Court won't reduce student's music download fine

Evan Vucci

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court won't reduce the $675,000 verdict against a Boston University student who illegally downloaded 30 songs and shared them on the Internet.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., who was successfully sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for illegally sharing music on peer-to-peer networks. In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 for each song he illegally downloaded and shared.

A federal judge called that unconstitutionally excessive, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the penalty at the request of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc. and other record labels represented by the RIAA.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in this decision.

Piracy has been a hot-button issue. Lawmakers, copyright holders and consumers have been in a gridlock over how fight piracy while maintaining net neutrality - or Internet access without censorship or restrictions enforced by governments.

Recently, the Obama administration was at odds with Congress over the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a bill that would allow Internet companies to divulge confidential customer records and communications.

In January, tens of thousands of websites organized a protest against two controversial bills - Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). Both bills were opposed by companies, like Google, Facebook and Twitter because the companies believed it would stifle innovation and job creation.

[hstch821]

I certainly hope the recording industry can be brought to its knees. It is up against a world of young guys who have a world of time to consider ways to make them very, very unhappy.

[myoleman]

knewsterrrrrrr, how do you figure that out? Have you looked everywhere?
smartasss1, Where is that in the O.T.? I don't remember reading it.

[bigmanfrommaine]

$675k for 30 songs??!!?? He would have been better off murdering someone!

Don't mess with the rich. They are your master!

[bigmanfrommaine]

$675k for 30 songs??!!?? He would have been better off murdering someone!

Don't mess with the rich. They are your master!

[smartasss1]

Anonymous should help this kid!

[smartasss1]

The rich is always screwing the small guy. We should have a french style revolution.

[smartasss1]

That amount is ridiculously excessive. How the hell is he going to pay for it? Win a lottery? Rob a bank? There are hard core criminals who get of easier. I wish we could change the supreme court; obviously they are more for corporate interest than what is fair and practical.

[treehgr07]

He can't get out of this unless the businesses are willing to bargain. They made an example out of him. A lot of colleges are expelling students. What he did was wrong. There should have been a fine, though I think this was too high. But the jury decided the amount and there is no Constitutional issue so the jury's verdict stands. This cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Perhaps he can sell his story.

[nolapearl]

His lawyer should put up a website for donations. He could easily collect $1 from 675,000 college students (or others).

[selfcentrist]

Ironic, when the songs he stole were probably on iTunes for about $1 each.

[djseavy]

The sickening part is that ASCAP and BMI get a fortune every quarter from radio stations to pay the artists since their music is aired. Music sales would be in the tank if radio stations didn't air it. That's how music becomes known is for the most part being played on the air. The SCOTUS is nothing but a bunch of lawyers that couldn't make it in the working world. They have no problm destroying a college kid before he even has a change to get started in life.

[selfcentrist]

Of course you realize that it is the function of ASCAP and BMI to monitor the radio stations on the artist's behalf to help ensure they are being paid fairly for the use of their music, right? That doesn't come free and I think that most established artists have no problem with what they do.

[smartasss1]

If the recording industry wish to get people on their side, they should have at least some sense of fairness. They are a corrupt greedy cartel who have the Republicans on their payroll.

To preserve order in the industry, I was for protecting Intellectual property rights, but now I think they make too much money.