5. Everyone should be outraged. Even RIAA employees. by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. What about the jury? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.)

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  7. Re:Clueless court by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. There are always ways by overshoot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tenenbaum is just entering the job market and can't pay the penalty

    Surely he has organs he could sell.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  9. Trade - just create 30 original recordings by RichMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seeing as how the value was placed on the content that was distributed, all he has to do is make a material trade of something of similar value. Create 30 original recordings that have not been distributed to anyone at all and hand them over as fair trade value. As these are original and have not been distributed at all they would actually have higher value thant he songs he was found to have distributed as those songs were already available to many people.

  10. Re:Cruel and unusual by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  11. Re:Everyone should be outraged. Even RIAA employee by Tynin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.