text:
Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al
Filing 379
BRIEF Pursuant to November 19 Order. Document filed by Arista Records LLC, Atlantic Recording Corporation, BMG Music, Capitol Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., Interscope Records, Laface Records LLC, Motown Record Company, L.P., Priority Records LLC, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records America, Inc., Warner Bros. Records Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Klaus, Kelly)
Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al Doc. 379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARISTA RECORDS LLC; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; ARISTA MUSIC, fka BMG MUSIC; CAPITOL RECORDS LLC fka CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.; ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC.; INTERSCOPE RECORDS; LAFACE RECORDS LLC; MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P.; PRIORITY RECORDS LLC; SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, fka SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG RECORDINGS, INC.; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC.; and WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., Plaintiffs, v. LIME WIRE LLC; LIME GROUP LLC; MARK GORTON; and M.J.G. LIME WIRE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF PURSUANT TO NOVEMBER 19 ORDER Glenn D. Pomerantz (pro hac vice) Kelly M. Klaus (pro hac vice) Melinda E. LeMoine Jonathan H. Blavin (pro hac vice) Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 683-9100 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: November 29, 2010 06 Civ. 05936 (KMW) ECF CASE 12409144.3 Dockets.Justia.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO WIDESPREAD DISCOVERY RELATING TO PLAINTIFFS' COST INFORMATION ................................................ 3 A. B. C. D. Established Law Holds That Plaintiffs' Revenues Not Costs May Be Considered In Calculating Statutory Awards ........................................................ 4 This Case Proves The Wisdom of This Established Law ...................................... 7 The Requested Cost Information Would Impose A Nearly-Insurmountable Burden on Plaintiffs to Produce............................................................................. 8 The Burdensome Cost Discovery that Defendants Request Is Not Going to Be Useful at Trial: A Track-By-Track Profit-And-Loss Exercise Would Make a Trial Entirely Unworkable ........................................................................ 9 III. THE "INFRINGEMENT" THAT COUNTS FOR PURPOSES OF ANY PLAINTIFF'S ENTITLEMENT TO STATUTORY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER § 412(2) IS THE DIRECT INFRINGEMENT FOR WHICH DEFENDANTS ARE SECONDARILY LIABLE..................................... 9 A. B. "Any Infringement" Under § 412(2) Refers To The Particular Direct Infringement For Which Defendants Are Liable ................................................. 10 The Fact That Defendants Are Secondarily Liable For Numerous Direct Infringements Does Not Convert All Of Those Separate Direct Infringements Into One Continuing Infringement For Purposes of § 412(2) ...... 12 The Cases Cited by Defendants--Addressing Individual, Direct Infringers Under § 412(2)--Are Inapposite ......................................................................... 13 C. 12409144.3 -i- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page FEDERAL CASES Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................ 5 Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 2010 WL 3629587 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2010)............................................................................ 5 Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 2010 WL 3629688 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2010)............................................................................... 4 Boisson v. Banian Ltd., 280 F. Supp. 2d 10 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) .......................................................................................... 6 Bryant v. Media Right Productions, Inc., 603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 1, 4, 6 CA, Inc. v. Rocket Software, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) ................................................................................ 11, 14 Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 12, 13 Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 13 Eastern America Trio Products, Inc. v. Tang Electronic Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .......................................................................................... 6 Engel v. Wild Oats, 644 F. Supp. 1089 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ......................................................................................... 12 EZ-Tixz v. Hit-Tix, Inc., 919 F. Supp. 728 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ............................................................................... 13, 14, 15 Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998).................................................................................................................. 12 Fitzgerald Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Baylor Pub. Co., Inc.. 670 F. Supp. 1133 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) ........................................................................................... 6 Jamison v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2009 WL 559722 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009) .............................................................................. 14 Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................. 11, 15 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).................................................................................................................. 12 12409144.3 -ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Microsoft Corp. v. AGA Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 1049219 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2010)............................................................................ 5 N.A.S. Impor. Corp. v. Chenson Enter., Inc., 968 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1992) ....................................................................................................... 1 NFL v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 131 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ........................................................................................ 4 Ontel Products Corp. v. Amico Int'l Corp., 2008 WL 4200164 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2008)............................................................................ 6 Shady Records, Inc. v. Source Enters., Inc., 2005 WL 14920 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2005) ........................................................................... 11, 15 Sygma Photo News, Inc. v. High Soc. Magazine, 778 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1985) ....................................................................................................... 12 Troll Co. v. Uneeda Doll Co., 483 F.3d 150 (2d. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................... 14 U.S. Media Corp. v. Edde Entertainment Corp., 1998 WL 401532 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 1998) ............................................................................... 6 U2 Home Ent'ment Inc. v. Hong Wei Int'l Trading, Inc., 2008 WL 3906889 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008).............................................................. 11, 13, 14 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Ahmed, 1994 WL 185622 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 1994)................................................................................ 6 Warner Bros., Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 740 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ............................................................................................. 6 STATUTES & RULES 17 U.S.C. § 106............................................................................................................................. 10 17 U.S.C. § 412(2) ................................................................................................................. passim 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) ........................................................................................................................ 15 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1)...................................................................................................................... 4 17. U.S.C. § 504............................................................................................................................ 10 17. U.S.C. § 505............................................................................................................................ 10 Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04[E][2][d]........................................................................................ 13 -iii12409144.3 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the District Court's November 19, 2010 Order, this brief addresses the following issues: (1) to what extent are each Plaintiff's "costs" for each sound recording in issue--as distinct from Plaintiff's revenues for the sound recording--relevant to the statutory damages inquiry; and (2) for purposes of § 412(2) of the Copyright Act, does the direct infringement of a copyrighted sound recording by a particular user of LimeWire count as the relevant "infringement," or is every infringement of that sound recording by every LimeWire user part of a single, continuing act of infringement? See Doc. No. 363 at 89. Plaintiffs' "costs" are not a necessary part of the statutory damages analysis in this case: Plaintiffs have agreed to provide, and each either has provided or is in the process of providing, enormous amounts of documentation that will enable Defendants and their experts to analyze Plaintiffs' lost revenue as a result of Defendants' massive infringement. Defendants, however, have insisted that Plaintiffs provide extensive cost information as to every individual sound recording, ostensibly on the theory that Defendants want to calculate "lost profits." That would not only impose incredible burdens on each Plaintiff to provide--as established through uncontroverted declarations1--but also is irrelevant in this case. As the Second Circuit has made clear, in setting a statutory award the Court may consider the "expenses saved, and profits earned, by the infringer," but only the "revenue lost by the copyright holder." Bryant v. Media Right Productions, Inc., 603 F.3d 135, 144 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing N.A.S. Impor. Corp. v. Chenson Enter., Inc., 968 F.2d 250, 252-53 (2d Cir. 1992)) (emphasis added). There is no requirement that a Plaintiff's lost profits must be factored into the statutory damages analysis, and Defendants have yet to cite a single case permitting the widespread discovery into the "profits" and "costs" For the convenience of the Court, the declarations submitted to Judge Wood on September 8, 2010 are attached hereto as Exhibits A-D. -112409144.3 1 of thousands of individual copyrighted works which they seek here. That rule would be contrary to the very reason that Congress created statutory damages. Statutory damages compensate the Plaintiff where its actual damages--i.e., the profits it would have made but for the infringement--are difficult to calculate. In this case, there are three compelling reasons why Plaintiffs should not be compelled to produce "cost" information as to every individual sound recording. First, the cost information Defendants seek has no relationship whatsoever to the harm to Plaintiffs. The costs Plaintiffs incurred in distributing the thousands of sound recordings at issue would have been incurred regardless of whether Defendants' massive infringing service ever existed. Second, the burden of gathering and producing such cost information is overwhelming in relationship to any possible claim of relevance that Defendants may attempt to offer. Third, even if Plaintiffs were compelled to locate and assemble this information in the manner Defendants demand, it is inconceivable that this discovery is going to lead to the presentation of any evidence at trial. The Court obviously is not going to conduct thousands of "mini-trials," delving into the individual profits and losses from each of the thousands and thousands of these sound recordings. The "infringement" that is relevant for applying § 412(2)is the infringement by the particular direct infringer for which Defendants are secondarily liable. Your Honor's November 2 Order requires Plaintiffs to produce all evidence of downloads gathered in investigating claims against individual LimeWire users in order to provide Defendants with evidence regarding the earliest date on which a LimeWire user directly infringed one of the sound recordings in issue. In the November 19 Order, Judge Wood asked this Court to decide in -212409144.3 the first instance a threshold question of law: whether Defendants' unprecedented theory of the applicability of § 412(2) has any merit. That resolution will determine whether Plaintiffs must collect this already-gathered evidence from these other matters in the first place. The threshold legal issue for this Court to decide is whether the "infringement" for which statutory damages and attorney's fees may be barred by operation of § 412(2) refers to (1) the underlying act of direct infringement by any one LimeWire user for which Defendants are secondarily liable; or (2) Defendants' entire liability for secondary infringement with respect to that work. Defendants argue that it is the latter. Defendants contend that, if any LimeWire user anywhere directly infringed the copyright to a particular sound recording before more than three months before the effective date of the registration for that sound recording, then it does not matter if thousands or even millions of other LimeWire users directly infringed the same sound recording after the effective date of its registration. That manifestly unjust result is flatly contrary to the language of the statute and all applicable case law. The "infringement" must refer to the act of direct infringement by the particular direct infringer for which Lime Wire is secondarily liable. II. DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO WIDESPREAD DISCOVERY RELATING TO PLAINTIFFS' COST INFORMATION Defendants served discovery requests seeking extensive information detailing Plaintiffs' profits and losses on a track-by-track basis for every individual sound recording for which Plaintiffs seek damages. Your Honor asked the parties for "brief supplemental submissions to the Court setting forth legal authority for their respective positions as to whether information regarding Plaintiffs' profits (as opposed to gross revenue) is relevant to statutory copyright damages," and Judge Wood affirmed Your Honor's request. Doc. No. 339 at 3 ¶ 6; see Doc. No. 363 (November 19, 2010 Order) at 8. As settled case law establishes, Defendants' demands for -312409144.3 profit-and-loss information exceed the bounds of conceivable relevance. Plaintiffs' costs have no relationship to the "actual damages" Plaintiffs have suffered here--i.e., the harm Defendants' massive infringement caused to Plaintiffs' business. Moreover, requiring discovery into Plaintiffs' cost information would impose extraordinary discovery burdens on Plaintiffs, and would make the damages trial in this action entirely unworkable. A. Established Law Holds That Plaintiffs' Revenues Not Costs May Be Considered In Calculating Statutory Awards Congress created the statutory damage remedy in part to allow for a remedy where actual damages are difficult to calculate and prove. See, e.g., NFL v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 131 F. Supp. 2d 458, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). And for that very reason the Second Circuit and other courts have made clear that a copyright plaintiff's revenues may be considered in a statutory damages analysis--not a plaintiff's costs or "lost profits." As the Second Circuit has held, in "determining the amount of statutory damages to award for copyright infringement," the Court may consider the "expenses saved, and profits earned, by the infringer," but only the "revenue lost by the copyright holder." Bryant, 603 F.3d at 144 (emphasis added). To hold otherwise would require the plaintiffs to prove their actual lost profits, no matter how difficult or impossible the task may be. Thus, in Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 2010 WL 3629688 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2010) (Amended Report and Recommendation), the major record companies obtained summary judgment against the defendants for the widespread infringement of their copyrights through the defendants' "USENET" network of computers. In setting the statutory award, Magistrate Judge Katz considered only the plaintiffs' "lost revenues," emphasizing that "[a]s an initial matter, Plaintiffs are not required to prove any actual damages upon electing to receive statutory damages. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1)." Id. at *5. As Magistrate Judge Katz noted, Plaintiffs -412409144.3 "managed to uncover 878 songs that Defendants made freely available to their subscribers. Had those subscribers who downloaded these songs purchased the same through legitimate channels of commerce, Plaintiffs would have certainly received revenues. . . . Thus, while each song may have cost only $1.29 on iTunes, Plaintiffs could have lost as much as $20,000 in revenues per song, depending on the number of subscribers who downloaded each song." Id. (emphases added). In affirming Magistrate Judge Katz's award, Judge Baer emphasized that in calculating statutory damages, the "proper measure" would be plaintiffs' "lost revenues, not lost profits." Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 2010 WL 3629587, at *5 n.12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2010) (emphasis added). Similarly, in Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2009), the court explicitly rejected the defendant's argument that "Apple's profit margins" were "relevant to statutory damages for copyright infringement." Id. at 927. Reciting the same factors in determining statutory awards that the Second Circuit has adopted, the court stated that "[n]otably, the factors include the profits reaped by defendant and the revenues lost by plaintiff, not the plaintiff's profits," and held that "Apple is not obliged to provide proof of its own profits when it has elected to seek statutory damages." Id. at 928 (emphases added). The Second Circuit, the Northern District of California and Judges Katz and Baer are not alone. Numerous other courts similarly have focused solely on a plaintiff's lost revenues, not its lost profits, in setting a statutory award. See Microsoft Corp. v. AGA Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 1049219, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2010) (award of statutory damages supported by "revenues lost by the plaintiff as a result of defendant's conduct" and noting that "[w]hile the exact amount of revenues lost by plaintiff is undeterminable, a raid on Defendants' business yielded 2,569 units of counterfeit or infringing products with an estimated retail value of $1,078,722"); Boisson -512409144.3 v. Banian Ltd., 280 F. Supp. 2d 10, 18 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ("In addition to profits reaped by the defendant, the court can look at plaintiff's lost revenue as a result of the infringement. . . . While Plaintiff need not prove lost revenue for statutory damages, the court still has complete discretion in considering any lost revenue to make a final determination of statutory damages."); Ontel Products Corp. v. Amico Int'l Corp., 2008 WL 4200164, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2008) (noting that "because [defendant] has failed to respond, the Court has no information concerning the profits it reaped, and [plaintiff] cannot estimate with any degree of certainty the revenues it has lost"); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Ahmed, 1994 WL 185622, at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 1994) (noting that court may consider the "revenues lost by the plaintiffs" in "determining the appropriate measure of statutory damages" and that "[a]lthough statutory damages `should bear some relation to actual damages,' . . . the court may award statutory damages even if there is no evidence whatsoever before the court as to the . . . plaintiff's lost profits").2 The same result should apply here. In their briefing to Judge Wood, Defendants cited four cases where the courts purportedly considered a copyright holder's "profits in assessing statutory damages." Nov. 5, 2010 Letter at 9. To the extent these cases considered the plaintiff's lost profits in setting a statutory award, they are inconsistent with Bryant and the more recent authorities noted above. Moreover, these cases do not involve situations remotely close to the present action, where thousands of copyrighted works are at issue, and they do not, in any event, support widespread discovery of "costs" and "profits" from a plaintiff seeking statutory damages. Indeed, in none of these cases was there any evidence offered of the plaintiff's lost profits. See Warner Bros., Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 740, 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ("It should be noted that Warner expresses the financial success of Gremlins in terms of `gross,' `revenue,' and the like. The actual profit to Warner has not been given, so far as we have found."); U.S. Media Corp. v. Edde Entertainment Corp., 1998 WL 401532, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 1998) ("We have no information on which to base a reliable determination as to which, if any, of the five infringed films would have earned profits for plaintiff in the home video market if they had not been infringed."); Fitzgerald Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Baylor Pub. Co., Inc.. 670 F. Supp. 1133, 1141 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) ("It is understood that this method of calculation is not entirely accurate. Fitzgerald's probable distribution costs should be deducted, but the Court heard no evidence on this point. The Court's conservative estimate of Fitzgerald's potential revenues adequately cancels out this discrepancy."); Eastern America Trio Products, Inc. v. Tang Electronic Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 395, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) -612409144.3 2 B. This Case Proves The Wisdom of This Established Law Indeed, this case provides a textbook example of why the focus in a statutory damages analysis should be on the copyright owner's lost revenues rather than the copyright owner's revenues-less-costs, or lost "profits." Plaintiffs' costs in this case have no relationship to the losses caused by Defendants' conduct. As detailed at length in the declarations of Wade Leak, Alasdair McMullen, Jon Pedersen, and Charles Ciongoli submitted to the Court on September 8, Plaintiffs incur hundreds if not thousands of costs in bringing an artist's sound recording to the marketplace. See Ciongoli Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Pedersen Decl., ¶ 5; Leak Decl., ¶ 6; McMullen Decl., ¶ 5. Plaintiffs would incur all of these costs whether Defendants existed or not. Defendants' massive infringing engine has no effect on Plaintiffs' costs in signing their artists, creating their albums, marketing the albums, promoting their artists' singles, distributing their records, etc. Plaintiffs would incur all of these same costs regardless of whether Defendants ever distributed a single copy of the LimeWire client. The overwhelming majority of Plaintiffs' costs thus have no relationship to the harm that Plaintiffs have suffered at Defendants' hands. Only one category of Plaintiffs' costs increase depending on how many copies of their records are sold or otherwise digitally distributed. Each time Plaintiffs distribute a record, the artists and songwriters who created the work share in the proceeds. Costs Plaintiffs incur in paying artists and songwriters differ depending on each Plaintiff's agreement with each individual artist (for recording artists) and on the applicable statutory rate set in the Copyright Act (for songwriters). Here, those costs still have no relationship to the injury Plaintiffs have suffered at Defendants' hands because those costs have yet to be incurred or paid. Neither Plaintiffs nor their recording artists have been compensated for the millions of infringing records (noting "paucity of evidence presented to the Court" and that plaintiff "has not demonstrated any lost profits as a result of the infringement."). -712409144.3 Defendants have distributed. Lime Wire has never paid an artist a royalty for any song distributed through their unauthorized service, and they certainly are not suggesting now that they need the artists' royalty information so they can pay the royalties themselves. Once there is a judgment, the amount to be paid to account to artists and songwriters for their loss is a matter to be determined between each Plaintiff and its respective artists and songwriters. Allowing Defendants to deduct artist and songwriter royalties from any award before judgment would grant to Defendants a wholly unjustifiable windfall at artists' and songwriters' expense. This case is an ideal example of why Congress created the statutory remedy in the first place. To say Plaintiffs' "losses" from Defendants' wrongful conduct are difficult to calculate is an understatement, and Defendants have never articulated any nexus between the amount of a Plaintiff's profit (or loss) on a particular recording, and Defendants' intentional inducement of the recording. For example, even if a particular sound recording has generated a substantial profit, who is to say that those profits would not have been doubled or tripled in the absence of Defendants' inducement of illegal downloading? Similarly, even if a particular sound recording had a "loss," who is to say that that sound recording might not have generated a substantial profit in the absence of Defendants' conduct? Defendants have never suggested an answer to any of these questions, nor shown how they will be answered or illuminated by the massive document production they want Plaintiffs to undertake. C. The Requested Cost Information Would Impose A Nearly-Insurmountable Burden on Plaintiffs to Produce Defendants' profit-and-loss requests are not only entirely irrelevant, but would impose an extraordinary burden on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs specifically detailed the significant burden in the four declarations submitted initially September 8, 2010. See Ciongoli Decl., ¶¶5-12; Pedersen Decl., ¶¶4-13; Leak Decl., ¶¶5-13; McMullan Decl., ¶¶4-10. Responding to Defendants' -812409144.3 requests would impose a crushing burden. Plaintiffs do not centrally maintain or record their expansive cost information for all recordings at the track-by-track level. Defendants' requests would require the collection, review, and production of all of the underlying documents reflecting every income and expense involved in the lengthy chain of development of each of the thousands of recordings at issue. The sheer volume is staggering, and no doubt would generate hundreds if not many thousands of records for each one of the tracks at issue. D. The Burdensome Cost Discovery that Defendants Request Is Not Going to Be Useful at Trial: A Track-By-Track Profit-And-Loss Exercise Would Make a Trial Entirely Unworkable Finally, the context of this case shows why Defendants' requests seek information that will not in any way be useful at the trial, and instead would clog the proceedings with unnecessary detail without any corresponding benefit to the jury. Defendants cannot possibly go through the individual profit-and-loss analysis for every one of the thousands of works in question unless there are to be a series of non-stop "mini trials" that will consume months or years, not weeks of the Court's and jury's time. This is not just impractical but entirely unrealistic. Given that, what could be the conceivable basis for contemplating whether to allow a broad-ranging and highly burdensome discovery when it is never going to be used at trial? There is none. III. THE "INFRINGEMENT" THAT COUNTS FOR PURPOSES OF ANY PLAINTIFF'S ENTITLEMENT TO STATUTORY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER § 412(2) IS THE DIRECT INFRINGEMENT FOR WHICH DEFENDANTS ARE SECONDARILY LIABLE The second issue that Judge Wood ordered the parties to address is the application of § 412(2) of the Copyright Act in this case: specifically, whether 17 U.S.C. § 412(2) bars Defendants' entire liability for statutory damages with respect to a work where a single underlying act of direct infringement by a LimeWire user occurred prior to the effective date of -912409144.3 registration. Defendants contend that, if any LimeWire user anywhere directly infringed the copyright to a particular sound recording before more than three months before the effective date of the registration for that sound recording, then it does not matter if hundreds, thousands, or even millions of other LimeWire users commenced a new direct infringement of the same sound recording after the effective date of its registration. Defendants' contention is incorrect: it rests upon an untenable reading of § 412(2) and is irreconcilable with established precedent regarding statutory damages and secondary liability as a whole. The words "any infringement" in § 412(2) refer not to any infringement in history, but to the act of direct infringement by a particular direct infringer for which Defendants are secondarily liable. A. "Any Infringement" Under § 412(2) Refers To The Particular Direct Infringement For Which Defendants Are Liable Section 412(2) provides: [N]o award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for ... any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work. 17 U.S.C. § 412(2) (emphasis added). The legal question here is whether "any infringement" means any particular direct infringement that gives rise to the Plaintiff's claim for relief, or instead means every direct infringement for which Defendants are secondarily liable, regardless whether any of those infringements occurred within or without the time frame of § 412(2). The only textually supportable reading of the statute is the first one: An "infringement" does not "commence[]" until an actual direct infringer violates one of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under § 106. If Defendants' interpretation of § 412(2) were correct, then the statute would not refer an infringement having commenced; it would instead read that statutory damages and attorney's - 10 12409144.3 fees are not available unless the work is registered on or within three months of the first infringement of that work by anyone. That is not what the statute says, however, and it cannot possibly mean that. Cases assessing the availability of damages under § 412(2) universally look only to the circumstances surrounding the single direct infringer at issue in the case: comparing the date of that direct infringer's first infringement to the date of plaintiff's effective registration. For example, in Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., 967 F.2d 135, 144 (5th Cir. 1992), the Fifth Circuit analyzed the timing of the infringements and registrations for 233 maps at issue in the case. The court, "[a]s to each work and each defendant," determined that the "alleged acts of infringement that could give rise to an award of statutory damages had commenced prior to registration" of 232 of the 233 maps. Id. Accordingly, the court held that no statutory damages would be available for the alleged direct infringements of those works. Other cases are in accord, looking always to the particular circumstances-- "[a]s to each work and each defendant" --of registration and infringements at issue in the case. Id.; see, e.g., CA, Inc. v. Rocket Software, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 355, 36364 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (assessing circumstances of particular direct infringements alleged); Shady Records, Inc. v. Source Enters., Inc., 2005 WL 14920, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2005) (comparing dates of first direct infringements by defendant to dates of registration of relevant works); U2 Home Ent'ment Inc. v. Hong Wei Int'l Trading, Inc., 2008 WL 3906889, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008) (accord). The cases do not analyze evidence of other unrelated infringers' pre-registration infringement. No case ever has suggested the extreme rule that § 412(2) bars a statutory damage claim against any infringer simply because some other infringer may have infringed the same work outside the time limits of the statute. - 11 12409144.3 B. The Fact That Defendants Are Secondarily Liable For Numerous Direct Infringements Does Not Convert All Of Those Separate Direct Infringements Into One Continuing Infringement For Purposes of § 412(2) Defendants' liability for inducing millions upon millions of users of the LimeWire system to infringe Plaintiffs' works does not change the § 412(2) analysis. Defendants' damages liability is derivative--Defendants are liable for such damages only because there is an underlying direct infringement. If Defendants built a system to induce third parties to infringe, but no one actually used that system to infringe a single work, Defendants would be the first people to say that they had no liability for statutory damages under the Copyright Act. Defendants become liable in damages at the point at which the direct infringer commences her or his infringing conduct--that is what it means for a defendant to have secondary liability. See generally Sygma Photo News, Inc. v. High Soc. Magazine, 778 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1985); Engel v. Wild Oats, 644 F. Supp. 1089, 1092 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). As the Supreme Court has held: "[O]ne who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 918 (2005) (emphasis added). Defendants' liability as inducers has no effect on the calculation of damages available for the direct infringements at issue in the case. The Ninth Circuit has squarely addressed and rejected contrary arguments. In Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284, 294 (9th Cir. 1997), rev'd on other grounds sub nom Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998), a defendant found jointly and severally liable for copyright infringement by three different television stations (each of them direct infringers) argued that he should not be liable for duplicative damage awards. The Ninth Circuit rejected his argument: - 12 12409144.3 Feltner's . . . argument on this issue--that the [damages] finding was erroneous because Feltner was jointly and severally liable with all three stations--is . . . meritless. Because the stations were not jointly and severally liable with each other, Feltner's liability vis-ŕvis the stations merely renders him jointly and severally liable for each station's infringements--it does not convert the stations' separate infringements into one. Id. at 294 n.7. Thus, the defendant's status as a joint tortfeasor with each station "does not make each station a joint tortfeasor with respect to the other." Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001). See generally Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04[E][2][d] (discussing this rule). Similarly, here, Defendants' secondary liability means they are liable for each direct infringer's infringements and the damages associated therewith. However, that Defendants are liable for each direct infringer's infringements does not "convert" those separate infringements into one. Columbia Pictures Tel., 106 F.3d at 294 & n.7. Each underlying direct infringement supports an independent award of statutory damages, see id., and is assessed independently for purposes of determining the availability of statutory damages under § 412(2). C. The Cases Cited by Defendants--Addressing Individual, Direct Infringers Under § 412(2)--Are Inapposite Cases cited by Defendants in their previous briefing of this issue--cases in which courts have declared that statutory damages are unavailable for a continuing series of infringements by a single direct infringer (or group of direct infringers acting in concert)--are inapposite. See U2, 2008 WL 3906889, at *1415; EZ-Tixz v. Hit-Tix, Inc., 919 F. Supp. 728 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). In each of these cases, a court has held that, under § 412(2), statutory damages are not available against a single defendant who initially infringes a plaintiff's copyright prior to registration, even if infringing conduct continues after infringement. In U2, for example, the court addressed the availability of statutory damages in a suit brought by a Chinese-language film and television producer against a video-rental store alleged to have engaged in unlawful duplication of some 70 - 13 12409144.3 programs. See U2, 2008 WL 3906889, at *1, *5. The defendant, Hong Wei, submitted a schedule of eighteen titles that had been first rented (and, necessarily, illegally copied) before the titles were registered with the copyright office. Id. at *14. The court agreed that, notwithstanding Hong Wei's continued illegal copying after registration of the titles, statutory damages were barred for those titles under § 412(2). Id. at *15. Similarly, in EZ-Tixz, the court held that statutory damages were unavailable under § 412(2) against a group of jointly-acting defendants alleged to have illegally copied a plaintiff's software beginning before that software's registration, even though that illegal use continued after registration. 919 F. Supp. at 734-35. What these cases do not hold--and, consistently with the language of § 412 and the other statutory damages provisions of the Copyright Act, could not hold--is that a single defendant's pre-registration infringement of a copyright extinguishes statutory damages for future, totally unrelated direct infringers. In neither case did the court have opportunity to do so. Rather, each is about a single direct infringer (or, as in EZ-Tixz, group of corporately affiliated direct infringers) who continued to infringe the same works. See U2, 2008 WL 3906889, at *1; EZTixz, 919 F. Supp. at 734-35. Neither case involves separate direct infringers with distinct dates of first infringement. Likewise, neither stands remotely for the proposition that a secondary infringer is continually liable for a single infringement of the same work by millions of distinct and unrelated infringers Indeed, courts even have recognized that even an individual direct infringer may reset the clock for purposes of § 412(2) if his post-registration infringement is sufficiently distinct--in time or character--from pre-registration infringement. See, e.g., Troll Co. v. Uneeda Doll Co., 483 F.3d 150, 15859 (2d. Cir. 2007); CA, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d at 36364; see also Jamison v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2009 WL 559722, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009). These cases - 14 12409144.3 hold that "new" or "distinct" acts of infringement occurring after registration--even by the same infringer--may permit statutory damages to be awarded despite an infringer's acts of infringement prior to registration. In EZ-Tixz, for instance, this court recognized that "new acts of infringement" occurring after registration, rather than merely the "continuation of the infringement that commenced prior to registration," could permit statutory damages to be awarded notwithstanding § 412(2). Id. at 736. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that an individual's infringement before and following registration are "two separate infringements, rather than merely a series of ongoing discrete infringements," statutory damages remain available for the post-registration acts. Shady Records, 2005 WL 14920, at *21. Because these cases all deal with individual direct infringers, their holdings offer little guidance in the case at present. However, they do indicate that pre-registration infringement does not bar statutory damages for "separate infringement" occurring after registration. See id. at *21 (holding that the language of § 412(2) reveals "Congress' intent that statutory damages be denied . . . for all of the defendant's infringements of a work if one of those infringements commenced prior to registration."). Infringement by a whole new direct infringer clearly qualifies as "separate infringement." for purposes of calculation of statutory damages generally. See Mason, 967 F.2d at 14344 (noting that 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) "include[s] all of one defendant's infringements of one work within `an award of statutory damages'"). Thus, these cases indicate that pre-registration infringement by one direct infringer cannot bar statutory damages available against another, later infringer. As outlined above, Defendants' liability as inducers does not modify this rule. *** Defendants' reading of § 412(2) is based on an untenable collection of false premises, it is unsupported by precedent, and irreconcilable with the language of the Copyright Act. - 15 12409144.3 Furthermore, Defendants' reading of § 412(2) is manifestly unjust: Reading "any infringement" in § 412(2) to encompass any infringement in history, rather than infringement particular to a given direct infringer, would irrationally extinguish statutory damages available against totally unrelated future direct infringers. As a result, any given direct infringer could avoid statutory damages altogether by calling an unrelated pre-registration infringer to the stand. As applied to inducers and other secondarily liable actors, furthermore, it would reward those who induce massive infringements by millions of direct infringers by eliminating statutory damages so long as the inducer ensured that the first-to-infringe among its users acted prior to registration. This result is both unjust and irrational. Defendants become secondarily liable for each act of direct infringement at the point when that particular act of infringement occurs. It is at that point--when any particular LimeWire user directly infringes a recording--that one looks to see whether the work has been registered, and the applicability (or not) of § 412(2). Defendants' conflicting construction of § 412(2) must be rejected. Dated: November 29, 2010 Respectfully submitted /s/ Kelly M. Klaus Kelly M. Klaus Attorney for Plaintiffs Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 (213) 683-9100 (213) 687-3702 (Fax) - 16 12409144.3


text:
Pictures look perfect!
Originally posted on a whisk and a spoon:
We're in the summer swing here, and I'm starting to see some good-looking fruit at the farmers' markets. The first nice strawberries had me digging through my cookbook collection (I'm not a gardener) the other week for some fresh fruit inspiration. Who wants to turn on the oven, especially in a house with no A/C? What wound up catching my eye didn't actually involve fresh fruit, but was something to go with it…Buttermilk Ice Cream. It had been a while since I'd made ice cream at home and I happened to have some extra-special "real" buttermilk that I thought I'd paid too much for to hide in a baked good. The gentle sweet tang of this ice cream is the prefect partner for simply sliced berries or peaches. Don't get me wrong, it'll also be *stellar* with strawberry-rhubarb double crisp or blueberry-nectarine pie. Oh, and a strawberry-buttermilk milkshake…try that out, too.
I like to store my homemade ice cream in a restaurant-style
View original 246 more words

subset: commoncrawl


text: Samsung Spinpoint 2.5-inch notebook drive reaches 640GB, at 7200RPM too Michael Kwan / Thursday, April 8, 2010, 6:29 pm / No CommentsWant a bigger hard drive for your laptop, but you don't want to sacrifice anything in performance? It seems that Samsung is pushing the envelope just a little further with the newly revealed Spinpoint MP4. This 2.5-inch hard drive sounds pretty sweet. For starters, it doesn't stick to the conventional 5400rpm speed that you normally find in 2.5-inch notebook drives. Instead, it gives you 7200rpm of speed, putting it in line with the 3.5-inchers on the market. That means you'll get at your data faster and more efficiently.more → Posted in: Uncategorized Tagged with: hard drive, notebook, samsung, samsung mp4


text:
Truth or Lies?
Find a Conversation
|Tue, 04-02-2013 - 3:57pm
I thought the following article was interesting, it discusses whether you should lie to your child if they ask questions about your break-up or the behavior or the other parent.
Kids hate to hear one parent talk badly about the other. So the first line of defense I'd recommend is to avoid topics where, if you're being honest, you have to say something negative about the child's other parent. If I had to choose between having a parent lie and having them tell the truth (when telling the truth means trashing the child's other parent) I'd tell them to lie. It's just too hurtful to children to hear one parent talk badly about the other.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/claire-n-barnes-ma/should-split-parents-ever_b_2964221.html?utm_hp_ref=parents&ir=Parents
Are there times that it's better to be truthful with the child? Should you be honest about an affair? What if one parent keeps flaking out on visitation, should you make excuses them that aren't true?
At what age is it appropriate to be truthful with them?
|Mon, 04-15-2013 - 3:33pm
I wouldn't tell a child any more than ABSOLUTELY necessary about the other parent, whether it is good or bad, i would allow the child to come to thier OWN conclusions. It is NEVER appropriate to talk negatively about the other parent to the child. If there was an affair, this is none of the child's business, and does not need to be discussed.


text:
Essentials of Logistics and Supply Chain Management
"With the growing complexity of global supply chains, it is more vital than ever that every employee who interacts with the supply chain understands the impact of his or her decisions on the way that product moves along this chain."
- John Caltagirone, Vice President of Global Supply Chain Strategy, The Revere Group
This program is currently only being offered in a customized, company-specific format for groups of managers from the same organization. If you are interested in this program for your organization, please fill out our information request form.
- Overview
- Key Benefits
- Who Should Attend
- Program Content
- Faculty
- Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
Loyola's Essentials of Logistics and Supply Chain Management certificate is awarded to participants who attend all sessions.
For course consultation, please contact us at: 312.915.6761 or firstname.lastname@example.com.
Ready to learn more? Request additional information about this program.
Out-sourcing, lean manufacturing, just-in-time inventory and the global economic downturn have put a new type of pressure on supply chains, making it more important than ever for organizations to manage their supply chains effectively. These pressures make it critical for supply chain managers to have the skills and tools to improve their supply chain performance, and they highlight the need for managers from throughout the organization to better understand the supply chain and its impact on their function.
Sessions on general logistics, transportation, warehousing, and inventory control are presented, highlighting how each area plays a key role in the supply chain process. Emphasis is placed on the fundamental strategies, operational tactics and challenges involved with managing a supply chain both domestically and internationally.
Professionals completing this program will leave with a level of comfort in discussing SCM issues pertinent to their job, understanding why their decision-making process may impact the supply chain, and how this knowledge can lead to competitive advantage. The latest developments in SCM will be discussed and a panel of guest speakers will provide insight into the challenges faced by supply chain executives.
Key Benefits
During this program, participants will learn:
- How to improve profitability by developing a more efficient and effective supply chain
- The key challenges and trends in logistics and supply chain management
- How to better incorporate logistics into their decision making process
- The major SCM systems available and the advantages of implementing them
- The key objectives of an effective supply chain manager
Who Should Attend
This program will provide an overview of supply chain management (SCM) for professionals with little formal SCM training who are exposed to the supply chain on a regular basis. Managers from other functions (such as marketing, finance, etc.) who want to improve their understanding of the supply chain will also greatly benefit from this program.
Read what past participants have said about the program
Program Content
Day 1
Logistics and Supply Chain Management Simulation
Introduction to Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Case Study—Working Dinner Session
Day 2
Supply Chain Management Systems
Supply Chain Management Challenges and Trends
This program is taught by leading academics and practitioners who are experts in logistics and supply chain management.
John A. Caltagirone
Maciek Nowak, PhD
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
This program was designed and is offered in collaboration with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. CSCMP is the preeminent worldwide professional association of supply chain management professionals and provides leadership in advancing the supply chain management profession by developing, advancing, and disseminating supply chain knowledge and research.
For more information, please visit www.cscmp.org.
Ready to learn more? Request additional information about this program.


text:
Win $10 in the Anime Wallpapers.Com August 2013 Wallpaper Contest or Origami Sticky Notes!
Songs submitted by Lady Elwen (24)
Songs translated and transliterated by Lady Elwen (4)
Songs translated by Lady Elwen (14)
Songs transliterated by Lady Elwen (6)
Animelyrics.com now has an OpenSearch plugin that you can install into your browser (FireFox and IE 7 supported)
My Little Pony Ties
Lyrics copyright to their respective owners or translators. No copyright infringment is intended or implied.
Layout and other content copyright Anime Lyrics dot Com / Anime Globe Productions
This is some text here


text:
Please note that passwords are case sensitive. Please make sure you are typing your password in exactly as you created it.
First time here?
Trouble Logging in?
Forgot your password?
About Peter
The Show
Show Archive
Broadcast Central
Call of the Week
Cliff's Notes Recap
Schiff Book Store
Guest Hosts
Peter's Playlist
Letters to Schiff
Haters' Corner
Inflation Anecdotes
Email Peter
Email the Show
Letters to Schiff
Haters' Corner
Schiff Premium
Join Schiff Premium
"The Daily Show": A Call To Action
Posted by Peter Schiff on 02/01/2014 at 11:21 AM
After watching "The Daily Show" segment for the first time since it aired, I realized it was an even bigger hit job than I first realized. Jon Stewart's staff constructed my sentence like Dr. Frankenstein pieced together his monster.
The segment shows Samantha Bee asking a question or making a statement, but then uses my answer or reaction to a completely different question from an entirely different part of the conversation.
In fact, my comment about people being "worth what they are worth" was not said in reference to the intellectually disabled. I told Samantha Bee something to the effect of, "If an individual can only deliver $5 per hour of productivity to an employer, but the government mandates a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, an employer would be legally prohibited from hiring that worker. The government cannot force employers to pay workers more than they are worth -- YOU ARE WORTH WHAT YOU ARE WORTH -- and the only way a worker can earn more money is to increase his value to employers."
"The Daily Show" shot close to four hours of footage. During that time I believe I did an excellent job of exposing the minimum wage as perhaps the single most economically destructive law on the books, particularly as it relates to inner city youth. However, instead of accurately presenting my thoughts, "The Daily Show" merely parsed though those four hours of footage to piece together a meticulously edited segment that would portray me in the worst possible light. The finished product in no way resembled the discussion that actually took place. In one case, fragments from several unrelated sentences were pieced together to form what seemed to be a continuous statement that I never actually spoke. Statements, made hours apart, were juxtaposed to create the false impression that they were related.
On the other hand, the segment with Barry Ritholtz, my supposed opponent in this "debate," was rehearse and scripted. Rilholtz knew the questions in advance, had time to prepare his answers, and was even given several takes to deliver his lines to Hollywood perfection. In fact, it was Ritholtz who suggested "The Daily Show" book me as his mock opponent after having seen my Wal-Mart video. He didn't like that video, and saw this as an opportunity to help discredit me for having made it.
To persuade me to agree to do this interview in the first place, "The Daily Show" assured me that my views would be given a fair representation – that nothing would be taken out of context, or pieced together out of sequence. I was repeatedly assured, both prior to and during the interview, that they had absolutely no intention of making me look bad.
We now know that they were lying the entire time.
What bothers me more than "The Daily Show," which of course is a comedy show, is the reaction in the news media to their segment. Even a local CBS affiliate here in Connecticut quoted the fabricated sentence pieced together by "The Daily Show," as if I had actually spoken it myself. Not a single news or political web site that covered the segment -- and there were dozens -- bothered to call me to verify the accuracy of what was presented. They portrayed that comedy skit as if it were legitimate news, and my "debate" with Ritholtz as if it had been fair and balanced. They assumed "The Daily Show" did not alter my words, omit any of my thoughts, or otherwise edit the segment with the specific intent of changing the meaning of my comments.
"The Daily Show"'s double standard needs to end.
It is either pure comedy, with no actual relevance to legitimate political discourse, or it is news -- it can't be both.
For now, let's all e-mail "The Daily Show" and demand that they release all of the raw, unedited footage from that interview. I would proudly feature it on my YouTube channel.
They had their laughs, now it's time for the truth to come out. Let's see if they actually have the courage to do it.
Here is the link
. (Make sure you select "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.") If you are a fan of the show, let them know. But also let them know that you have an interest in hearing what I actually said, my specific answers to their actually questions, and that you feel that releasing that information would help advance the national debate on this issue. If I am really the pompous ass they made me out to be, they should be happy to oblige our request.
I will be discussing this issue on my radio show on
, so make sure to tune in live at 10AM Eastern time at
< Back to Articles Archives
Show Archive
Broadcast Central
Call of the Week
Cliff's Notes Recap
About Peter
Email Peter
Show Archive
Cliff's Notes Recap
Peter's Playlist
Letters to Schiff
Haters' Corner
Inflation Anecdotes
Call the Show: 855-4-SCHIFF
International: 612-465-7356
Email Us
Like on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Watch Channel
Subscribe to RSS
Subscribe to Newsletter
Nothing discussed on the show is an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security or instrument or to participate in any particular investing strategy. All securities involve varying amounts of risk, and their values will fluctuate, and the fluctuation of foreign currency exchange rates will also impact your investment returns if measured in U.S. Dollars. Dividend yields change as stock prices change, and companies may change or cancel dividend payments in the future. Investments may increase or decrease in value and you may lose money. International investing may not be suitable for all investors.
Copyright © 2002-2014 SchiffRadio.com. All rights reserved.
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
This site is Created and Managed by
Nox Solutions LLC.
Support Our Sponsors


text:
7/8" Cordless 18 Volt SDS Hammer Drill with Compact Design and SHOCKS
The DeWalt 7/8" cordless 18 volt SDS hammer drill is extremely durable and efficient. This amazing tool features SHOCKS - active vibration control which significantly reduces vibration and increases user comfort and productivity. Making these even more versatile is the compact L-shape design which allows access in tight spaces while providing optimal balance for the user.
- Compact L-Shape Design allows access in tight spaces while providing optimal balance for the user
- SHOCKS™ - Active Vibration Control significantly reduces vibration and increases user comfort and productivity
- 1.7 ft-lbs impact energy provides corded power without the cord
- Variable speed, reversing switch delivers versatility in all applications
- Factory-set clutch reduces sudden, high torque reactions if bit jams
- Electro-pneumatic hammer mechanism for fast penetration and low vibration
- 360° side handle for better control and ease of use in tight spaces
- Includes:
- 360° side handle
- Depth rod
- Tool only (batteries and charger sold separately)
- Voltage: 18V
- Concrete Optimum: 5/32"-1/2"
- Impact Energy: 1.7 ft-lbs
- Vibration Measurement: 8.0 m/s2
- No Load Speed: 0-1,100 rpm
- Beats/Min: 0-4,100 bpm
- Chipping: No
- Vibration Control: Yes - SHOCKS™
- Tool Length: 10.5"
- Tool Weight: 5.25 lbs
- Shipping Weight: 6.0 lbs
DEWALT is firmly committed to being the best in the business, and this commitment to being number one extends to everything they do, from product design and engineering to manufacturing and service.
Additional DeWalt Links
Our SKU: DeWalt DC212B
This product is listed under the following manufacturer number(s):
- DeWalt DC212B
*Denotes a finish or option that has been discontinued
Installation Resource Center
Whether you are installing the product yourself or hiring a professional, our installation Resource Center has everything you need to get your project done. Visit the Installation Resource Center to get started.


text:
LA Weekly waits for the New (Times) regime
Nobody seems to be sure how, or if, the LA Weekly will change under ownership of the New Times. According to an article at the Village Voice website, Voice CEO David Schneiderman claims that union contracts at the Weekly (and Voice) will be honored, despite the New Times organization not being unionized. In the LAT, LA Weekly EIC Laurie Ochoa is quoted as saying "there are definitely a range of reactions and emotions" about being acquired by New Times. I'll bet there are.
Anyway, it's going to take the DOJ several months to approve the transaction, so there's plenty of time for prognostication. We'll try to post about it at least two or three times a day.


text:
September 26, 2011 |
0 Comments
Try this version of Mimosa in your next romantic brunch.
Keep up to date on Adriana's Best Recipes in your favorite forum.
All original content and images in this site are protected and cannot be used for personal and or financial gain nor distributed in any platform without proper attribution and prior approval from the author. Copying, reblogging or "curating" of Adriana's Best Recipes original content and photographs is strictly prohibited. If interested in doing a feature of Adriana Martin's work, buying images, content or photographs property of Adriana Martin and this site please use the contact form for inquiries. Thanks for respecting this author's work and creativity. Copyright © 2011-2014 Adriana's Best Recipes. All rights reserved.
by Adriana Martin is licensed under a


text:
Why You're Getting Weird Questions at Job Interviews
NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- "Curveballs" just aren't for baseball players -- they can be for job interview applicants too.
Employers like to surprise job applicants with questions that can come out of nowhere and be downright weird in their phrasing -- making answering those questions more difficult, and maybe making it harder to land the job.
The job site Snagajob.com has a good handle on those questions. In a recent survey, the company asks: "What's the weirdest question you've ever been asked on a job interview?"
Here are some of the top responses:
- "If you were a breakfast cereal, what would you be and why?"
- "How would you explain what a chair is to an alien?"
- "If you could be a plant, what plant would you be?"
- "If you had to make a shoe with anything in this room, how would you make it?"
- "How would you explain Facebook (FB) to your grandma?"
- "Do you think there is any hope for mankind?"
- "If you were a fruit, what fruit would you be?"
Select the service that is right for you!COMPARE ALL SERVICES
Action Alerts PLUSTry it NOW
Jim Cramer and Stephanie Link actively manage a real portfolio and reveal their money management tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
- Weekly roundups
TheStreet Quant RatingsTry it NOW
Only $49.95/yr
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
- Upgrade/downgrade alerts
Stocks Under $10Try it NOW
David Peltier, uncovers low dollar stocks with extraordinary upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
- Weekly roundups
Dividend Stock AdvisorTry it NOW
Jim Cramer's protege, David Peltier, identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Alerts when market news affect the portfolio
- Bi-weekly updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Real Money ProTry it NOW
All of Real Money, plus 15 more of Wall Street's sharpest minds delivering actionable trading ideas, a comprehensive look at the market, and fundamental and technical analysis.
Product Features:
- Real Money + Doug Kass Plus 15 more Wall Street Pros
- Intraday commentary & news
- Ultra-actionable trading ideas
Options ProfitsTry it NOW
Our options trading pros provide daily market commentary and over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- 100+ monthly options trading ideas
- Actionable options commentary & news
- Real-time trading community
- Options TV


text:
15 Fashion Week-Tested, Lucky Editor-Approved Pairs of Comfortable Heels
Even with all the love our editors give flats around here (which, as you can see from this, this and this, is quite a lot), they can't deny the power of a great pair of heels. It's a shoe style guaranteed to make everyone look taller and leaner in a way that even the most flattering ballerinas can't, an instant confidence boost right before a big event, the difference between walking into a room and making an entrance. Who wouldn't endure a few measly blisters for all that?
Well, for starters, the 15 Lucky staffers in the slideshow above. Instead of suffering through long meeting, working lunches and after hours parties in pinchy, uncomfortable footwear, they've tracked down logic defyingly comfortable pumps and stiletto sandals that actually let them look and feel good*. Click through to see and shop 15 heels that won't hurt after five minutes (or five hours!).
*Or just refuse to change out of their sneakers altogether—see slide 14!


text:
Definitions for back away
This page provides all possible meanings and translations of the word back away
Princeton's WordNet
retreat, pull back, back out, back away, crawfish, crawfish out, pull in one's horns, withdraw(verb)
make a retreat from an earlier commitment or activity
"We'll have to crawfish out from meeting with him"; "He backed out of his earlier promise"; "The aggressive investment company pulled in its horns"
back away(Verb)
To move in a direction opposite where one is facing, keeping some (or most) of your attention on the thing in front being avoided.
Find a translation for the back away definition in other languages:
Select another language:
Discuss these back away definitions with the community:
Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:
"back away." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2014. <http://www.definitions.net/definition/back away>.


text:
Upcoming Events
Events List Navigation
Team Ethan Cincinnati Runs Thanksgiving Day Race!
Please join or sponsor Team Ethan as we run/walk Cincinnati's 104th Thanksgiving Day Race
The Race begins and ends at Paul Brown Stadium on Thanksgiving morning.
Tax Deductable Donations can be made at http://bit.ly/TeamEthanThxRun
Find out more »
Eighth Night for Ethan
Team Ethan Cincinnati
A Community Hanukkah Celebration & Fundraising Event with Special Guest Dan Nichols
To Benefit the Great Lakes Catastrophic Injury Fund
Join us at Eighth Night for Ethan as we celebrate the successes that Ethan has made so far and the hope for his continued recovery. We will light a blue candle for Ethan and give tzedakah to assist with his care. Young people are encouraged to forego family gifts on the eighth night and bring in filled tzedakah cans while parents will have the opportunity …
Find out more »
Road to Ethan…
Documentary Film Screening & Musical Performance to HelpHOPELive for Ethan Kadish
Road to Eden: Rock & Roll Sukkot: One man's music. One people's mission. Dan Nichols and his band, Ei8hteen, embarked on a tour of to celebrate the meaning of Sukkot. Along to film was Doug Passon who created a full-length documentary showcasing the road trip and shining a light on the deeper meaning of Sukkot–realizing the fragility of life, living fully in the moment, and not forgetting what's really important.
Movie followed by a musical performance …
Find out more »
Kadish Chazak Cleveland Concert
HelpHOPELive - join us at Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple for a benefit featuring amazing talented young people in Greater Cleveland, all to support Ethan Kadish, who continues to recover from a catastrophic injury due to a lightning strike at camp last summer. Sunday, February 9, you can support this effort by joining us in the evening for this event, or by visiting California Pizza Kitchen at Legacy Village by printing a copy of the …
Find out more »
Join Team Ethan for a Virtual Valentine's Dinner!
You know you don't want to get all dressed up to go out for a fancy dinner and a show on
Valentine's Day. It's the end of the week and you'd rather stay home, right?
How about staying in and eating a pizza, watching something on Netflix (snuggled up to
your Sweetie if you have one) and send the money you save to HelpHOPELive to help
with Ethan's uninsured expenses.
Find out more »
Skyline Chili Fundraiser
Please STOP BY SKYLINE CHILI in Blue Ash as many times as you like between March 3-23rd with this flyer or mention the fundraiser for Ethan and 20% of your bill will be donated to help Ethan and the Kadish family!! Please help the triplet's camp friend and enjoy a great meal! #TriMitzvah #HelpHOPELive #EthanKadish
Find out more »
5K Fun Run/Walk
Find out more »


text:
Post a comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
« Chapter 1: The Letter | Main | "Tenting Tonight on the Old Campground" »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Did you make or find this video?
The song was very intresting and the lyrics were very good.I liked the picture of the men playing the banjo also.
I like the banjo a lot, it makes the song a lot better. Very historic.
I found that one. Somebody did a really good job,didn't they? This was a very popular song (and it will be mentioned in the story later), and I wanted to show actual pictures to help kids get a sense of what the war was like.
Glad you guys liked it!
I found this video very interesting.The music made it all come together.
This Was A Fantastic Vidio!
Mike Peterson i have a question?How many serial stories have you wrote in your life??!!..
Sorry I didn't see this before, Dylan. About a dozen, I guess.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.


text:
Processing Time - Orders typically ship in 2-5 business days. Transit via UPS Ground can take up to 6 business days. Braided and custom-made products may take 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.
Free Shipping to Contiguous United States - We do not ship to Alaska, Hawaii or the Caribbean Islands at this time.
Oversized items - Orders that ship freight may take up to 2 weeks from shipment date to be delivered. You will be contacted by the trucking company to schedule a delivery appointment.
Shipping to Canada - Orders shipping to Canada will be subject to a 15% shipping surcharge fee. The shipping surcharge does not cover duties, customs, taxes or brokerage fees which may be charged to you by the shipping courier at time of delivery. At this time we are not shipping to Yukon and the Northwest Territories in Canada.
|Pin It
Rugs USA Couture Fall Leaves Teal Rug
Item #: 200SEMA66A-P Add to Wishlist
Features: This product has the following features:
- Collection: Couture
- Brand: Rugs USA
- Material: 100% Wool
- Weave: Hand Tufted
- Styles: Contemporary Rugs
- Origin: India
- Available in the following sizes: 5' x 8' and 7' 6" x 9' 6"
- Clean & Care: Vacuum regularly as new wool rugs can shed yarn fibers for up to three months. Avoid direct and continuous exposure to sunlight. Do not pull loose ends, clip them with scissors to remove. Clean liquid spills immediately by blotting with cloth or sponge. For hard to remove stains, professional rug cleaning is recommended.
Price: $625 - $1,167
This rug is beautiful, thick, and has great colors. Way better than expected and just the right amount of pop of color I wanted under my drab brown couch. Color is what it looks like here beautiful teal!RECOMMENDED: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
I bought this rug on sale and it is a great buy. It ties everything in the den together.RECOMMENDED: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
Beautiful rug, great quality, fast processing and delivery!RECOMMENDED: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
I read all the reviews before I bought this rug and I just couldn't believe that EVERYONE loved this rug so much, but with no bad reviews and the fact that I loved it (online,) I went ahead and bought it. Oh. My. Goodness! I LOVE this rug. It's even prettier in person and it's THICK and cozy. I absolutely love this rug. There isn't a single thing I'd change about it!RECOMMENDED: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
The rug is fantastic. I am very happy with the look and feel of it. It Although the rug did arrive within 10 days of purchase, the communication from RugsUSA.com was not consistent. First, I was informed that the rug was on back order, then the next day I received a UPS tracking # stating that the rug had shipped. Considering the Free Shipping, I can't really complain. It it wasn't for the free shipping, I probably would not have purchased it. * a note to RUGS USA: UPS dropped the rug at the front door and left. The driver did not even wait to see if we were home. Luckily we were, since it was raining particularly hard that day. Otherwise we would have come home to find a wet, soggy rug.RECOMMENDED: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
I love this rug!!! It is soft & the color is beautiful. It arrived within 2 weeks of ordering.RECOMMENDED: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
I love the bright bold color against my hardwood floor. I also selected this rug for the modern contemporary design. I'm very pleased. It makes a real impact statement in my dining room.RECOMMENDED: Yes, I would recommend this to a friend.
Fill out the information below.


text:
Wednesday, March 19 17:14:29
AIB has agreed 100 deals with mortgage holders that have involved some form of debt write-off, according to the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation (IMHO) this afternoon.
It also said one of the agreements has seen a Cork family get a E195,000 write-off of their debt. The family had borrowed E478,000 and will remain in their home.
The family will now have to service a mortgage of E200,000 and the balance of their borrowings will be warehoused or put to one side.
The deal is believed to be one of the largest mortgage write-downs agreed by the lender.
"There's been a monumental upsurge in activity" related to mortgage debt, the IMHO's David Hall said.
"After six years of banks doing nothing, we have banks doing a combination of good and bad things from repossessions to restructuring deals."
He said his organisation was dealing with just over 2,000 clients from AIB or its building society EBS as well as 360 KBC bank customers.
However, he said hundreds of customers were agreeing debt write-down deals with the bank independently of the brokerages.
AIB recently announced a new split-mortgage product involving some form of automatic debt write-down.
Under the deal, eligible customers will have their loan broken into three tranches.
The first part, which the customer will be expected to repay, will be based on the current market value of their home, while another will be warehoused, interest free, for settlement at a later date, with a final tranche being written off.


text:
MobileTechReview News, Reviews and Forums
Notebooks & Tablets
iPhone & iPad
Video Reviews
You are not logged in. [
MobileTechReview Forums Home
Today's Active Topics
Who's Online
General Discussions
Tong Zhang
Senior Editor
Reged: 06/26/02
Posts: 12827
Loc: Texas
BlackBerry Introduces BlackBerry Z30 Smartphone with 5" Display
Quick Reply
BlackBerry today introduced the new BlackBerry Z30 smartphone, BlackBerry's biggest, fastest and most advanced smartphone. Featuring BlackBerry 10 OS version 10.2, the new all-touch BlackBerry Z30 smartphone comes with a beautiful 5" display and the largest battery yet on a BlackBerry smartphone. Here are the details:
The new BlackBerry Z30 smartphone comes with BlackBerry 10 OS version 10.2, which includes hundreds of refinements plus many new features that help you be more productive. Among key features are:
BlackBerry Priority Hub - BlackBerry Hub is the one place to manage all your conversations and notifications. The new BlackBerry Priority Hub can now learn what conversations and what people are important to you making it fast and easy to find the messages and information you need. It collects priority messages across your email, social networking and other accounts and gives you instant access to the conversations most important to you to help you stay organized and focused on the most important tasks.
BBM Now in Any App and Message Previews Everywhere - BlackBerry 10 OS version 10.2 continues to refine the unique communications experience of the platform. You can now get a preview of any message as it arrives in whatever app you're using, and immediately dismiss it or tap it to read the full content and respond. If a BBM message arrives, you can instantly reply to the message without even leaving the app you're in. In addition, if your phone is locked, you can tap the various icons on the Lock Screen to see an instant preview of your most recent messages and notifications.
5" Super AMOLED Display - The BlackBerry Z30 smartphone features the latest in display technology with a 5" Super AMOLED display that makes whatever you're running larger, clearer and more vivid. The smartphone also houses many top of the line components, including a 1.7 GHz processor with quadcore graphics that makes browsing web pages faster and games more detailed.
Stereo Audio and BlackBerry Natural Sound - The BlackBerry Z30 smartphone comes with stereo speakers that immerse you in your music, videos, apps and games, and makes conversations sound like you're face-to-face. BlackBerry Natural Sound is new technology exclusive to BlackBerry and part of BlackBerry 10 OS version 10.2 that makes BBM Voice and BBM Video chats sound more natural and realistic. BlackBerry Natural Sound lets you hear nuances and variations in tone, making conversations sound like you're in the same room.
New Antenna Technology - The BlackBerry Z30 smartphone features BlackBerry's new generation antenna technology that dynamically tunes reception to give you better connectivity in low signal areas. BlackBerry Paratek Antenna can give you faster data transfers and fewer dropped calls in low signal areas, keeping you connected in more places.
Longer Battery Life - The BlackBerry Z30 smartphone includes a 2880 mAh battery, the largest battery ever built into a BlackBerry smartphone. Combined with the battery enhancements in BlackBerry 10 OS version 10.2, you can get up to 25 hours of mixed use to keep you moving from dawn 'til dawn.
The BlackBerry Z30 smartphone will roll out from select carriers and retailers around the world beginning next week in the UK and Middle East, and all other regions going into the holiday season. Specific pricing and availability will be announced by partners at the time of their respective launches. A variety of accessories including cases and chargers will also be available.
Subject to carrier approvals, BlackBerry 10 OS version 10.2 is expected to be available for the BlackBerry Z10, BlackBerry Q10 and BlackBerry Q5 smartphones beginning mid-October.
Check out our latest smartphone reviews:
LG G2 Video Review
Motorola Droid Maxx Video Review
Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 Video Review
Moto X Review
Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 Video Review
Motorola Droid Ultra Video Review
Nokia Lumia 1020 Review
BlackBerry Q10 Review
Samsung Galaxy S4 Active Review
MTR News
Post Extras
Entire topic
Posted by
Posted on
BlackBerry Introduces BlackBerry Z30 Smartphone with 5" Display
Tong Zhang
Extra information
0 registered and 51 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Tong Zhang
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
Thread views: 2686
Rate this thread
Choose rating
1 star
2 star
3 star
4 star
5 star
Jump to
*General Discussions* -----
What Should I Buy?
Ask Us!
Tips and How To's
Announcements & Press Releases
eBook Readers
*Wireless and Mobile Phones* -----
Phones (regular phones not smartphones)
RIM BlackBerry
Palm webOS Smartphones
Windows Phone
Android Phones and Tablets
Symbian and Maemo Smartphones
iPhone and iPad - Apple iOS Devices
802.11b / WiFi cards and networking
*Windows Mobile, Pocket PCs* -----
Pocket PC General Discussion
Dell Pocket PC
HP iPAQ Pocket PC
Toshiba Pocket PC
Pocket PC Software
*Palm OS PDAs* -----
Palm Inc.
Sony Clie
Palm Software
*Notebooks* -----
Tablet Computers
*The Blogger's Corner* -----
Tanker Bob's Blog
*Games* -----
iPhone, iPad and Phone Games
Palm & PPC Games!
Games Walkthroughs
*Other Gadgets* -----
iPod and iPhone Blog
Contact the Folks at MobileTechReview.com
Privacy statement
Go to mobiletechreview.com homepage
Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


text:
Dimplex Upton Glass Ember Electric Fireplace - Espresso Model:GDS25G1253E
Usually Ships in 2 - 3 Business Days (details)
Description & HighlightsBe the first to Write a Review
Dimplex Upton Glass Ember Electric Fireplace - Espresso
A truly unique focal point for any dining or living room, the Dimplex Upton Glass Ember Electric Fireplace (GDS25G1253E) is a thoughtfully designed multipurpose piece. The electric fireplace is housed in a traditional style server, with raised panel display doors, shelves, cabinet storage, and stiletto style legs. Behind each door is storage space with an adjustable shelf that can be used to organize and display china, dinnerware, and collectables.
The electric fireplace showcases Dimplex's patented lifelike flame effect that features eye catching glass embers. You can control the fire and flames with the remote control and it can be operated with or without heat for year round use. Safe, clean, electric operation, the fireplace can be run for mere pennies a day making it a great source for supplemental heat.
Multi Purpose:Styled as a traditional server, the Upton offers cabinet storage and display shelves along side the firebox for a truly unique piece
Remote Control:The included remote control allows you to switch the entire unit on or off from anywhere in the room without getting up from your seat
Unsurpassed Realism:Dimplex's patented life-like flame effect gives the fire depth and dancing flames, something you can only get from Dimplex, inventor of the modern electric fireplace
Specifications & Manuals
- Model: GDS25G1253E
- Brand: Dimplex
- Traditional server
- Cabinet storage
- Shelves
- Raised panel doors
- Stiletto style legs
- Thermostat control
- Warranty: 2 years limited
- Dimplex Upton Glass Ember Electric Fireplace
- BTUs: 3,000
- On/off remote control
- Patented life-like flame effect
- Glass embers
- Operates with or without heat
- Input voltage: 120 V/60 Hz
- Weight: 41.6 lbs
- Dimensions: 36.25" H x 61.06" W x 16.7" D
Owners Manuals:
You may download a product owner's manual below:
**Please note, Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view pdf files


text:
Shanda Sumpter is an amazing coach! She is not only helping me make more money but she is helping me truly become a PRO. - Nicole Moore
I only had a brief conversation with Shanda yesterday and not only did I learn something I also got a lovely kick in the butt! - Sheri Bodnaruk


text:
super bowl - Page 5
Man Runs Over His Television After It Goes Out During Super Bowl XLVI [VIDEO]
So what happens when one man's television goes out during the Super Bowl? I think you may know the answer, but let us show you firsthand so that you can believe it. This is a local video that is about to go viral and it shows how one local gentleman fixed the problem when his television kept going out during Super Bowl XLVI.
Did M.I.A.'s Middle Finger Write A Check That Her Bank Account Can't Cash?
In the days leading up to Super Bowl XLVI everyone was anxious to see what Madonna would have in store for her highly anticipated halftime performance. What we didn't know is that on Monday we would all be talking about something that we would have probably never noticed unless it was brought to our attention.
Were You Offended By M.I.A.'s Gesture During The Halftime Show?? [POLL]
Chris Reed's Top-3 Favorite Super Bowl XLVI Commercials [VIDEO]
While I rate the overall performance of all the Super Bowl commercials as a "C+," there were a few commercials that really stuck out for me. The goal of all these advertisers is for their commercial to stand out amongst the rest, and these three in my opinion are the ones that won on Sunday night.
Super Bowl XLVI Recap: Giants Rally To Beat Patriots 21-17 In Thrilling Super Bowl
Game MVP Eli Manning led an 88-yard, go-ahead touchdown drive late in the fourth quarter, and the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots 21-17 to win Super Bowl XLVI on Sunday
The Top 10 People You Don't Want At Your Super Bowl Party
The Superbowl is nearly upon us, and for millions of Americans that means one thing, Superbowl parties. Soon, living rooms will around the country will be filled up with chicken wings, assorted dips, and football fans.
Super Bowl Commercial Leaked [VIDEO]
With the Super Bowl coming up around the corner everyone is getting ready for the big day. New Orleans unfortunately isn't in it, but you still have to get everything ready for those in-laws you really don't like. Probably the BIGGEST thing about the Super Bowl is that everyone looks forward to, besides the games itself, is the...........you guessed it.........COMMERCIALS!!!!!
Saints Fans Invade Green Bay in NFL Opening Kickoff Commercial [VIDEO]
A month ago most of us were wondering if we would even have NFL football this season. Fortunately, an agreement was reached, and since then NFL football is in overdrive as we are rounding out preseason and gearing up for the kickoff of the regular season. NBC has dropped a commercial that sets the stage perfectly for the NFL season opener, Thursday, September 9, 2011 between the 2009 Super Bowl Champion New Orleans Saints and the defending 2010 Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers.
5 Reasons The New Orleans Saints Get Back to the Super Bowl in 2011
The 2011 NFL lockout has already made the 2011 NFL season interesting and no one has even played a regular game yet. Because of the lockout restricting all NFL business for the majority of the off season, teams have only had a few weeks to take care of things that are normally spre


text: Austin, J. Paul Unknown Business and finance--Georgia--Atlanta Business people--Georgia--Atlanta Industry--Georgia--Atlanta Suits (Clothing)--1980-1990 Austin, J. Paul (1915-1985) Coca-Cola Company Austin, J. Paul, Coca-Cola C.E.O. Portrait of Coca-Cola CEO J. Paul Austin. Local identification number: VIS 158.03.07 J. Paul Austin (1915 - 1985) was Coca-Cola's third CEO. He was instrumental in building Coke's international presence by developing an exclusive agreement to market Coca-Cola in China in 1978. Local identification number: ahc158003007a.jpg Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30305 Atlanta History Center 2009 StillImage Photographs http://collections.atlantahistorycenter.com/u?/southline,156 8 x 10 in. silver gelatin print image/jpeg Southline Press, Inc. Photographs, Atlanta History Center 1984 Georgia This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required.


text:
Theo Ratliff
Theophilus Curtis Ratliff (born April 17, 1973), better known as Theo Ratliff, is an American former professional basketball player who last played with the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers. Primarily a center, he was an excellent shot-blocker who has led the league three times in blocks per game. As of 2011, he is ranked 18th all-time in career blocks, and 13th all-time in career blocks per game. Ratliff was selected with the 18th pick of the 1995 NBA Draft by the Detroit Pistons, for whom he played for 2½ seasons. During the 1997–98 season he was traded to the Philadelphia 76ers. He played in Philadelphia for three seasons, and was voted Eastern Conference starting center of the 2001 All-Star Game, but was unable to play due to injury. He was a key fixture on the 2000–01 team that made it to the NBA finals, but an injured Ratliff was dealt at the trading deadline to the Atlanta Hawks for Dikembe Mutombo. He missed most of the next season due to injury, but rebounded to post 262 blocks the next year with the Hawks. His best year as a pro was 2003–04, when he recorded a league-leading 307 blocked shots. During that season he was dealt to the Portland Trail Blazers, along with Shareef  ( Wikipedia article )
Personal facts
- Date of birth
- 1973-04-17
- Place of birth
- Demopolis
- Nationality
- United States of America
- Parents
- Camilla Ratliff
- Spouse(s)
- Kristina Ratliff
- Children
- Sasha Ratliff Yasmeen Ratliff Adonis Ratliff Alexis Ratliff Darius Ratliff Stacia Ratliff
- Siblings
- Tim Ratliff Thad Ratliff
- Profession
- Basketball player
|University of Wyoming
Athlete facts
- Sports
- Basketball