text:
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (92-1750), 510 U.S. 517 (1994).
[ Rehnquist ]
WordPerfect version HTML version
WordPerfect version
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
JOHN C. FOGERTY, PETITIONER v. FANTASY, INC.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[March 1, 1994]
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 505 provides in relevant part that in any copyright infringement action "the court may . . . award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." [n.1] The question presented in this case is what standards should inform a court's decision to award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in a copyright infringement action--a question that has produced conflicting views in the Courts of Appeals.
Petitioner John Fogerty is a successful musician, who, in the late 1960's, was the lead singer and songwriter of a popular music group known as "Creedence Clearwater Revival." [n.2] In 1970, he wrote a song entitled "RunThrough the Jungle" and sold the exclusive publishing rights to predecessors in interest of respondent Fantasy, Inc., who later obtained the copyright by assignment. The music group disbanded in 1972 and Fogerty subsequently published under another recording label. In 1985, he published and registered a copyright to a song entitled "The Old Man Down the Road," which was released on an album distributed by Warner Brothers Records, Inc. Respondent Fantasy, Inc., sued Fogerty, Warner Brothers, and affiliated companies, [n.3] in District Court, alleging that "The Old Man Down the Road" was merely "Run Through the Jungle" with new words. [n.4] The copyright infringement claim went to trial and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Fogerty.
After his successful defense of the action, Fogerty moved for reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The District Court denied the motion, finding that Fantasy's infringement suit was not brought frivolously or in bad faith as required by circuit precedent for an award of attorney's fees to a successful defendant. [n.5] The Court of Appeals affirmed, 984 F. 2d1524 (CA9 1993), and declined to abandon the existing Ninth Circuit standard for awarding attorney's fees which treats successful plaintiffs and successful defendants differently. Under that standard, commonly termed the "dual" standard, prevailing plaintiffs are generally awarded attorney's fees as a matter of course, while prevailing defendants must show that the original suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith. [n.6] In contrast, some courts of appeals follow the so called "evenhanded" approach in which no distinction is made between prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants. [n.7] TheCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for example, has ruled that "we do not require bad faith, nor do we mandate an allowance of fees as a concomitant of prevailing in every case, but we do favor an evenhanded approach." Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc., 788 F. 2d 151, 156 (CA3 1986).
We granted certiorari, 509 U. S. ___ (1993), to address an important area of federal law and to resolve the conflict between the Ninth Circuit's "dual" standard for awarding attorney's fees under §505, and the so called "evenhanded" approach exemplified by the Third Circuit. [n.8] We reverse.
Respondent advances three arguments in support of the dual standard followed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case. First, it contends that the language of § 505, when read in the light of our decisions construing similar fee shifting language, supports the rule. Second, it asserts that treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently comports with the "objectives" and "equitable considerations" underlying the Copyright Act as a whole. Finally, respondent contends that the legislative history of § 505 indicates that Congress ratified the dual standard whichit claims was "uniformly" followed by the lower courts under identical language in the 1909 Copyright Act. We address each of these arguments in turn.
The statutory language--%the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs"--gives no hint that successful plaintiffs are to be treated differently than successful defendants. But respondent contends that our decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), in which we construed virtually identical language, supports a differentiation in treatment between plaintiffs and defendants.
Christiansburg construed the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which in relevant part provided that the court "in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). We had earlier held, interpreting the cognate provision of Title II of that Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b), that a prevailing plaintiff "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless some special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968). This decision was based on what we found to be the important policy objectives of the Civil Rights statutes, and the intent of Congress to achieve such objectives through the use of plaintiffs as " `private attorney[s] general.' " Ibid. In Christiansburg, supra, we determined that the same policy considerations were not at work in the case of a prevailing civil rights defendant. We noted that a Title VII plaintiff, like a Title II plaintiff in Piggie Park, is "the chosen instrument of Congress to vindicate `a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.' " 434 U. S., at 418. We also relied on the admittedly sparse legislative history to indicate that different standards were to be applied to successful plaintiffs than to successful defendants.
Respondent points to our language in Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758, n. 2 (1989), that "fee shifting statutes' similar language is a `strong indication' that they are to be interpreted alike." But here we think this normal indication is overborne by the factors relied upon in our Christiansburg opinion which are absent in the case of the Copyright Act. [n.9] The legislative history of § 505 provides no support for treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently with respect to the recovery of attorney's fees. The attorney's fees provision § 505 of the 1976 Act was carried forward verbatim from the 1909 Act with very little discussion. [n.10] The relevant House Report provides simply:
"Under section 505 the awarding of costs and attorney's fees are left to the court's discretion, and the section also makes clear that neither costs nor attorney's fees can be awarded to or against `the United States or an officer thereof.' " H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 163 (1976). [n.11]
See also, S. Rep. No. 94-473, p. 145 (1975) (same). Other courts and commentators have noted the paucity of legislative history of § 505. See, e. g., Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 617 F. Supp. 619, 621 (ED Va. 1985), aff'd on other grounds, 788 F. 2d 247 (CA4 1986). See also Jaszi, 505 And All That--The Defendant's Dilemma, 55 Law & Contemp. Prob. 107, 107-108, and nn. 1, 2 (1992).
The goals and objectives of the two Acts are likewise not completely similar. Oftentimes, in the civil rights context, impecunious "private attorney general" plaintiffs can ill afford to litigate their claims against defendants with more resources. Congress sought to redress this balance in part, and to provide incentives for the bringing of meritorious lawsuits, by treating successful plaintiffs more favorably than successful defendants in terms of the award of attorney's fees. The primary objective of the Copyright Act is to encourage the production of original literary, artistic, and musical expression for the good of the public. See, infra, at 9-10. In the copyright context, it has been noted that "[e]ntities which sue for copyright infringement as plaintiffs can run the gamut from corporate behemoths to starving artists; the same is true of prospective copyright infringement defendants." Cohen, supra, at 622-623.
We thus conclude that respondent's argument based on our fee shifting decisions under the Civil Rights Act must fail. [n.12]
Respondent next argues that the policies and objectives of § 505 and of the Copyright Act in general are best served by the "dual approach" to the award of attorney's fees. [n.13] The most common reason advanced in support of the dual approach is that, by awarding attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs as a matter of course, it encourages litigation of meritorious claims of copyright infringement. See, e. g., McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F. 2d 316, 323 (CA9 1987) ("[b]ecause section 505 is intended in part to encourage the assertion of colorable copyright claims, to deter infringement, and to make the plaintiff whole, fees are generally awarded to a prevailing plaintiff") (citations omitted); Diamond v. Am Law Publishing Corp., 745 F. 2d 142, 148 (CA2 1984) (same). Indeed, respondent relies heavily on this argument. We think the argument is flawed because it expresses a one sided view of the purposes of the Copyright Act. While it is true that oneof the goals of the Copyright Act is to discourage infringement, it is by no means the only goal of that Act. In the first place, it is by no means always the case that the plaintiff in an infringement action is the only holder of a copyright; often times, defendants hold copyrights too, as exemplified in the case at hand. See, Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc., 788 F. 2d, at 155 (noting that "in many cases the defendants are the [copyright] holders").
More importantly, the policies served by the Copyright Act are more complex, more measured, than simply maximizing the number of meritorious suits for copyright infringement. The Constitution grants to Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). For example, in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975), we discussed the policies underlying the 1909 Copyright Act as follows:
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an `author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." (Footnotes omitted.)
We reiterated this theme in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-350 (1991), where we said:
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but `[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work." (Citations omitted.)
Because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. To that end, defendants who seek to advance a variety of meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious claims of infringement. In the case before us, the successful defense of "The Old Man Down the Road" increased public exposure to a musical work that could, as a result, lead to further creative pieces. Thus a successful defense of a copyright infringement action may further the policies of the Copyright Act every bit as much as a successful prosecution of an infringement claim by the holder of a copyright.
Respondent finally urges that the legislative history supports the dual standard, relying on the principle of ratification. See, Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978) ("Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re enacts a statute without change . . ."). Respondent surveys the great number of lower court cases interpreting the identical
provision in the 1909 Act, 17 U.S.C. § 116 (1976 ed.), and asserts that "it was firmly established" that prevailing defendants should be awarded attorney's fees only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous or brought with a vexatious purpose. Brief for Respondent 40-45. Furthermore, respondent claims that Congress was aware of this construction of former § 116 because of two Copyright Studies submitted to Congress when studying revisions to the Act. W. Strauss, Damage Provisions of the Copyright Law, Study No. 22 (hereinafter Strauss Study), and R. Brown, Operation of the Damage Provisions of the Copyright Law: An Exploratory Study, Study No. 23 (hereinafter Brown Study), Studies Prepared for Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. Judiciary Comm. Print 1960).
Before turning to the import of the two studies and the cases decided under the 1909 Act, we summarize briefly the factual background of Lorillard, whence comes the statement upon which respondents rely. There the question was whether there was a right to jury trial in an action for lost wages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967. In enacting that statute, Congress provided, inter alia, that the provisions of the ADEA were to be "enforced in accordance with the `powers, remedies and procedures' " of specified sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 81 Stat. 604, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Lorillard, 434 U. S., at 580. In the three decided cases which had treated the right to jury trial under the FLSA, each court had decided that there was such a right. In enacting the ADEA, "Congress exhibited both a detailed knowledge of the FLSA provisions and their judicial interpretation and a willingness to depart from those provisions regarded as undesirable or inappropriate for incorporation." Id., at 581.
Here, by contrast, the Strauss and Brown Copyright Studies deal only briefly with the provision for theaward of attorney's fees. In the Strauss Study, the limited discussion begins with a quote to A. Weil, American Copyright Law 530-531 (1917) for an explanation of the "discretionary awarding of attorney's fees":
" `The amount of money frequently involved in copyright letigation [sic], especially on the part of the defendant is trifling. The expense of any letigation [sic] is considerable. Unless, therefore, some provision is made for financial protection to a litigant, if successful, it may not pay a party to defend rights, even if valid, a situation opposed to justice . . . . It is increasingly recognized that the person who forces another to engage counsel to vindicate, or defend, a right should bear the expense of such engagement and not his successful opponent . . . .' " Strauss Study 31.
The study then notes that the pending bills contemplate no change in the attorney's fees provision and concludes with the simple statement "[t]he cases indicate thatthis discretion has been judiciously exercised by the courts." Ibid. [n.14] This limited discussion of attorney'sfees surely does not constitute an endorsement of a dual standard.
The Brown Study was intended as a supplement to the Strauss Study and, inter alia, provides information from a survey distributed to practitioners about the practical workings of the 1909 Copyright Act. [n.15] It also does not endorse a standard of treating prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently. At one point, the study notes that "courts do not usually make an allowance at all if an unsuccessful plaintiff's claim was not `synthetic, capricious or otherwise unreasonable,' or if the losing defendant raised real issues of fact or law." Brown Study 85. [n.16]
Our review of the prior case law itself leads us to conclude that there was no settled "dual standard" interpretation of former § 116 about which Congress could have been aware. We note initially that at least one reported case stated no reason in awarding attorney's fees to successful defendants. See, e. g., Marks v. Leo Feist, Inc., 8 F. 2d 460, 461 (CA2 1925) (noting that the Copyright Act gave courts "absolute discretion," the court awarded attorney's fees to prevailing defendant after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed suit). More importantly, while it appears that the majority of lower courts exercised their discretion in awarding attorney's fees to prevailing defendants based on a finding of frivolousness or bad faith, not all courts expressly described the test in those terms. [n.17] In fact,only one pre-1976 case expressly endorsed a dual standard. Breffort v. I Had a Ball Co., 271 F. Supp. 623 (SDNY 1967). [n.18] This is hardly the sort of uniform construction which Congress might have endorsed.
In summary, neither of the two studies presented to Congress, nor the cases referred to by the studies, support respondent's view that there was a settled construction in favor of the "dual standard" under § 116 of the 1909 Copyright Act.
We thus reject each of respondent's three arguments in support of the dual standard. We now turn to petitioner's argument that § 505 was intended to adopt the "British Rule." Petitioner argues that, consistent with the neutral language of § 505, both prevailing plaintiffs and defendants should be awarded attorney's fees as a matter of course, absent exceptional circumstances. For two reasons we reject this argument for the British Rule.
First, just as the plain language of § 505 supports petitioner's claim for disapproving the dual standard, it cuts against him in arguing for the British Rule. The statute says that "the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." The word "may" clearly connotes discretion. The automatic awarding of attorney's fees to the prevailing party would pretermit the exercise of that discretion.
Second, we are mindful that Congress legislates against the strong background of the American Rule. Unlike Britain where counsel fees are regularly awarded to the prevailing party, it is the general rule in this country that unless Congress provides otherwise, parties are to bear their own attorney's fees. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 247-262 (1975) (tracing the origins and development of the American Rule); Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U. S., at 758. While § 505 is one situation in which Congress has modified the American Rule to allow an award of attorney's fees in the court's discretion, we find it impossible to believe that Congress, without more, intended to adopt the British Rule. Such a bold departure from traditional practice would have surely drawn more explicit statutory language and legislative comment. Cf., Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952) ("Statutes which invade the common law . . . are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident"). Not surprisingly, no court has held that § 505 (or its predecessor statute) adopted the British Rule.
Thus we reject both the "dual standard" adopted by several of the Courts of Appeals, and petitioner's claim that § 505 enacted the British Rule for automatic recovery of attorney's fees by the prevailing party. Prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants are to be treated alike, but attorney's fees are to be awarded toprevailing parties only as a matter of the court's discretion. "There is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations," but instead equitable discretion should be exercised "in light of the considerations we have identified." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436-437 (1983). [n.19] Because the Court of Appeals erroneously held petitioner, the prevailing defendant, to a more stringent standard than that applicable to a prevailing plaintiff, its judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1 The section provides in full: "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." 17 U.S.C. § 505.
2 Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR), recently inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, has been recognized as one of the greatest American rock and roll groups of all time. With Fogerty as
its leader, CCR developed a distinctive style of music, dubbed "swamp rock" by the media due to its southern country and blues feel. Brief for Petitioner 4-5; see also, Questions and Answers with John Fogerty, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 12, 1993, section F, p. 1,col. 2.
3 Pursuant to an agreement between Fogerty and the Warner defendants, Fogerty indemnified and reimbursed the Warner defendants for their attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending the copyright infringement action. Brief for Petitioner 4, n. 3.
4 In addition to the copyright infringement claim, Fantasy asserted state law and Lanham Act claims. These claims were voluntarily dismissed before trial. Petitioner also asserted various counterclaims against Fantasy, which were ultimately dismissed on Fantasy's motion for summary judgment. These related claims and counterclaims are not before this Court.
5 In making its findings, the District Court stated: "Although the
facts of this case did not present the textbook scenario of copyright infringement, the Court has held that Fogerty could indeed be held liable for copyright infringement even where he also wrote the song allegedly infringed. . . . Nor does Fantasy's `knowledge of Fogerty's creativity' mean that this suit was brought in bad faith, where a finding of subconscious copying would have supported Fantasy's infringement claim." App. to Pet. for Cert. A-31 (internal citation omitted).
6 By predicating an award of attorney's fees to prevailing defendants on a showing of bad faith or frivolousness on the part of plaintiffs, the "dual" standard makes it more difficult for prevailing defendants to secure awards of attorney's fees than prevailing plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit has explained that prevailing plaintiffs, on the other hand, should generally receive such awards absent special circumstances such as "the presence of a complex or novel issue of law that the defendant litigates vigorously and in good faith . . . ." McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F. 2d 316, 323 (CA9 1987). In the instant case, the Court of Appeals explained: %The purpose of [the dual standard] rule is to avoid chilling a copyright holder's incentive to sue on colorable claims, and thereby to give full effect to the broad protection for copyrights intended by the Copyright Act." 984 F. 2d, at 1532.
7 At oral argument, counsel for respondent voiced his dissatisfaction with the terms "dual" and "evenhanded" used to describe the differing rules in the Circuits. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. Counsel objected to the implication from the terms--that the Ninth Circuit's dual standard was somehow not evenhanded or fair. While this point may be well taken in a rhetorical sense, we will continue to use the terms as commonly used by the lower courts for the sake of convenience.
8 In addition to the Ninth Circuit, the Second, Seventh, and District of Columbia Circuits have adopted a "dual" standard of awarding attorney's fees whereby a greater burden is placed upon prevailing defendants than prevailing plaintiffs. See, e. g., Diamond v. Am Law Publishing Corp., 745 F. 2d 142, 148-149 (CA2 1984); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 925 F. 2d 1010, 1022 (CA7), cert. denied, 502 U. S. ___ (1991); Reader's Digest Assn., Inc. v. Conservative Digest, Inc., 821 F. 2d 800, 809 (CADC 1987). On the other hand, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have been identified as following an "evenhanded" approach similar to that of the Third Circuit. See, e. g., Sherry Manufacturing Co. v. Towel King of Florida, Inc., 822 F. 2d 1031, 1034-1035, n. 3 (CA11 1987); Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 617 F. Supp. 619, 620-623 (ED Va. 1985), aff'd on other grounds, 788 F. 2d 247 (CA4 1986).
9 Additionally, we note that Congress, in enacting § 505 of the 1976 Copyright Act, could not have been aware of the Christiansburg dual standard as Christiansburg was not decided until 1978.
10 For the former provision under the Copyright Act of 1909, see 17 U.S.C. § 116 (1976 ed.).
11 The 1976 Copyright did change, however, the standard for awarding costs to the prevailing party. The 1909 Act provided a mandatory rule that "full costs shall be allowed." 17 U.S.C. § 116 (1976 ed.) (emphasis added). The 1976 Act changed the rule from a mandatory one to one of discretion. As the 1909 Act indicates, Congress clearly knows how to use mandatory language when it so desires. That Congress did not amend the neutral language of the 1909 rule respecting attorney's fees lends further support to the plain language of § 505--district courts are to use their discretion in awarding attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party.
12 We note that the federal fee shifting statutes in the patent and trademark fields, which are more closely related to that of copyright, support a party neutral approach. Those statutes contain language similar to that of § 505, with the added proviso that fees are only to be awarded in "exceptional cases." 35 U.S.C. § 285 (patent) ("The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party"); 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (trademark) (same). Consistent with the party neutral language, courts have generally awarded attorney's fees in an evenhanded manner based on the same criteria. For patent, see e. g., Eltech Systems Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 903 F. 2d 805, 811 (CA Fed. 1990) ("[T]here is and should be no difference in the standards applicable to patentees and infringers who engage in bad faith litigation"). For trademark, see, e. g., Motown Productions, Inc. v. Cacomm, Inc., 849 F. 2d 781, 786 (CA2 1988) (exceptional circumstances include cases in which losing party prosecuted or defended action in bad faith); but see, Scotch Whisky Assn. v. Majestic Distilling Co., 958 F. 2d 594, 599 (CA4) (finding in the legislative history that prevailing defendants are to be treated more favorably than prevailing plaintiffs), cert. denied, 506 U. S. ___ (1992).
13 Respondent points to four important interests allegedly advanced by the dual standard: (1) it promotes the vigorous enforcement of the Copyright Act; (2) it distinguishes between the wrongdoers and the blameless; (3) it enhances the predictability and certainty in copyrights by providing a relatively certain benchmark for the award of attorney's fees; and (4) it affords copyright defendants sufficient incentives to litigate their defenses.
14 In a footnote, the Strauss Study lists several cases exemplifying the courts' use of discretion. None of these cases explicitly require a dual standard of awarding attorney's fees, but instead offer various reasons for awarding or not awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Cases cited by the study involving prevailing defendants: Overman v. Loesser, 205 F. 2d 521, 524 (CA9 1953) (denying counsel fees because there was "no indication that the appeal was pursued in bad faith" and "the principal question [was] a complex question of law"); Official Aviation Guide Co. v. American Aviation Associates, 162 F. 2d 541, 543 (CA7 1947) (denying attorney's fee where "[t]he instant case was hard fought and prosecuted in good faith, and . . . presented a complex problem in law"); Rosen v. Lowe's Inc., 162 F. 2d 785 (CA2 1947) (defendant prevailed; no discussion of attorney's fees); Advertisers Exchange, Inc. v. Anderson, 144 F. 2d 907 (CA8 1944) (denying attorney's fee without comment in case involving defective copyright notice); Lewys v.O'Neill, 49 F. 2d 603, 618 (SDNY 1931) (awarding fees where plaintiff's case was "wholly synthetic"); Metro Associated Services, Inc. v. Webster City Graphic, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 224 (ND Iowa 1953) (denying attorney's fee without explanation where plaintiff filed defective copyright); Lowenfels v. Nathan, 2 F. Supp. 73, 80 (SDNY 1932) (awarding fees where "[t]he most earnest advocate of the plaintiff's side . . . could not . . . possibly find" any plagiarism by the defendant); Jerome v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 71 F. Supp. 914, 915 (SDNY 1946) (denying fee where court "[could] very well understand how plaintiff was driven to some litigation, although the theory of [the] action . . . was not supported by the proof"), 7 F. R. D. 190 (SDNY 1947), aff'd, 165 F. 2d 784 (CA2 1948).
Cases cited by the study involving prevailing plaintiffs: Advertisers Exchange, Inc. v. Hinkley, 199 F. 2d 313, 316 (CA8 1952) (denying an attorney's fee where plaintiff's counsel attempted to inflate and exaggerate plaintiff's claim), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 921 (1953); Ziegelheim v. Flohr, 119 F. Supp. 324, 329 (EDNY 1954) (court denied attorney's fee "since it appears to have . . . been a fairly common practice for publishers of [prayer books] to copy rather freely from each other, and since much of plaintiff's book was in the public domain, and defendant honestly, but mistakenly, believed that plaintiff was illegally attempting to copyright and monopolize the printing of ancient prayers"); Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Borst Music Pub. Co., 110 F. Supp. 913 (NJ 1953) (court noted only that it would not award attorney's fee because such award is discretionary); Stein v. Rosenthal, 103 F. Supp. 227, 232 (SD Cal. 1952) (awarding attorneys fees of $3,500 as an amount "reasonably necessary to redress the infringement of plaintiffs' copyright"); Northern Music Corp. v. King Record Distributing Co., 105 F. Supp. 393, 401 (SDNY 1952) (noting that prevailing plaintiff entitled to receive a reasonable attorney's fee to be assessed by the court); White v. Kimmell, 94 F. Supp. 502, 511 (SD Cal. 1950) (copyright holder, who was a successful defendant in a declaratory judgment action, was awarded costs but denied attorney's fee award without elaboration); M. Witmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Co., 298 F. 470, 482-483 (EDSC 1924) (court awarded a moderate attorney's fee after noting that full allowance "would bear too heavily upon the defendant, in view of the character of the infringement and the circumstances surrounding it; but, if no fee should be allowed at all in such cases, it would probably result in many cases in a practical denial of the rights of copyright owners").
The study also cited to Jewell LaSalle Realty Co. v. Buck, 283 U.S. 202 (1931), a case which did not involve attorney's fees, but instead addressed the damages provision of § 25 of the 1909 Act, 35 Stat. 1081.
15 To this extent, the Brown Study focuses more on the effect that the prospect of an award of attorney's fees has on decisions to litigate or to settle cases. Based on its interview sources, the study concluded that the likelihood of getting a fee award is so problematic that "it is not a factor" that goes into the decision to settle or litigate. Brown Study 85. The report also noted that its observations about attorney's fees "are not intended as an exhaustive treatment of the subject" and that "[attorney's fees'] deterrent effect on ill founded litigation, whether by plaintiffs or defendants, is outside the scope of this inquiry." Id., at 85-86.
16 Citing to Cloth v. Hyman, 146 F. Supp. 185, 193 (SDNY 1956) (it is proper to award fees to prevailing defendant when copyright action is brought in bad faith, with a motive to "vex and harass the defendant," or where plaintiff's claim utterly lacks merit). The Brown Study also included cites to Eisenschiml v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 246 F. 2d 598, 604 (CA7) (reversing attorney's fee award to prevailing defendant as an abuse of discretion where plaintiff's claim was not entirely without merit and involved a close question of law), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 907 (1957); Marks v. Leo Feist, Inc., 8 F. 2d 460, 461 (CA2 1925) (awarding attorney's fees to prevailing defendant after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed suit).
17 See, e. g., Shroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 421 F. Supp. 372, 378 (ND Ill. 1976) (refusing to award prevailing defendant an attorney's fee because plaintiff's action was "prosecuted in good faith and with a reasonable likelihood of success"), rev'd on other grounds, 566 F. 2d 3 (CA7 1977); Kinelow Publishing Co. v. Photography In Business, Inc., 270 F. Supp. 851, 855 (SDNY 1967) (denying fee award to prevailing defendant because plaintiff's claims, while "lacking in merit," were not "unreasonable or capricious"); Burnett v. Lambino, 206 F. Supp. 517, 518-519 (SDNY 1962) (granting fee award to prevailing defendant where "asserted claim of infringement was so demonstrably lacking in merit that bringing it was clearly unreasonable"); Cloth v. Hyman, supra, at 193 (noting that it is proper to award fees when a copyright action is brought in bad faith, with a motive to "vex and harass the defendant," or where plaintiff's claim utterly lacks merit); Loews, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 165, 186 (SD Cal. 1955) (denying prevailing defendant fee award where question presented in the case "was a nice one," and there are "no authorities squarely in point to guide the litigants or their counsel"), aff'd, 239 F. 2d 532 (CA9 1956), aff'd, 356 U.S. 43 (1958); Krafft v. Cohen, 38 F. Supp. 1022, 1023 (ED Pa. 1941) (denying fee award to prevailing defendant where claim brought "in good faith," and evidence demonstrated appropriation); Lewys v. O'Neill, 49 F. 2d, at 618 (awarding fees to prevailing defendant because plaintiff's case was "wholly synthetic").
18 That court concluded that "the considerations prompting an award of fees to a successful plaintiff must of necessity differ from those determining whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to such an award." Breffort, 271 F. Supp., at 627. As support, the court stated: "The purpose of an award of counsel fees to a plaintiff is to deter copyright infringement. . . . In the case of a prevailing defendant, however, prevention of infringement is obviously not a factor; and if an award is to be made at all, it represents a penalty imposed upon the plaintiff for institution of a baseless, frivolous, or unreasonable suit, or one instituted in bad faith." Ibid. As we have already explained, supra, at 9-10, such is too narrow a view of the purposes of the Copyright Act because it fails to adequately consider the important role played by copyright defendants. See also, Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 617 F. Supp., at 621-622 (tracing the evolution of the Second Circuit's dual standard rule and concluding that earlier cases upon which it supposedly rests do not require bad faith or frivolousness--%[the dual standard rule] is the culmination of a long line of bootstrapping from nothing to something").
19 Some courts following the evenhanded standard have suggested several nonexclusive factors to guide courts' discretion. For example, the Third Circuit has listed several nonexclusive factors that courts should consider in making awards of attorney's fees to any prevailing party. These factors include "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and in the legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence." Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc., 788 F. 2d 151, 156 (CA3 1986). We agree that such factors may be used to guide courts' discretion, so long as such factors are faithful to the purposes of the Copyright Act and are applied to prevailing plaintiffs and defendants in an evenhanded manner.


text:
Aleksandra Januchta (ur. 31 stycznia 1996 w Kielcach) – polska piłkarka ręczna, bramkarka, od 2016 zawodniczka MKS-u Lublin, mistrzyni Polski (2018), zdobywczyni Challenge Cup (2018).

Wychowanka KSS-u Kielce, w latach 2011–2014 uczennica szkół mistrzostwa sportowego w Gliwicach i Płocku. W marcu 2014 wraz z Koroną Handball, do której trafiła po likwidacji KSS-u Kielce, zdobyła wicemistrzostwo Polski juniorek i została wybrana najlepszą bramkarką turnieju finałowego, który odbył się w Kielcach. Od sezonu 2014/2015 występowała w pierwszym zespole Korony Handball, grającym w I lidze. W 2016 przeszła do MKS-u Lublin, w barwach którego zadebiutowała w sezonie 2016/2017 w Superlidze, a w 2018 zdobyła mistrzostwo Polski, Puchar Polski i Challenge Cup.

Występowała w reprezentacji Polski juniorek młodszych i juniorek. W 2014 uczestniczyła w otwartych mistrzostwach Europy U-18 w Szwecji. W kwietniu 2015 wraz z młodzieżową reprezentacją Polski wzięła udział w turnieju kwalifikacyjnym do mistrzostw Europy U-19 (zagrała w trzech meczach).

Przypisy

Ludzie urodzeni w Kielcach
Piłkarki ręczne Korony Handball
Piłkarki ręczne MKS Lublin
Polskie piłkarki ręczne
Urodzeni w 1996

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Campus Notes
Gulf and Middle East
Factbox
Prime Minister Narendra ModiFile photo
Modi says India at forefront of mitigation of global challenges
NetIndian News Network
Published on : 09 Jan, 2021 , 7:00 pm
New Delhi, January 9, 2021
Prime Minister Narendra Modi today said India was always at the forefront of mitigation of global challenges and pointed out that the country's lead in the fight against colonialism and terrorism gave strength to the world to face these menaces.
Inaugurating the 16th Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (PBD) Convention -- the government's flagship event for the Indian diaspora, he noted, in this regard, India's role in dealing with the Y2K crisis and the strides made by the Indian pharmaceutical industry.
Modi praised overseas Indians for their role during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in their respective countries. He said that, during his discussions with Heads of State, he always felt pride in the overseas Indians. He said the Heads of States praised Indians in their countries for their contribution as doctors, paramedics and in other areas. He said India's capabilities had always benefited humanity.
According to him, much of the credit for the world's trust in India, its food, fashion, family values and business values went to overseas Indians. He said their conduct had created an interest in Indian ways and values.
The Prime Minister said that, as India moved ahead with the goal of "Aatmanirbhar Bharat" (Self-reliant India), the overseas Indians had a major role to play as their use of Made in India products would create more confidence in Indian products.
He spoke at length about India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and said that, globally, there was no other example of this kind of "democratic unity against the virus".
Despite dependence in critical things like PPE kits, masks, ventilators or testing kits, India developed its capabilities not only to become self-reliant but started exporting many things. Today, India is among the countries with the least fatality rate and fastest recovery rate. As pharmacy of the world, India is helping the world and entire world is looking at India as the country prepares to embark upon the largest vaccination programme in the world with two Indigenously developed vaccines, he said.
The Prime Minister outlined the progress made by the country in reining in corruption through direct benefit transfer (DBT) which came in for global praise during the pandemic period. Similarly, empowerment of the poor and strides in the field of renewable energy are bringing laurels to the country.
He pointed out that today's India's space programme, tech start-up ecosystem, its "unicorns" are subverting the age-old narrative of India's illiteracy. He invited the overseas Indians to take advantage of the reforms undertaken during the recent months in areas ranging from education to enterprise. He specially mentioned Production Linked Subsidies Scheme to popularize manufacturing in this regard.
Modi assured the diaspora of all support from their motherland. He mentioned Vande Bharat Mission in which more than 45 lakh stranded Indians were flown home during the pandemic, when international flights were grounded.
He cited initiatives such as "Skilled Workers Arrival Database for Employment Support" (SWADES) for returning immigrants from Gulf and other area. He also talked about Global Pravasi Rishta portal for better connectivity and communication with overseas Indians.
The Prime Minister thanked Suriname President Chandrikapersad Santokhi for his keynote address. He expressed hope to meet him soon. He also congratulated the winners of Pravasi Bhartiya Samman and winners of the quiz competition.
He asked the diaspora to participate in the celebration of 75th anniversary of the country's freedom. He asked the members of the diaspora and people in Indian Missions world over to prepare a portal, a digital platform where contribution of the Pravasi Bhartiyas in the freedom struggle of India can be documented.
Pravasi Bharatiya Divas
Overseas Indians
About NetIndian
© Copyright 2021 NetIndian. All rights reserved.
NetIndian
www.netindian.in

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


U.S. Customs and Border Protection, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, announced this week two new border wall construction contract awards worth a total of $491 million — $167 million to Galveston, Texas-based SLSCO Ltd. for approximately eight miles of levee wall in Texas and $324 million to Barnard Construction Co., based in Bozeman, Montana, for 32 miles of primary pedestrian replacement wall in Arizona. This brings the total of November border wall contract awards to $636 million, which includes another $145 million SLSCO contract earlier this month.
SLSCO's work, expected to begin in February, includes five wall segments located south of the Hidalgo County, Texas, towns of Alamo, Donna, Weslaco, Progreso and Mercedes, all within the agency's Rio Grande Valley sector. The project includes the construction and installation of "tactical infrastructure," which includes a reinforced concrete levee wall to match the height of the existing levee; 18-foot-tall steel bollards on top of the new concrete wall and removal of vegetation within a 150-foot enforcement zone at all segments. The levee wall project includes detection technology, lighting, video surveillance and an all-weather patrol road running alongside the levee wall.
Barnard's contract includes primary pedestrian replacement wall in the CBP's Yuma and Tucson sectors, and construction is scheduled to begin in April 2019. The project will see an upgrade to tactical infrastructure along five miles of wall in Lukeville, Arizona, and 27 miles of wall in Yuma, Arizona.
Earlier this month, CBP and the Army Corps announced that it had given a $145 million contract to SLSCO for similar levee wall work in the McAllen Station area of the Rio Grande Valley. This and the other two November contract awards fall under President Donald Trump's 2017 Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements executive order, which calls for a wall and other barrier systems along the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border.
While the Barnard contract is for a replacement wall, SLSCO's work marks the first new wall construction along the border, but how — or if — the U.S. will pay for the rest is still up in the air. A December government shutdown, in fact, could be in the cards, as Trump has promised to veto appropriations bills if significant wall funding is not included. Seven remaining bills have a Dec. 7 deadline, which doesn't leave much time for negotiation given the upcoming Thanksgiving break.
It was a tough road for the Trump administration to secure $1.6 billion in border funding last year, and there's no reason to believe that Congress would be eager to write a check for billions more this year.


MATTHEW MACKLIN INSISTS his next move will either be retirement or a world-title bid depending on the outcome of his showdown with Brian Rose in London's O2 Arena on Saturday night.
The middleweight rivals will clash on the undercard of this Saturday's world heavyweight title fight between Charles Martin and Anthony Joshua live on Sky Sports Box Office.
Former European, Irish and British champion Macklin is aiming to revive his career as he bids to get another shot at an elusive world title following a run of middling performances over the past year.
The 33-year-old Birmingham-born Tipperary man is undefeated in three bouts but those victories came against average opposition as Macklin looked to rebuild from a crushing 2014 loss to Argentine Jorge Sebastian Heiland at Dublin's 3 Arena.
'Mack the Knife' (34 wins, six losses) now looks to step back up to world level as he takes on fellow world-title challenger Brian 'The Lion' Rose (28-3-1) in what looks likely to be a fight to end one man's elite ambitions, and Macklin has admitted as much in the build-up.
"Rose is a good fight because three or four years ago he probably wouldn't have taken the fight and now he's the bookies' favourite, so that says a lot," said Macklin, who spent time in LA training alongside Donegal's world amateur medallist Jason Quigley in preparation for the date.
"It was good being around Jason and feeding off his enthusiasm. This fight against Rose is on the big stage and it suits me," he explained.
"Saturday night will tell me what I need to know because if I can't beat Brian Rose and beat him fairly convincingly then there isn't going to be a world-title shot and that'll be it for me. That's a very kind of logical way of seeing it," added the three-time world-title challenger.
The 33-year-old is also the face of Macklin's Gym Marbella (MGM), the Spanish-based promotional outfit who were forced to cancel a scheduled Dublin show last February after a shock fatal shooting at the pre-fight weigh-in.
Macklin was not present at the time of the incident and he insists his focus is on his own ring challenges. "It was a terrible shame what happened, but hopefully Irish boxing recovers from it," said the 33-year-old.
"I've had a good camp, some quality sparring, the head is in the right place, I'm fit and fresh as well and I haven't overdone it," he added.
Macklin had experimented with a move down to light-middleweight (154lbs) but Saturday night's bout will take place at his regular 160lb weight.
I'm 34 this year so wherever the big fights are and wherever the world-title opportunities come is where I'll go. I'm looking for a good performance here to reignite my career.
"It's a good platform on American television, pay per view in the UK and Ireland and a sold-out O2 Arena and if I put on the type of performance I feel I can put on then I think something will come up because I am an established name," added Macklin, who will have his brother Séamus in his corner.
Email "Macklin hoping Quigley enthusiasm rubs off as he faces up to win-or-bow-out fight in London".
Feedback on "Macklin hoping Quigley enthusiasm rubs off as he faces up to win-or-bow-out fight in London".


text:
Q: Trying to update data to compass using mongoose but it shows error I am a newbie and learning mongoose. I am trying to connect with local server and update data to mongoDB Compass but its' throwing error. I am not able to understand what mistake I am doing. Kindly help me to solve it.
db.on("connection", () => console.log("Connected Successfully"));
db.on("disconnect", () => console.log("Disconnected Successfully"));
db.on("error", console.error.bind(console, "connection error:"));
db.once("open", function () {
firstEmployee.save(function (err, res) {
if (err) throw error;
console.log(res);
});
db.close();
});

and error is = throw er; // Unhandled 'error' event
^
ReferenceError: error is not defined

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Sportstoft
sportstoft.com
Home » NHL » NHL playoffs 2019: Conference final picks – who will reach the Stanley Cup?
NHL playoffs 2019: Conference final picks – who will reach the Stanley Cup?
05/09/2019 NHL
After a wild and upset-filled first two round of the NHL playoffs, the conference finals are set to begin Thursday night with the Bruins and Hurricanes (NBCSN, 8 p.m. ET). The Sharks and Blues will kick off Saturday (8 p.m. ET, NBCS).
Here is who USA TODAY Sports' NHL staff predicts will advance to the Stanley Cup Final.
EASTERN CONFERENCE: Boston Bruins vs. Carolina Hurricanes
Kevin Allen, Bruins in 7. This is the year of playoff upsets, but the Bruins had the third-best regular-season record and they are finding ways to get it done in the postseason. Tuukka Rask, with a .938 save percentage, might be playing the best hockey of his career. In Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand, David Pastrnak and David Krejci, the Bruins have a collection of difference makers up front. It seems like the Hurricanes are significant underdogs, but they won only three fewer games in regulation than the Bruins in the regular season. Coach Rod Brind'Amour has the Hurricanes believing they are invincible.
Jimmy Hascup, Hurricanes in 6. These "Bunch of Jerks" aren't ready to go home just yet. Carolina has knocked off the defending champion Washington Capitals, a physical team with some world-class offensive players, and it beat the New York Islanders, a defense-first team with Barry Trotz as coach. I look at the Bruins as a hybrid of those teams and think that the Hurricanes' mobile defense and relentless attack matches up well. The Hurricanes have been peaking despite missing several key players to injuries. Now they are close to full health and that will add another dimension to their game.
Mike Brehm, Bruins in 7. The team coming off a sweep in the previous round has shown rust in Game 1, so that should help the Bruins overcome the suspension to Charlie McAvoy. After that, the Bruins' versatile top line, superior depth and rejuvenated Tuukka Rask will wear down the Hurricanes over time. Special teams will make a difference. The Bruins' playoff-best power play is connecting at a 28.6% rate while the Hurricanes are at 10.5%
Jace Evans, Bruins in 6. I've been wrong about the Hurricanes every round so far, but I'm going to pick against them yet again. The heart and soul of the Bruins – Zdeno Chara, Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand and David Krejci – are the only players left in these playoffs who have won a Stanley Cup together. They know what it takes, and they should be able to do something that no other team has done in these playoffs so far: win on Carolina ice.
Bruins goaltender Tuukka Rask has become stronger as the playoffs have gone on. (Photo: Winslow Townson, USA TODAY Sports)
SCHEDULE: Results, dates, times, TV for NHL postseason
OPINION: Bruins are standing firm during the year of the upset
WESTERN CONFERENCE: San Jose Sharks vs. St. Louis Blues
Kevin Allen, Blues in 6. Rookie goalie Jordan Binnington will be the key to the Blues ending their 49-year Stanley Cup Final absence. His poise and patience were the backbone of their transformation into a strong team in the second half of this season. The Sharks have the talent to win it all, but there's inconsistency to their game that will betray them. Their 3.07 playoff goals-against average is worst among the remaining teams. Look for defenseman Alex Pietrangelo to have a memorable series.
Jimmy Hascup, Sharks in 6. Going to keep the run of winning Game 7s alive. While the Sharks seemed to have some trouble with the Avalanche's speed (and the Golden Knights', for that matter in Round 1) last series, the Blues won't turn the series into a track meet in the same way. Eventually, this experienced Sharks group will put a complete series together … starting with goalie Martin Jones.
Mike Brehm, Blues in 6. As much as I'd like to see Joe Thornton competing for his first Stanley Cup against the team that drafted him, I had the Blues reaching the Stanley Cup Final and will stick with that. St. Louis is solid on the road and has been pretty successful at shutting down opponents' top lines and getting clutch goals. Vladimir Tarasenko (one point in his last six games) will need to get going, though.
Jace Evans, Sharks in 6. The Sharks have a real "team of destiny" feel with two straight Game 7 wins. While that's a lot of hockey to play, the Blues have actually played one fewer game. The Sharks have home ice, where they've played better, Joe Pavelski is back and goalie Martin Jones appears to have found his game, which might be most important of all.
NHL playoffs 2019: Jordan Binnington's standout saves help Blues fend off Jets in Game 1
NHL Playoffs 2019: Sharks' Evander Kane, Golden Knights' Ryan Reaves exit after late-game scuffle
NHL Playoffs 2019: Jets score three goals in four minutes en route to Game 3 win over Blues
NHL playoffs 2019: Hockey world reacts to Lightning's shocking first-round exit
Marcelo Bielsa says Leeds will not put ball out for injured players in Derby play-off game
Conn Smythe Watch: Rask, Hertl lead the pack
Novak Djokovic is the US Open favourite over Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal – Uncle Toni
Wimbledon winner Simona Halep up to World No 4, Serena Williams up to ninth
A three-day negotiation session between the NFL and the players' union has ended after a single day, a source confirmed to ESPN on Wednesday. The […]
Clemson, Alabama players trade barbs at dueling media days
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The rivalry between Alabama and Clemson has trickled into the offseason, with players from the two programs trading subtle barbs during SEC and […]
Сricket news
Blow for England as Archer, Wood to miss first Ashes Test
Worn pitch boosts England's hopes of Ashes redemption
From England's maiden Cricket World Cup win to winning in 1966
Pete Alonso's Charming "English Muffin" Quote, Like Most Precious Things In Life, Was A Sham
Max Fried injury update: Braves lefty (blister) placed on 10-day IL
Five deals we want to see get done before the MLB trading deadline
How much Nicolas Pepe to Liverpool 'dream scenario' transfer would cost
Dana White reveals when he expects Conor McGregor return as Jorge Masvidal bout ruled out


"Serious Art" comes from the minds of the terrifically talented Hardland/Heartland art crew from Minneapolis, comprised of Aaron Anderson, Eric Carlson, and Crystal Quinn. Their artwork combines throwaway pop culture with bizarre and occult imagery, skulls, wizards, supermodels, daggers, gold, blood, etc. All three artists collaborated on this print which was created for their July 2008 gallery show at First Amendment Arts.


SINCE the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea last met for a Trilateral Summit, the region has changed dramatically.
In China, President Xi Jinping has removed term limits, built and militarised islands with cruise missiles in the South China Sea and openly rejected the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration over China's sovereignty in the region. His position as Chinese leader is the strongest since Mao Zedong but he still faces myriad challenges at home and abroad.
In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has won four consecutive elections, the economy has grown in eight successive quarters and unemployment is at record lows. Japan has pursued a dual strategy of tightening relations with the US through the US-Japan alliance while at the same time defending and leading multilateralism through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and signing the Japan-EU EPA.
Yet despite these successes, Abe faces a political insurgency at home, with scandals emboldening political opponents and growing concerns about the Trump Administration following the implementation of steel tariffs and a lack of transparency in Washington's approach to North Korea.
For South Korea, the three years since the last summit has seen three different presidents, two of which are now serving jail time. There was THAAD blowback from the Chinese in 2017, while North Korea's Olympic diplomacyand the Inter-Korean Summit have brought both hope and scepticism about the trajectory of inter-Korean relations.
President Moon Jae-in is currently riding a wave of domestic and international support for a peaceful resolution to the North Korean challenge, even as his government struggles to manage economic expectations and balance regional relations with its alliance partner the US.
China, Japan and South Korea will have three major issues on the table at the summit.
First, Moon will brief his colleagues on the recent Inter-Korean Summit and plans for moving from optimistic optics to real progress. Xi and Abe will be considering how their countries' interests will be represented in the unfolding North Korean denuclearisation drama. They will be also looking for any clues as to what the upcoming Trump-Kim Summit will include.
China will be seeking assurance that Seoul and Pyongyang's engagement will include preserving Beijing's influence with North Korea. Japan, on the other hand, will convey to Moon that denuclearisation should also include short, mid and long-range missile systems, biological and chemical weapons as well as submarine launch platforms.
Abe will also press Moon on the politically popular yet likely unresolvable abducted Japanese that still may be alive in the North.
The second issue that the trio will be interested in is trade. As the Trump Administration continues to press an "American First" agenda, all three countries will need to stress their joint support for free trade.
Here is where the challenge lies. Japan favours the CPTPP, and preferably a CPTPP which includes the US and additional members who agree to protect intellectual property rights, have strong environmental regulation, support a limited role for state-owned enterprises, and have high labour standards.
Japan continues to champion the trade agreement even as the US continues to waver in its support for it, unless Trump can negotiate a substantially better deal. While the deal remains open to China, it would be a difficult task for Beijing to meet the standards of the agreement without substantial changes to how the country's economy is run.
South Korea, with the North Korean issue in mind, renegotiated the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) to placate the Trump Administration and ensure bilateral relations would not complicate the engagement strategy with the North.
Notwithstanding the renegotiation, the South Korean government is surveying the potential impact on the national economy if it were to join the CPTPP. The high standards of the agreement would likely accrue benefits to the South Korean economy, as many of its strengths mirror the rationale for Japan's participation in the agreement. Importantly, joining the agreement can help the Moon government buffer the economic leverage that Beijing has over the South Korean economy.
With his South Korean and Japanese counterparts looking for ways to insulate their economies from political disagreements with Beijing, China may not find willing partners to support the country's signature economic policy, the Belt and Road Initiative.
Beijing has identified Washington and Pyongyang as major risks in the short to medium term, and has invested heavily in resetting both Sino-South Korean and Sino-Japanese relations. The Trilateral Summit may be an opportunity for China to commit to that reset through unanimity on broad trade visions, recommitting to the China-Japan-Korea FTA, or accelerating negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
The third area the three leaders will be focusing on at the Trilateral Summit is charting a more positive relationship. Premier Li Keqiang's visit sets the stage for Abe visiting Beijing later in the year and a reciprocal visit by Xi in early 2019. These visits would be steps in the right direction if the leaders are sincere in their intentions to recalibrate relations.
Despite the resumption of the talks, we should be realistic about the degree of compromise and cooperation that can take place. On non-traditional security issues such as the environment, disaster risk reduction, and transnational diseases there will be solidarity and investment. In contrast, solidarity on resolving the North Korean issue is complicated by regional politics, a deepening Sino-US rivalry and historical issues in the region. Exactly what kind of permanent peace each country is seeking on the peninsula could be a difficult issue on which to find common ground.
More face-to-face meetings of leaders will no doubt contribute to better communication and can set the tone as to how each countries' citizens should be thinking about regional relations. But bilateral and trilateral meetings must be followed up by changes in rhetoric and behaviour. Mutual respect means equality, not hierarchy.


text:
After European Parliament vote, challenges remain to make Code fully pro-competitive
Brussels, 3 October 2017. Last night, the Industry and Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) of the European Parliament voted on its long-debated report on the proposal for a European Electronic Communications Code.
ECTA commends the improvements that the Committee has brought to the Commission text in the access and co-investment part of the report and welcomes the overall pro-competitive compromise reached between the different political groups.
Nonetheless, ECTA notes that the future of competition remains a major concern in the ongoing reform. As Executive Director Luc Hindryckx stresses, 'Only a fully pro-competitive framework will release the full innovation and investment potential of Europe and deliver benefits for end-users.'
Yet, as ECTA has remarked, the Estonian Presidency proposal of 22 September 2017 embodies significant risk for future competition by allowing the benefits of a fully-fledged toolbox to be wiped out and operators with significant market power (SMP) to be granted regulatory holidays under the cover of the co-investment banner.
Without decisive action in the course of interinstitutional negotiations, the Code risks sacrificing a functioning SMP regime – the core of sectoral regulation that has created benefits for end-users in the EU by promoting competition – for promises of co-investment. To make co-investment a competitively sustainable reality, ECTA considers that the upcoming negotiations urgently need to address the issue of co-ownership, while ensuring access to non-participating operators on terms that enable them to compete effectively.
ECTA remains fully engaged in the negotiations on the Code and is committed to continuing its dialogue with Mrs Pilar del Castillo, the Shadow Rapporteurs, Council representatives and the European Commission.
ECTA members are united in their belief that competition is the best driver of efficient investments and the greatest enabler of innovation, choice and benefits for citizens and businesses, as well as for the European economy overall. This is the key message that ECTA and its members promote in the discussions about a European Electronic Communications Code.
For ECTA's first analysis of the draft Code, please click here.
For ECTA's position on the original draft report of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) on the proposed Code, please click here.
Luc Hindryckx, Executive Director, +32 (0)2 290 0102
Follow ECTA's latest views and activities on the Code and other subjects at: @twECTA


text:
A New Peterson Pipe In The Works-It's A Beaut
Thread starter irishearl
Pipe Talk
pylorns
Preferred Member
disinformatique
Bangalore, India and St. Petersburg Florida
Bravo Laudisi Group. Personally dont like the shape !!
ssjones
postimg.cc
I like it, but they need to hire Woodsroad to do the photography!
unkleyoda
Your mom\\\'s house
People that aren't on Facebook, are like vegans. They will tell you all about it in the first 5 minutes of meeting them, with an air of superiority.
I'm excited that the new owners of Peterson are breathing fresh life into them.
Sao Paulo, Brasil
Nobody has ever accused me of being a vegan before :rofl:
Nice looking Pete !
irishearl
They must be popular as it appears SP is already out of them.
chasingembers
Captain of the Black Frigate
People that aren't on Facebook, are like vegans.
Not on facebook, and had to look up vegan. Couldn't live like that, no where near enough calories.
danimalia
San Francisco Bay Area, USA
Or people that don't own televisions. :lol:
augiebd
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Nice pipe, I hope you get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I am very happy with my Peterson's.
shayde
I might have to delay my current list of pipes to scoop this one up
georged
False equivalence 101.
Vegans who broadcast the fact are virtue signaling. They think they are saving the planet / sparing animal suffering / doing what's morally right (etc) and want others to know it for the social status and/or acceptance they imagine it confers.
People who warn others about Facebook & similar social media do it because those products are designed to manipulate the human limbic system in exactly the same way as chemical addictions do, and are best avoided for the same reasons. Compounding the situation enormously is that children who grow up with it undergo significant changes in brain development that are almost certainly irreversible. (Not commonly known, but easily confirmed, is that the highest level developers and marketers of social media software freely admit that they don't let their own kids near it).
The only possibilities here, unkleyoda, is that you are 1) unaware of this; or 2) you are aware of it but feel compelled to rationalize and/or defend your own addiction.
bigpond
Thank you George! Right on all counts, I believe.
-signed vegan dude
I like the shaping on the new Pete. That mouthpiece looks a bit thick though. Anyone take one for a spin yet?
I'm not normally a big fan of the Oom Paul shape, but this is nice!
I must agree. I'm not much of a Peterson fan either for that matter (except for the tobacco that bears their name) but I really like the look of that one.
As for Facebook...for anyone interested in some perspective on the larger story and bigger picture that FB is one aspect of:
Silicon Valley. Nestled in the southern San Francisco Bay Area of Northern California, the Valley is not just a geographical location. It's an idea. It's an expression of the urge to digitize all of the information in the world, and to database, track and store that information. And as we are now beginning to learn, the result of that digitization of everything is a world without privacy. A world where our ability to participate in public debate is subject to the whims of big tech billionaires. A world where freedom is a thing of the past and no one is outside the reach of Big Brother.
But what the masses do not know is that Silicon Valley has a very special history. One that explains how we came to our current predicament, and one that speaks to the future that we are sleepwalking into.
https://www.corbettreport.com/siliconvalley/
sablebrush52
jrs457.wixsite.com
People who warn others about Facebook & similar social media do it because those products are designed to manipulate the human limbic system in exactly the same way as chemical addictions do, and are best avoided for the same reasons.
Same with smart phones, which are being linked to early onset dementia. Nobody gets out alive.
Nobody gets out alive.
The Bard can be always be counted on to make the final cut. :lol:
So that's why they call it the World Wide Web.
npod
Among all the chatter about Peterson, Oom Paul, Facebook, and smart phones ... am I the only one that noticed Pylorns is posting with his real name! :puffpipe:


Used in a foot-bath turns aching fungus feet healthy.
Relax in a bath any time you feel stress, muscle tension, or an aching body.
Detoxes the skin, removes toxins, and improves metabolism.
Gently relieves eczema and psoriasis.
Soaking in a bath full of magnesium flakes is as soothing as it sounds. A magnesium bath can support detoxification and increase cellular magnesium levels, ease aches and pains, and reduce stress and anxiety levels. Magnesium flakes are an ideal treatment for children and the elderly, conveniently used in a warm bath or foot soak.
All the benefits of Magnesium Flakes + OptiMSM, The World's Purest MSM.
The gentle way to get magnesium into your body.
Makes bath time a Therapeutic Spa Time.
Warm water accelerates magnesium absorbency.
Perfect for hyperactive children (and grown-ups) before bed.


balsam hill artificial trees blue spruce tree sale xmas.
balsam hill trees com luxury design complaints about sale flip tree technology quick and fir amazon after christmas n.
balsam hill sale sample trees an artificial reviews poplar for.
balsam hill in sale luxury the holiday shop as is here black friday 2017.
balsam hill artificial trees sale tree lit coupons xmas.
balsam hill sale uk trees which store has the best department for coupons.
balsam trees an hill artificial reviews poplar for sale july sa.
3 balsam hill sale christmas trees for uk artificial blue spruce tree realistic looking from.
balsam hill clearance tree sales sale christmas black friday my source for realistic trees wreaths and garland hi.
artificial trees best to save space balsam hill park avenue corner 7 tree sale sales a.
balsam trees save the ideas throughout hill tree artificial sale sales.
balsam hill sale artificial tree blue spruce christmas.
fantastic white tree for sale pikespeakwhitetree balsam hill co releases new artificial medium sales after christmas.
join the lsam hill elegant party blog carnival decor tree decorations for sale balsam corporate sales sa.
balsam trees for sale hill artificial lit troubleshooting s annual sales rollover image to zoom click view larger amazon.
balsam hills clearance sale buyers guide hill corporate sales.
we currently have our large flip trees on sale through the balsam hill site at most photo of christmas tree fir n 3 4.
lit balsam hill sale christmas tree black friday blue spruce artificial e types of cut es lawn garden center 9 unlit.
photo a man looks at artificial trees for sale the balsam hill outlet store in about percent of who after christmas.
balsam hill trees modern realistic used tree for sale home and throughout 8 christmas popular amazon com fir premium artificial pertaining to 2.
trees outside the old in photo brazier balsam hill sale christmas tree which store has best department for coupons.
realistic artificial balsam hill sale dates trees fir tree green biggest january hills clearance buyers guide.
home wreath garland hangers storage balsam hill sale christmas in july wreaths garlands foliage and accessories.
medium size of tree balsam hill trees black sale realistic artificial on january 7 5 ft lit led flocked 2.
balsam hill tree co reviews com trees evergreen sale for near me black commercial hallmark channel best sales.
balsam hill in frosted fir narrow artificial tree with regard to trees sale do have a january.
pm balsam hill trees for sale do go on after my sweet annual sales buy slim online used tree.
balsam hill trees frosted sugar pine artificial for sale black friday sales fir f.
balsam hill trees for sale this fir tree from looks so life like black xmas bals.
balsam hill outlet tree sale custom made pine needles from the aspen estate fur annual sales.
outdoor lit foliage balsam hill on sale now january.
balsam hill black sale trees artificial tree for near me.
3 balsam hill sale sample ft lit trees decoration set of 2 perfect for the holiday home indoor outdoor decor by entryway.
balsam hills holiday traditions clearance sale hill after christmas product guide.
balsam hill sale christmas trees for uk save up to shop our biggest.
balsam hill trees sale top 5 best reviews artificial blue 2017 fir tree.
balsam hill artificial trees spruce tree sale t christmas.
medium size of tree balsam artificial trees lights for sale realistic hill after christmas how to assemble the fir 2.
blue spruce artificial tree types of cut trees lawn garden center 9 balsam hill unlit sale xmas.
balsam hill sale black friday sales in.
balsam trees for sale fir tree hill sample artificial frosted narrow b.
balsam hill trees for sale flip tree troubleshooting black friday 2017.
balsam hill black sale tree for more information and to check out january.
rollover image to zoom click view larger balsam hill sale uk.
balsam hill trees sale coupons 2 free shipping deals n christmas tree sales amazon decorating a with sincerely d easy assembly.
balsam hill biggest sale of the season commercial make bright ispot post christmas.