Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Tenenbaum Appeal

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-up dept.

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.'"

17 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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 ???

    11. 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. 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.

  3. 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."
  4. 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!
  5. 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."
  6. 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