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.'"
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:5, 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.
Trade - just create 30 original recordings (Score:5, 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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (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.
Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score:4, Interesting)
The man is correct: "Money buys you access, access buys you laws."
Re:jury decided this case (Score:4, Interesting)
I know, I'm midway between Funny and Troll but play with this one.
(Daydreaming)
"Dear Jury. When you render this verdict, you place yourselves and your own computers on automatic trial as a re-suit for copyright infringement. So decide what penalty YOU would pay should you happen to have ANY copyrighted work on your computers."
What a fun legal principle. All this BS "It's Not Me" crap would go away. Because the jurors have 52 of their own songs each on their computers.
(/Daydreaming)