SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Tenenbaum Appeal 420
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.'"
The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil the ol' gun (Score:5, 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
Re:Kick-backs (Score:4, Insightful)
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:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clueless court (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (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.
Everyone should be outraged. Even RIAA employees. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the jury? (Score:5, Insightful)
*(Barclay Brothers, Murdochs, Rothermeres.)
Re:Clueless court (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, 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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, 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."
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, 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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, 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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clueless court (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (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.
Re:Everyone should be outraged. Even RIAA employee (Score:5, 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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Kick-backs (Score:4, Insightful)
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:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:I HAVE AN IDEA! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:The Supremely Stupid Court (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.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)