text:
Return to Transcripts main page
Jodi Arias Murder Case
Aired May 2, 2013 - 21:00 ET
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, four months to the day, it all began. It is the moment of truth for Jodi Arias. JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: No jury is going to convict me. PINSKY: We`ll see about that. Prosecutor Juan Martinez is pulling no punches. JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: There was this stalking behavior from the very beginning. Even when she was young, she had this personality of manipulating the facts. This is an individual who wants to play victim. You could almost feel it oozing through those fake tears. PINSKY: Did he seal the deal that could put Jodi Arias on death row? Let`s get started. (END VIDEO CLIP) PINSKY: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. We are getting down to the wire in the Jodi Arias case. With me tonight, co-host Jenny Hutt from Sirius XM Radio. Prosecutor Juan Martinez started his closing argument with biting sarcasm after savaging the last witness. Take a look at this tape. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MARTINEZ: That`s what you told us, right? WITNESS: No. Oh, shoot. MARTINEZ: Go ahead and clean up please. WITNESS: Sorry. I was doing so well. MARTINEZ: What`s P.D.? WITNESS: It stands for psychopathic -- MARTINEZ: You keep reading something. Aren`t you an expert on this thing? WITNESS: I was just following, I couldn`t -- MARTINEZ: Why don`t you look at the screen if you don`t mind? WITNESS: I can`t read the screen. MARTINEZ: And in the light of truth, you can see who she really is. This is an individual who wants to play victim. It`s not her fault that any of this happened. Of course, none of it is her fault. Can`t you all see, based on those days and days that she was on that witness stand that it isn`t her fault? It`s not her fault that this guy was trying to pick her up. And what`s a girl to do after all? The guy that she was involved with up and died after she stabbed him. It`s not her fault that she has vision. So she starts looking in there. There he is. He`s kissing another woman. She said I came in, and I stood by the door, and I watched him. And I watched him for 30, 45 seconds. Who does that? Who comes in, stands there? She has courted the media. She has gone on national television. She has signed a manifesto just in case she becomes famous. (END VIDEOTAPE) PINSKY: Joining us to discuss, attorney Darren Kavinoky, host of the show "Deadly Sins", Lisa Bloom, legal adviser with Avo.com, and the man who once dated Jodi Arias, Abe Abdelhadi. I also have "In Session" correspondent, Beth Karas. She has been covering the trial. Beth, Juan got Jodi to give us one of her self-tears, crying for herself tears. How was the jury reacting? BETH KARAS, "IN SESSION" CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me tell you. First of all, Jodi Arias did appear to be crying. At least she was turning her head away when some very graphic, gruesome autopsy photos were being displayed. And throughout his closing argument today, she had other things she was doing. She was shaking her head no, sometimes she was smirking -- maybe in the hopes that jurors would focus on her, disagreeing with things that the prosecutor was saying. But I`ll tell you, Dr. Drew -- that jury was sitting up, focused, stoic, attentive on Juan Martinez. He stood there without notes, very confident, knows his material, hands in his pockets, periodically, he`d whisper. He`d raise his voice all for effect to get their attention. And he had their attention. I don`t think Jodi Arias did. PINSKY: Interesting. Yes, I saw her sort of almost -- she looked sedated to me. I got to tell you. I wondered if she was on more medication than usual today. Thanks, Beth. I appreciate that report. And Martinez repeatedly told the jury -- Jodi lied to you, the jury. As if to say not only did she lie to the investigators, commit this heinous act, but she`s even including you all, the jury, in her manipulations. Lisa, is that a good tactic? LISA BLOOM, ATTORNEY: I think he was terrific today. And you know what struck me, Dr. Drew? After all these months with all these salacious sexual allegations in this case, what this really boils down to, what he focused on today were some very unsexy but very important facts, that she got a rental car, that she took some gas cans, instead of taking her own car and stopping for gas like a normal person when she went to see him. Why? Because that shows premeditation. Ultimately, if he gets his first degree conviction, and I think he will get it, it`s going to come down to the rental car and the gas cans. PINSKY: Jenny, do you agree with Lisa? JENNY HUTT, CO-HOST: I do. I agree completely. I think he connected the dots so beautifully, so calmly, so eloquently, so directed, he gave them exactly what they need to know and what they need to pay attention to. It was linear. It just went where it was supposed to go. The craziest most heinous thing made perfect sense the way she executed it. It`s just sick the rage that this Jodi Arias makes me feel. I think it`s very unhealthy. PINSKY: Darren, how about you? DARREN KAVINOKY, ATTORNEY: Well, generally, I give him very high marks. And I`ve been somewhat critical of Juan Martinez during the life of though case for showing us one speed, one gear, and that being angry. Today, he showed a range of emotions. And that told me not only did he feel like he had the jury going there with him, but he felt enough confidence that he could be more authentic to really reveal a wider range. And I was very impressed by that. PINSKY: He seemed connected to the jury. Seemed much more measured. Subdued, personal, personable, which I didn`t know he had in him. Abe, I want to go to you. You knew this woman. You had a date with this woman in Pasadena. Pasadena figured prominently today in terms of where she was going and, you know, why she went from A, B, C. My question to you, did Juan get it right in a way which he portrayed Jodi to the jury? Is this the woman you knew? ABE ABDELHADI, DATED JODI: Absolutely. I mean, excuse me, we had the one date. We hung out a few months before. We were friends a good 18 months after. So I knew her pretty well. The cantankerousness that she showed on the witness stand, and I think, honestly, one reason why Juan Martinez was so measured today was he didn`t have any idiot witnesses to talk to. So, there might have been that. But, yes, she`s exactly how he pained her out to be. She`s smart. She`s not an idiot. She`s actually very aware of who she is and how she comes off to people. She`s a manipulator. And so, he was able to paint that successfully I thought. HUTT: And she`s also nasty. Did you see her laugh yesterday, Dr. Drew? PINSKY: No, I didn`t see it. Tell me about that. HUTT: She was giggling yesterday at one point. She actually started to giggle. And today, she giggled at one point. Who chuckles when their closing statement for their murder trial, really? PINSKY: I got to tell you, Jenny -- yes, I looked at it -- it was like she was at somebody else`s boring courtroom. It was really, I think she`s medicated. It`s the only thing that makes sense to me. We had heard she had been on and off different medication. Reasonably so. Now, some folks say the defense dragged this out. Now, the question is, did they hurt themselves if they did? I want you to see this video from last night of Jodi. This caught my attention. She`s yawning, she`s fidgeting. She`s just like today. Today, she`s sort of like she didn`t care about. What kind of signal does this send to the jury -- Lisa? BLOOM: Yes, that`s not a good thing to do when a prosecutor`s delivering a closing argument in your capital murder case. You`re bored. Come on. PINSKY: Isn`t it weird? BLOOM: You know, I also think, by the way, that Juan Martinez -- keep in mind this is a majority male jury. He came across like a regular guy. He speaks English, which is refreshing. Not legalese, not legal jargon in that courtroom. Every sentence out of his mouth was something we could all understand. He just talks to the jury like he`s one of them. I think that`s a very effective strategy. PINSKY: Darren, you were taking issue with something I was just saying. Go ahead. KAVINOKY: Yes. So, and I was on the "AFTER DARK" set last night until 3:00 in the morning Eastern Time as this thing dragged on. My issue is with the judge who allowed the lawyers to have free rein and go on and on and on during the life of the trial. And then, at the end of it, decides that now we`re going to get this thing done with a very late night. And the concern is that that makes it an unlevel playing field. It opens it up for appellant challenges. It makes things different unnecessarily. There was no reason to get so intentional about finishing it on that time frame, just given how long this has gone. So fundamentally, I think that that was a bad move. PINSKY: All right. Maybe. Abe, we`re getting down to the wire here. You knew this woman. She literally -- my sense is, and, again, I`m going to ask you if you agree. That she still doesn`t believe a jury will convict her. She sort of believes her version of reality. And she`s putting it into the universe because it`s not going to happen because positive thoughts, you know, create positive outcomes. HUTT: The law of attraction. BLOOM: Good luck. PINSKY: Right, Abe? HUTT: Law of attraction. ABDELHADI: Absolutely. She`s one of those -- she`s one of those people who give all that malarkey a bad name, frankly. I get the vibe and I get law of attraction and all that. But you can`t jump off a building and decide you`re going to fly. You can`t wish for a million dollars without having done anything achievable that`s going to get that million just because you want it to come in your mailbox. I think she`s in that category. I think she functionally lost her mind. And if she thinks she`s going to get out of this with this new lesbian lover of hers and, you know -- PINSKY: Is that for real? (CROSSTALK) ABDELHADI: and get pregnant -- she thinks she is -- I`ve read reports that she thinks she`s going to get off. She`s got a manifesto written. She`s going to sell it as a bestseller. It`s going to be made a major motion picture, with somebody else playing her. And she`s out of her mind. And she`s completely convinced herself. I`m sorry? PINSKY: The manifesto, who would buy it. She`s convinced herself what? Abe? (CROSSTALK) ABDELHADI: I`ve got -- I would not buy it, but I`ve gotten tons of inboxes on my Facebook, talking about her innocence. So, there`s a lot of idiots out there that will buy it. All you need is 10 million to sell it and then you`re good. PINSKY: All right. Well, here, I`m just dying to know how somebody like this can write a manifesto. To me, it`s going to be so revealing. I`m just fascinated. So, I would want to read it just for that. Just out of the sheer, like disbelief. BLOOM: You`re the only one, Dr. Drew. PINSKY: I don`t want to pay for it. I don`t want her to benefit from it. Don`t get me wrong. I`m just fascinated by the fact -- I know this woman thinks a manifesto is appropriate. A reminder: "HLN AFTER DARK" airs right after our show. They`ve got another live two hour special in store for you. Stay with us here at HLN. We will continue to analyze this trial and these closing arguments. Next up, did Juan Martinez destroy Jodi`s battery defense. If so, is that the chance to save her life going with it? And later, a woman whose daughter lived with Jodi, and for some reason, didn`t get into the investigation. It is very interesting, and it wasn`t pretty. We`ll be back with that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MARTINEZ: The thing that was noteworthy on January 22nd of 2008 was that he beat me. This is the time that I had my hand up. And this is the time that he came after me. According to you, he kicked you, and he damaged your ring finger on the left hand, correct? ARIAS: Yes. MARTINEZ: Show us how bent it is again, ma`am. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was an argument about her being interested in two other men. When that happened, Mr. Alexander got very angry, and he threw down, straddled her and choked her. She lost consciousness and she woke up coughing. JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What about somebody who makes a threat of feel my wrath when he`s already kicked her and broken her finger. MARTINEZ: You don`t have a bent finger in exhibit 453. Do you? ARIAS: My finger is bent. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Travis was an amazing man. He was so good to his girlfriend. They have five years to find one woman that Travis (INAUDIBLE) they got nothing. Nothing. MARTINEZ: Not only is there not any corroborating evidence to be presented. It`s to the contrary. She herself said it didn`t happen. But she wants you to go back and say, well, don`t look at what I wrote. (END VIDEOTAPE) PINSKY: Juan Martinez today painting the picture of the behavior of this murderess. It is time for the behavior bureau to take it all on. Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. HUTT: Yes. PINSKY: So, Jenny, was Jodi a battered woman? The answer could mean life and death for her. HUTT: No! PINSKY: You say no? How dare you? HUTT: No, there`s no. Come on. First of all, there`s not a single person that they have found who came out of the woodwork to corroborate, to substantiate, to back up her story that he was abusive in any way to anyone other than to her. The bent finger? Come on, Dr. Drew, in your whole medical career, has an abused woman ever presented with just a bent finger? I mean, seriously. PINSKY: Listen, these women don`t drive 800 miles to spy on their boyfriend. They get locked in and sucked into these relationships. They can`t get themselves out of them. By the way, this kind of a bent finger, I got one, too. It`s usually from a pulling not a kicking. I`m just saying. It`s all nonsense. It`s all lying. People are tired had hearing it. But we`re going to chew on this a bit. Joining us, Cheryl Arutt, forensic and clinical psychologist, human lie detector, Janine Driver, author of "You Can`t Lie to me," Samantha Schacher, social commentator and host of "Pop Trigger" on the Young Turks Network, and Abe Abdelhadi, who dated Jodi Arias and escaped with his life. Now, the defense could not find a single ex-girlfriend that claims she was, not only that she was abused by Travis, couldn`t find anyone other than giving glowing reports about how nice he was, but he couldn`t commit. Maybe some women out there, Jenny, maybe some women would like to kill guys who can`t commit. I`m saying it`s not justification for murder. Call me crazy. Just saying. HUTT: I mean, yes, guys sometimes don`t want to commit. You don`t kill them. PINSKY: My question -- you might want to, but you don`t do that. My question to Samantha is that someone is manipulative as Jodi, do you think it was diabolical, let`s say, that she used such hot button issues in her defense such as domestic violence and pedophilia? SAMANTHA SCHACHER, SOCIAL COMMENTATOR: Of course. Listen. Jodi Arias, Dr. Drew, is a master manipulator. And Jodi Arias is lying, hoping to gain some sort of sympathy from the jury. But the most offensive part to me of her battered woman defense is the fact that not only did you, Jodi Arias, brutally murder Travis Alexander, but now you continue to malign him. And how infuriating for all the women out there who really are domestic abuse victims. PINSKY: Yes. It`s interesting. Janine, any clues today, when you watched Jodi`s body language or anybody else in the courtroom that stood out for you? JANINE DRIVER, HUMAN LIE DETECTOR: Well, yes. A couple people, Dr. Drew. Number one, we saw, right out of the gate, we saw yawning, not only by her, but by her attorney, Willmott. They`re both yawning in court. We saw fake sadness. We saw the lips go down, but we didn`t see those inner eyebrows pull together and up when we see that, we know it`s genuine sadness. And not only that, there was a study done at Columbia University where they took 47 women, and they had half of them with bosses, in an office with windows, half in cubicles. And they had them lie. And the women that have the offices, the women in power, why incapable of feeling guilt when they stole a hundred dollars. There`s almost nothing there. So why would we see any guilt with Jodi Arias? What was her power? Her sex appeal. Her beauty. And literally, people like Jodi, people in power get off on lying. That`s why she`s laughing in court, giggling, shaking her head, being disrespectful. But one other person I want to talk about, her dad. I don`t think you saw her dad. I think it`s her dad, right? Was her dad over on the left? PINSKY: I don`t know. The older man, looks ill a little bit. DRIVER: It looks like the guy in the interrogation room. Well, he was sitting like this. He had his hand in a fist and his other hand over it. And I can only imagine the anxiety that the family must be going through. I mean, she represents part of his legacy. So we see stress and anxiety in her family, but we don`t see it in Jodi Arias. PINSKY: Cheryl, I want to ask you, all this domestic violence stuff and the PTSD inventories, and PTSD being a defense, you know, again, she killed the guy. How bad does PTSD have, how bad does domestic violence have to be to trigger something like PTSD? And by the way, I don`t think the timeline is right for PTSD even the way the defense laid it out. (CROSSTALK) ABDELHADI: Drew, real quick. I`m sorry. PINSKY: Go ahead. Abe first and then Cheryl. Abe, go ADBELHADI: The PTSD was brought on by the murder. I`m sorry, go ahead. PINSKY: Right, right. That`s right, if there was PTSD. CHERYL ARUTT, PSYCHOLOGIST: Abe is right. Lisa Bloom, who is on the previous set, said it best at one point. She said, that`s kind of like saying I killed my parents, but have mercy on me because I`m an orphan. I`m quoting you, Lisa it was a great quote. The thing about domestic violence is that`s about a pattern of coercive control. And it can be punctuated by violence or there can be more violence. But it`s about really getting somebody to completely constrict themselves and be under someone else`s control. PINSKY: Hold on a second. Cheryl, Cheryl, stop. ARUTT: Yes? PINSKY: Hold on a second. So the jury is supposed to make a decision based on the evidence. Domestic violence is somebody being under somebody else`s control through manipulation. Hmm, who would that be in this relationship? ARUTT: Wonder who that could sound like, right? HUTT: She`s the abuser. PINSKY: And, ultimately, there`s escalation by the victimizer, by the perpetrator to the point of extreme, extreme violence. Abe, is that why you`re so freaked out, you feel as though you escaped with everything intact, as it were? ABDELHADI: Well, yes. But, well, it could have been anything. But here`s the thing, too, understand. And this is the part that`s really driving me crazy. I want to make sure we understand that. The bent finger came from the fact that her hand slipped off the knife. It ran down the blade of the knife. And that`s how she cut her finger. She said that to Detective Flores in her interrogation tape. It`s on YouTube. You can watch it for yourself. So when the defense tomorrow comes on and tries to re-push all these lies back on to the jury, you`re going to hear my teeth break from grinding them. And them I`m going to throw up. DRIVER: Dr. Drew. PINSKY: Yes, Janine. Now, we`ve got to finish it up. Go. DRIVER: You know my story. I talked about when I was 24, I dated a prominent attorney who tried to kill me, in my eyes. He was pounding my chest. But, you know what? After that happened to me, I found out he had been married three times before I dated him. I only knew about once. And he abused all three of those women. So when it happened to me, all of a sudden people came out of the woodwork. Why is no one coming out of the woodwork that Travis Alexander was an abuser? Why? (CROSSTALK) HUTT: I want to say one more woman with a bent finger, OK, Dr. Drew, prove it. ARUTT: Guys who do this keep doing this. PINSKY: That is the point. The evidence, if you base it on the evidence, forget just common sense. Evidence is, it`s damning. All right, guys, stay with me. Next up, the Jodi stalker. That`s right. She`s stalking the man she once dated, but from jail? Abe Abdelhadi is back with that answer. It`s going to be interesting. I don`t know what that`s all about. Later, one of Travis` friends was in the courtroom today. We`ll get his eyewitness account of exactly what he saw and what he heard. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SKY HUGHES, KNEW TRAVIS, KNOWS JODI: More than once, we`d have these conversations, and I was really, really hard on Travis. And I would tell him, you know, there`s just something not right. She`s obsessed with you. You know, these behaviors are very frightening. And I said just stop talking to her. Just stop calling her. And he said, he said you don`t understand. She says she`s going to kill herself. And I said, she`s not going to kill herself. And he said no, you can`t guarantee that, and I can`t live with myself, if she does. (END VIDEO CLIP) PINSKY: Back with my behavior bureau and my co-host Jenny Hutt. That was Sky Hughes. She was very close friend of Travis Alexander. Jenny, she gave us some great insight. The suicide manipulation. I want to read you guys a Twitter. This is from GraceH_patt (ph), Jodi Arias is so sure she`s not going to be convicted because she is going to kill herself. Hmm. So suicide keeps coming up here. It came up for Skye. Jenny, what do you think? HUTT: Yes, I don`t think that Jodi would ever kill herself. I think that she`s far too precious. She who haves herself. I think people with such a high-level of self-esteem don`t kill themselves, suicide`s a tragic, awful, terrible, horrific thing. But Jodi`s not -- she`s secure. She loves herself. PINSKY: Well, I`m not sure -- it looks like -- Cheryl, I got to bring you in here. You gave that great analogy of boarder lines that are like jell-o that are looking for a mold to hold them together with an identity. When they are in a crisis, when they`re left to their own devices, they have a lot of self-loathing, don`t they? ARUTT: They sure do. It`s like if you remove the jell-o mold, you try to pick it up. It falls apart in their hands. This is what happens with a borderline. And even though a lot of people have board are line disorder threatened suicide a lot of the time for other reasons, this is the statistical facts. Someone with borderline personality is 400 to 800 times more likely to commit suicide in a general population. PINSKY: OK. So, Jenny -- ARUTT: That`s a huge, huge difference. PINSKY: Jenny, you get that? HUTT: Yes. But I don`t believe that Jodi -- now I`m confused. PINSKY: Let`s ask Abe. Abe, what do you think? You knew her. ABDELHADI: There`s no way she`s going to kill herself. No way she`s going to kill herself. PINSKY: All right. Fair enough. I`m going to go to Samantha. Samantha, you`ve been asked that question. And do you think this conversation -- do you think this conversation has elevated in any way the conversation about mental health? Or has it just driven it down into the mud? SCHACHER: Well, for one, I actually agree with Jenny, because I would think that Jodi Arias -- she would have committed suicide, because Travis did express to her that he didn`t want a relationship with her. Instead, she decided to kill Travis Alexander, because if she can`t have Travis, nobody else can. Now as far as -- ABDELHADI: That`s not a suicidal person. She would have killed -- no. No. No. She would have killed herself. ARUTT: That`s a homicidal person. ABDELHADI: If she was serious -- yes. Absolutely. She would have killed herself before she would have killed Travis. She was secure in herself, and she thought she was going to get away with it, which is why she had the hookup in Utah with Ryan Burns because she thought she had a whole new guy that takes Travis` place, the end. As simple as that. PINSKY: It`s an interesting point. And let`s not forget though, real quick, that there was something that Travis was going to reveal about Jodi in that e-mail exchange that Sky believed led to her making a decision to go kill him. Before we go -- I`m throwing that out there. But, Abe, I want to ask you this. I sort of teased before the break, something about she`s stalking you. Jodi`s stalking Abe. Now, I heard she wants to be your friend on Facebook. Do you think she wants to know what you`re up to? Did you accept the friendship? ABDELHADI: I did not accept the friendship. I had deleted her off of MySpace back in the day 100 years ago when we had MySpace. And I wasn`t on Facebook yet. So, when I got that request, I thought it was a little creepy. I thought it was probably one of her cronies. PINSKY: A little creepy? A little creepy? ABDELHADI: Hey, I`m guy. I`m not going to sit here running wolf over a Facebook request. But, yes, spooky, I mean, here she`s sitting here requesting me. And I don`t think by law she`s allowed to do that. So, it had to be one of her army of minions running around, doing her bidding. She`s so pretty. I`m going to do what she asks me to do. I`ll request Abe on Facebook. That`s who he is. That`s where her friends are. DRIVER: Doctor -- PINSKY: Janine, go. DRIVER: She`s arrogant. She`s over the top. We see this with her laughing. When I was in court, she was very snarky, sarcastic, fresh. If my mother was in the courtroom and I was talking that way, my mother would have grabbed me by the cheeks and give me one of those dirty looks. She`s so arrogant. It`s over the top. And I said these months ago, but I want to say, Juan Martinez was on fire! He was on fire today. And he put her in her place, and she didn`t like it. The only time we saw a little bit of discomfort was when he was hitting it home and I just thought he was confident. He had a swagger. He was awesome. On fire. (CROSSTALK) PINSKY: Yes. Jenny, go. HUTT: I just agree with Janine a 100 percent about Jodi and again with her arrogance. Like I said to you before the show earlier today, Dr. Drew, usually, when a girl gets broken up with, we feel bad, we feel insecure like it`s about us. Something is wrong with us, and we take it out on ourselves. She took it out on him. (CROSSTALK) HUTT: This is the sociopath part that she`s talking about. I don`t think Jodi`s going to kill herself either, by the way. (CROSSTALK) PINSKY: So, you think, she`s -- because she has this other thing we`ve been talking about, not just borderline, it`s borderline plus psychopathy, that`s where the goal directedness, the self-preoccupations come in. Samantha, what do you think about Jenny just said about what women -- why women are attacking and so upset with her? SAMANTHA SCHACHER, HOST, "POP TRIGGER": I think women are upset with her because she gives women a bad name. I mean, her whole defense is based on lies and essentially saying that I`m a battered woman when you`re not a battered woman. DRIVER: Dr. Drew -- PINSKY: Yes. DRIVER: The only reason she`s not going to kill herself is because she won`t be able to put makeup on herself when she goes into the casket. CHERYL ARUTT, PSY.D., @DRCHERYLARUTT: Right. Right. She`s in love with herself. (CROSSTALK) ABE ABDELHADI, DATED JODI ARIAS: Let`s look at a bigger picture though. PINSKY: Go ahead. ABDELHADI: Let`s look at a bigger picture though, really quick. This trial has changed the nature of murder trials from here on in. You`ve never seen a defendant this arrogant, this snarky, this confident. O.J. had respect. Robert Blake had respect. If I got to say the good old days of O.J., we have fallen as a culture. And now, we have this -- you`re going to see everybody who`s got beat with a wooden spoon. They didn`t get a Shetland pony (ph) when they were six. It`s going to go on and on and on all based on this trial. She`s the Bill Clinton of murder defendants. HUTT: OK. You`re right, but you`re not supposed to have swagger when you`re a murder defendant. PINSKY: Hold on. I hope not -- ABDELHADI: Well, they`re going to now. They`re going to now. Oh, my uncle touched me. I chopped her boob off because my uncle touched me when I was six. It`s going to go on and on and on. You watch. (CROSSTALK) ARUTT: There`s always been defenses -- I think she`s going to be very, very surprised if -- and I think when, she`s convicted. PINSKY: So, let`s all agree on this. We`re all going to read Abe`s manifesto. I think we all agree on that. I hope that this doesn`t end up pouring into the courts. I hope that what happens is that people start recognizing when they`re in trouble. They`re having behavior problems. They`ve had trauma, whatever it might be, and they go get help before they do something awful. That`s what I`m hoping. But I don`t know. Samantha, put a little button on this for this about how this is going to affect our culture. Abe said it`s going to take us into the toilet. SCHACHER: Well, unfortunately, we`ve seen this trial be glamorized. And I think people have become numb to it because it`s become a little bit of a circus. And they forget the fact that this is a trial of somebody that was so brutally murdered. I mean, when you look at those photographs, he was murdered three times over. PINSKY: Yes, slaughter. It was absolutely slaughter. Good panel, as usual, part two of the panel takes me into places that makes me uncomfortable. And you guys succeeded tonight. Next up, two brothers who know Travis Alexander are here, and they have a theory about how Jodi killed Travis. And later, mom whose daughter was Jodi`s roommate, and she didn`t become part of the investigation. She has a story to tell. It didn`t end well as you might imagine. We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS HUGHES, TRAVIS` BEST FRIEND: They`re painting him in this -- making him out to be this monster, right? And that just aggravates me, because, -- and they say, you know, he`s got this secret life. He doesn`t have a secret life. He`s not living a double life. He has a sex life, right? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. CHRIS HUGHES: And most people have them and they`re private and I would say sacred, you know? So, to pain him our -- look, my wife and I knew he was having a relationship with Jodi Arias. We knew that they were intimate. We couldn`t paint you a picture of it. We didn`t know what it looked like. We didn`t know what they did behind closed doors. We didn`t ask, and they didn`t say. (END VIDEO CLIP) PINSKY: And now, unfortunately, we all know. Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. That was Travis Alexander`s very close friend, Chris Hughes, on Monday night with us here. Joining us now are Chris` brothers, David and Michael Hughes. They actually worked with Travis and knew him. This Michael`s first ever interview. And so, Michael, I appreciate you being here. And David, you were actually in the courtroom today. You made eye contact with Jodi. Tell us what happened when you heard -- first of all, what happened when you made eye contact with Jodi? How was that? DAVID HUGHES, KNEW TRAVIS ALEXANDER: Well, actually, I`m David. Mike is actually the one that got in the courtroom. I know you get that confused because we`re twins. PINSKY: Got it. DAVID HUGHES: As a matter of fact your producer was trying to get us to dress alike. And that`s a really sore subject to us, because my mom -- (CROSSTALK) PINSKY: Yes. I have triplets. We would not, we would -- you`d have to move through our bodies to dress our kids the same. So, I understand what you`re dealing with. I`m sorry about that. MICAHEL HUGHES, KNEW TRAVIS ALEXANDER: No, Dr. Drew, hey. No, I was -- I made it in the lottery today. The family side was all filled up. And so, I wind up going through the lottery. I got picked for the lottery and was able to get into the courtroom. It`s just great to be here with the family and to be able to give them our support and love. And, so, it`s a real surreal day. And Juan Martinez, I thought, did a fantastic job wrapping this up, doing his final remarks, and putting a bow on it. You know, when you were saying, when you asked me about Jodi looking at me today, I was actually sitting right behind her mother. And she had made a double take. So, it was the first time she`s ever seen me, you know, in any way or fashion according to this trial. And you know, we spent a lot of time on the phone. We talked quite a bit because of business. She`s been to our house many, many times. And it was really weird to make that connection with -- she made a double take and looked down, and like oh, what are you doing here. So, anyway, but, I knew them both very, very well. And it was very sad to be able to see how that relationship blossomed and got dangerous and deadly. PINSKY: And now, that was Michael, right? I`m still screwed up. MICAHEL HUGHES: Yes. It`s Michael. PINSKY: OK. David, you were the one that actually spoke to Jodi right after you found out Travis was dead. Tell us that story. DAVID HUGHES: That was Mike also. So, I`ll let him -- MICAHEL HUGHES: So, no, what happened is -- PINSKY: I`m so sorry. (LAUGHTER) MICAHEL HUGHES: It`s all right. You know, that happens to us all the time. So, anyway, I actually got a text from Dave. He was in Cancun with Chris Hughes. And the text just simply said, the T-Dog is dead. And I`m like what? What kind of text is this? So, anyway, I`m calling frantically trying to find out what`s going on. And I couldn`t get ahold of anybody because of the cell phones in Cancun. And so, anyway, I wind up, the first person I called was Jodi. And she picked up the phone. And she was immediately in tears. And I said what do you know? She goes, well, I know that Travis is dead. And she just is hysterical the whole entire time. And I said, how did he die? She says I don`t know. I don`t know. And I said, have you talked to anyone? And she goes, I`ve only talked to Travis` bishop and he said that there was blood everywhere. And I go, was he murdered? And she goes, I don`t know, I don`t know. And I go, let me -- Dave Hull (ph) knows more than you. Let me get Dave hold on phone. So, I three wayed conference call Dave Hull (ph) into the call. And they wind up -- I just simply said, Dave, what do you know? And he said yes, you know, Travis was found dead in his home today. And I said, hey, by the way, I`ve got Jodi on the phone. And he goes oh, hey, Jodi, hold on a second guys, I`m about to board the plane to go to Cancun. And so, anyway, then he wind up -- so, anyway, I`m sorry and then he wind up saying hold on, Jodi just a second. And he text me and he said you`re on the phone with the number one suspect and I immediately freaked out. And I said, guys, we`re going up the mountains. I was with my family and my favorite aunt. I said, listen, I`ve got to go, I`m losing reception. I hung up with Jodi. I called back Dave Hull and said what? And he told me what`s going on. It was just a shocker and what`s really frightening about that is two months of that, two months prior to the murder, I had just invited her to live in our apartment downstairs apartment. And it kind of just freaks me out to think that that person could have been in my home. PINSKY: Jenny. HUTT: OK. So this is my question, Michael. What was your friendship like with Jodi? How did you have that level of relationship where you thought you`d invite her to live with you when she was going to -- after she had broken up with Travis? Did she flirt with you? Or after he had broken up with her, was she flirtatious with you? MICAHEL HUGHES: No. No. Our relationship was very professional. You know, she didn`t make -- you know, we didn`t have any type of -- it was very business. And, you know, but I was working directly with her. And I took a lot of phone calls with her and helped her and trained her. And so, you know, we were closer on a business aspect but the reason why I invited her was because we were actually at a convention. She was telling me they just broke up. She was thinking about moving to California. And I just told her, you know, you should try moving out to Colorado. It`s amazing. PINSKY: And David, I want to give you a chance here. I`m sorry. All my questions have been directed to Michael. HUTT: Wow. PINSKY: But you knew her as well, is there anything you have to add about the woman, you know, everybody says pretty much the same thing, and the picture`s getting grimmer and grimmer in terms of how sort of manipulative and problematic this woman is, do you agree? DAVID HUGHES: Oh, absolutely. I mean, she`s completely manipulative, because if you look at this interview that she did on "48 Hours," the raw footage, that is what Jodi Arias is like when she`s got her best foot forward. But you see her in the courtroom? Totally different person. PINSKY: Well, and it seems like she`s very good at that, at presenting whatever face she needs to present to get her goals met. Thank you, gentlemen. DAVID HUGHES: Next up, living with Jodi, a woman who knows -- well, whose daughter really is the one that knows exactly what that`s like. She`s here with us. We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How horrific it is to be accused falsely of being a pedophile. He`s not here to say no, that`s not true. How absolutely hateful that allegation is, and how absolutely extensive she was with it? But, remember, I said that she went a little too far with these thoughts? First of all, her journal indicates that there wasn`t such an event. Second of all, the text messages also indicate the same thing. What human being doesn`t go to the police and say this person is a pedophile. What she does is the new approach to pedophilia. What does she do? Well, let`s jump in the sack. (END VIDEO CLIP) PINSKY: And, he went on to describe how there was zero evidence of pedophilia, zero, zero, zero. Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. Also, we have brothers David and Michael Hughes. They knew Jodi and Travis. And, all of us now are being joined by Debbie. She would prefer I not use her last name. She has -- now you used to -- your daughter lived with Jodi. Is that right, Debbie? Debbie, are you there? "DEBBIE," DAUGHTER LIVED WITH JODI: Can you hear me? PINSKY: Yes, I hear you now. "DEBBIE": OK. PINSKY: So, tell us the story. I understand your daughter lived with Jodi for a couple weeks, and it ended badly. What happened? "DEBBIE": Well, she met Jodi in October of 2006. They both started a training program at a restaurant called Bing Crosbys (ph) in rancho mirage. They became real close. PINSKY: And Debbie, I`m sorry to interrupt. We have very limited time. Tell me they got together. They worked together. Tell me where it went bad. What happened? "DEBBIE": She wanted Ashley to move in. And she moved in on January 6th, because Daryl had left her high and dry, according to Jodi. And she lasted three weeks. PINSKY: What happened? "DEBBIE": The behaviors of Jodi, the lying, the manipulation, the men at all hours. She would leave to go to Arizona at two or three o`clock in the morning. (CROSSTALK) PINSKY: Hang on. Men at all hours. Would she have men over and have sex with them? Is that what your daughter was subjected to? "DEBBIE": She would tell my daughter to go in her room and shut the door. HUTT: Really? "DEBBIE": But she could hear the things that were going on out there. She said she was having bible studies. PINSKY: I want you to react to that. Have you ever heard of this history before? "DEBBIE": This what? I`m sorry? PINSKY: I`m asking David if he`d like to react to that if he`d ever heard of anything like this coming from her. DAVID HUGHES: No. I`ve never heard of anything like that. PINSKY: Yes. It a little disturbing, Debbie. Again, we can`t confirm nor deny, but I take your report -- it`s certainly consistent with what we`ve come to understand about this person. It wouldn`t be that surprising. Go ahead, Jenny. (CROSSTALK) HUTT: I like the idea of bible studies as a euphemism for sex. (LAUGHTER) "DEBBIE": This was the way it was, the entire three weeks. It was amazing my daughter lasted as long as she did. PINSKY: And ultimately, she tried to get a restraining order against Jodi. Is that correct? "DEBBIE": I wanted to get a restraining order against her when this was over. She say -- I called her a functioning psychopath. And -- PINSKY: Well, that`s what we`re all coming to understand. And then, you didn`t know about this -- when did you find out about this murder? And what did you think then? "DEBBIE": As soon as we found out, we called Detective Flores, because we thought we had some information that he would be interested in about Travis, because my daughter knew him, and, you know, all the visits that he had there during that time, she knew all about it. she knew him. So, we thought we had some information pertaining to Jodi, but he said he was interested in people who knew her from Arizona. So, we gave our number and he never called us back. So -- and this whole time I haven`t heard anybody coming forward and saying -- PINSKY: Debbie, I have to go. I`m sorry. I would love to talk to you more. I hope, too. And we are interested in what you have to offer. It`s very telling. It`s a whole piece of the story. Again, this is all puzzle we`re putting together. Thank you, Debbie. Thank you Michael and David. Next up, my jury. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PINSKY: Welcome back. It is time for Drew`s jurors. And I`m with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. And joining the two of us, Katie Wick and Stacey Fairrington. Now, you guys didn`t get into the courtroom today because there was a lottery. We heard David and Michael mentioned that as well. That`s how I think Michael got into courtroom. Now, so, you were outside, but you saw everything went down. Katie, you yourself, were crying today. Why and what did you think of Jodi`s tears? KATIE WICK, DR. DREW "JUROR": Well, a few of us gals couldn`t get in, so we went across the street to the hotel where they`re staying. And we started crying when Juan Martinez was talking about the autopsy photos and we`re bawling. And I`m looking at Jodi and there`s no tears. How in the world does that possible? I never knew Travis. I`m bawling and she`s not shedding anything. PINSKY: Very interesting, except when she had to confront the reality of what she had done. Again, whenever reality creeps in, that`s when she becomes panicky. Stacy, the closing arguments, what did you think? STACEY FAIRRINGTON, DR. DREW "JUROR": Juan Martinez was on fire. He did excellent. He was so good. He got out everything that he needed to say. And I think just reminding that jury of all of her lies. That`s what this case really comes down to. Jodi has lied about so many things. And the bottom line is, it was premeditated murder of Travis. And she was upset and that`s where we are. And she needs to get the conviction of first degree murder. PINSKY: Yes. He heard of someone who knew her one time calling her a functioning psychopath long before she did this. Ladies, thank you. We have to take a quick break. Be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PINSKY: It`s time for the last call. Show hands, ladies. Who amongst you think there will be a decision by Monday? Show hands. Ooh, nobody. (CROSSTALK) HUTT: This is a hopeful hand raise. PINSKY: I think maybe Tuesday. Thank you, guys. Thank you to the jury. Thank you, Jenny Hutt. Thanks to all of my guests. Thanks for watching. We`ll see you tomorrow. Again, live at 9:00, two-hour edition of "HLN After Dark" begins right now. END


text:
Press Release posted 4/24/13 – Got a minute? The folks who run Sierra Madre's two local TV stations – that's right, Sierra Madre has two local TV stations – need your opinion on what you like to watch and how you watch it so they can make this local resource more fun and relevant to your lifestyle.
We are doing this survey now because we are excited to launch a new channel, Channel 98. As you might know, Channel 3 on Time Warner Cable has been airing City Council and Planning Commission meetings, and other City government events, live for years and this important service will continue. But we are now adding Channel 98 as a commercial free, educational channel that will feature children's programming, classic movies and TV shows, how-to shows, community special events and other interesting and eclectic programming relevant to our lives in Sierra Madre all presented without commercials and without fundraising. It is our channel, it is starting from scratch, and we need you to tell us what you want to see on it.
Please take a few minutes to fill out this questionnaire either online at www.surveymonkey.com/s/X6VBWYB or drop it off at City Hall, Sierra Madre Library, or the Recreation Center by May 31, 2013 and be part of creating something that will entertain and inform us, be unique to our special town, and make us proud. Thanks for the help!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Home
- LH Shopping
- Gift Ideas
- Sets
- Writing
- Scissors
- Children
- Home & Office
- Lifestyle
- Blog & Info
- Blog & Info Pages
- About Us
- Questions & Help
- Left Handers Club
- Product Info
- Recreations
- Research
We have created some great new designs for left handers and as well as sharing them online you can now order them on a wide range of printed products. Left Handers Day takes place on August 13th every year and what better way to show everyone how proud you are of being left-handed than with a T-shirt, Mug, Bag or other accessory that proudly declares your left handedness to everyone.
See the full range of designs and products in our Printed Products Shop (Takes you to a separate website to order)
Schoolteacher thinks left-handedness is evil
Why are stormtroopers no longer left-handed?


text:
This article will be permanently flagged as inappropriate and made unaccessible to everyone.
Are you certain this article is inappropriate?
Excessive Violence
Sexual Content
Political / Social
Email Address:
Article Id:
Reproduction Date:
Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. In relation to computer software, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) claimed in its 2011 piracy study: "Public opinion continues to support intellectual property (IP) rights: Seven PC users in 10 support paying innovators to promote more technological advances."[1] Following consultation with experts on copyright infringement, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) clarified in 2010 that "estimating the economic impact of IP [intellectual property] infringements is extremely difficult, and assumptions must be used due to the absence of data," while "it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the net effect of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy as a whole."[2]
In the 21st century, the terms "piracy" and "theft" are often associated with copyright infringement.[3][4] The original meaning of "piracy" is defined as "robbery or illegal violence at sea" by the "Dictionary.com" website;[5] however, the term has been used as a synonym for acts of copyright infringement for a significant period of time. Theft emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders; however, not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.[6]
In the case MPAA v. Hotfile, Judge Kathleen Williams granted a motion to deny the prosecution the usage of pejorative words in the copyright infringement case.[7] This list included the words "piracy," "theft," "stealing," and their derivatives—the use of which, even if the defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs' copyrights, the defense asserted, would serve no purpose but to misguide and inflame the jury.[8] The plaintiff argued the common use of the terms when referring to copyright infringement should invalidate the motion, but the Judge did not concur.[9] (The case was however settled shortly before it reached the jury phase of the trial.[10])
The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne in 1710, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603.[11] The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright.[12] Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."[13] Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale."[14] Piracy traditionally refers to acts of copyright infringement intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."[12]
Richard Stallman and the GNU Project have criticized the use of the word "piracy" in these situations, saying that publishers use the word to refer to "copying they don't approve of" and that "they [publishers] imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them."[15] Certain forms of Anti-Piracy (such as DRM), are considered by consumers to control the use of the products content after sale.
Like any "property" with exclusive ownership rights and profit potential, software too is liable to be misused for commercial or other personal gain, despite all security measures, precautions and insurance protection normally characteristic of all private property. Plagiarism of software (in educational institutions), piracy of software (in industry) for commercial or non-commercial use, copyright infringement of software and its related files such as databases, are all various instances of such unlawful 'borrowing' of software. Plagiarism and piracy can amount to copyright infringement and copyright infringement in turn can happen even without actually pirating the software.[16]
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[17] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[6]
Some of the motives for engaging in copyright infringement are the following:[18]
Sometimes only partial compliance with license agreements is the cause. For example, in 2013 the software licensing audits regularly to ensure full compliance.[21]
Cara Cusumano, director of the Tribeca Film Festival, stated in April 2014: "Piracy is less about people not wanting to pay and more about just wanting the immediacy — people saying, 'I want to watch Spiderman right now' and downloading it". The statement occurred during the third year that the festival used the Internet to present its content, while it was the first year that it featured a showcase of content producers who work exclusively online. Cusumano further explained that downloading behavior is not merely conducted by people who merely want to obtain content for free:
I think that if companies were willing to put that material out there, moving forward, consumers will follow. It's just that they [consumers] want to consume films online and they're ready to consume films that way and we're not necessarily offering them in that way. So it's the distribution models that need to catch up. People will pay for the content.[3]
In response to Cusumano's perspective, Screen Producers Australia executive director Matt Deaner clarified the motivation of the film industry: "Distributors are usually wanting to encourage cinema-going as part of this process [monetizing through returns] and restrict the immediate access to online so as to encourage the maximum number of people to go to the cinema." Deaner further explained the matter in terms of the Australian film industry, stating: "there are currently restrictions on quantities of tax support that a film can receive unless the film has a traditional cinema release."[3]
In a study published in the Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, and reported on in early May 2014, researchers from the University of Portsmouth in the UK discussed findings from examining the illegal downloading behavior of 6,000 Finnish people, aged seven to 84. The list of reasons for downloading given by the study respondents included money saving; the ability to access material not on general release, or before it was released; and assisting artists to avoid involvement with record companies and movie studios.[22]
In Media Piracy in Emerging Economies, the first independent international comparative study of media piracy with center on Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa, Mexico, Turkey and Bolivia, "high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies" are the chief factors that lead to the global spread of media piracy, especially in emerging markets.[23]
According to the same study, even though digital piracy inflicts additional costs on the production side of media, it also offers the main access to media goods in developing countries. The strong tradeoffs that favor using digital piracy in developing economies dictate the current neglected law enforcements toward digital piracy.[24] In China, the issue of digital piracy is not merely legal, but social – originating from the high demand for cheap and affordable pirated goods as well as the governmental connections of the businesses which produce such goods.[25]
There have been instances where a country's government bans a movie, resulting in the spread of pirated videos and DVDs. Romanian-born documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu wrote a New York Times article telling the story of Irina Margareta Nistor, a narrator for state TV under Nicolae Ceauşescu's regime. A visitor from the west gave her bootlegged copies of American movies, which she dubbed for secret viewings through Romania. According to the article, she dubbed more than 3,000 movies and became the country's second-most famous voice after Ceauşescu, even though no one knew her name until many years later.[26]
Most countries extend copyright protections to authors of works. In countries with copyright legislation, enforcement of copyright is generally the responsibility of the copyright holder.[27] However in several jurisdictions there are also criminal penalties for copyright infringement.[28]
In the U.S., copyright infringement is sometimes confronted via lawsuits in civil court, against alleged infringers directly, or against providers of services and software that support unauthorized copying. For example, major motion-picture corporation MGM Studios filed suit against P2P file-sharing services Grokster and Streamcast for their contributory role in copyright infringement.[29] In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM, holding that such services could be held liable for copyright infringement since they functioned and, indeed, willfully marketed themselves as venues for acquiring copyrighted movies. The MGM v. Grokster case did not overturn the earlier Sony decision, but rather clouded the legal waters; future designers of software capable of being used for copyright infringement were warned.[30]
In the United States, copyright term has been extended many times over[31] from the original term of 14 years with a single renewal allowance of 14 years, to the current term of the life of the author plus 70 years. If the work was produced under corporate authorship it may last 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is less.
Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires that signatory countries enable courts to remedy copyright infringement with injunctions and the destruction of infringing products, and award damages.[14]
Punishment of copyright infringement varies case-by-case across countries. Convictions may include jail time and/or severe fines for each instance of copyright infringement. In the United States, willful copyright infringement carries a maximum penalty of $150,000 per instance.[32]
Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires that signatory countries establish criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale".[14] Copyright holders have demanded that states provide criminal sanctions for all types of copyright infringement.[27]
The first criminal provision in U.S. copyright law was added in 1897, which established a misdemeanor penalty for "unlawful performances and representations of copyrighted dramatic and musical compositions" if the violation had been "willful and for profit."[33] Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted "for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. § 506(a). To establish criminal liability, the prosecutor must first show the basic elements of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright, and the violation of one or more of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The government must then establish that defendant willfully infringed or, in other words, possessed the necessary mens rea. Misdemeanor infringement has a very low threshold in terms of number of copies and the value of the infringed works.
The ACTA trade agreement, signed in May 2011 by the United States, Japan, Switzerland, and the EU, requires that its parties add criminal penalties, including incarceration and fines, for copyright and trademark infringement, and obligated the parties to actively police for infringement.[27][34][35]
United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 (1994) was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law. The ruling gave rise to what became known as the "LaMacchia Loophole," wherein criminal charges of fraud or copyright infringement would be dismissed under current legal standards, so long as there was no profit motive involved.[36]
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997 in response to LaMacchia, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement under certain circumstances, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%. The court's ruling explicitly drew attention to the shortcomings of current law that allowed people to facilitate mass copyright infringement while being immune to prosecution under the Copyright Act.
Proposed laws such as the Stop Online Piracy Act broaden the definition of "willful infringement", and introduce felony charges for unauthorized media streaming. These bills are aimed towards defeating websites that carry or contain links to infringing content, but have raised concerns about domestic abuse and internet censorship.
To an extent, copyright law in some countries permits downloading copyright-protected content for personal, noncommercial use. Examples include Canada and European Union (EU) member states like Poland,[37] The Netherlands,[38] and Spain.[39]
The personal copying exemption in the copyright law of EU member states stems from the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, which is generally devised to allow EU members to enact laws sanctioning making copies without authorization, as long as they are for personal, noncommerical use. The Copyright Directive was not intended to legitimize file-sharing, but rather the common practice of space shifting copyright-protected content from a legally purchased CD (for example) to certain kinds of devices and media, provided rights holders are compensated and no copy protection measures are circumvented. Rights-holder compensation takes various forms, depending on the country, but is generally either a levy on "recording" devices and media, or a tax on the content itself. In some countries, such as Canada, the applicability of such laws to copying onto general-purpose storage devices like computer hard drives, portable media players, and phones, for which no levies are collected, has been the subject of debate and further efforts to reform copyright law.
In some countries, the personal copying exemption explicitly requires that the content being copied was obtained legitimately—i.e., from authorized sources, not file-sharing networks. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, make no such distinction; the exemption there had been assumed, even by the government, to apply to any such copying, even from file-sharing networks. However, in April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that "national legislation which makes no distinction between private copies made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be tolerated."[40] Thus, in the Netherlands, for example, downloading from file-sharing networks is no longer legal.
Although downloading or other private copying is sometimes permitted, public distribution—by uploading or otherwise offering to share copyright-protected content—remains illegal in most, if not all countries. For example, in Canada, even though it is legal to download any copyrighted file as long as it is for noncommercial use, it is illegal to distribute the copyrighted files (e.g. by uploading them to a P2P network).[41]
Some countries, like Canada and Germany, have limited the penalties for non-commercial copyright infringement. For example, statutory damages in Canada for non-commercial copyright infringement is capped at $5,000.[42] Germany has even passed a bill to limit the fine for individuals accused of sharing music and movies to $200.[43]
On September 20, 2013, the Spanish government approved new laws that will take effect at the beginning of 2014. The approved legislation will mean that website owners who are earning "direct or indirect profit," such as via advertising links, from pirated content can be imprisoned for up to six years. However, peer-to-peer file-sharing platforms and search engines are exempt from the laws.[44]
Title I of the U.S. DMCA, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has provisions that prevent persons from "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". Thus if a distributor of copyrighted works has some kind of software, dongle or password access device installed in instances of the work, any attempt to bypass such a copy protection scheme may be actionable — though the US Copyright Office is currently reviewing anticircumvention rulemaking under DMCA — anticircumvention exemptions that have been in place under the DMCA include those in software designed to filter websites that are generally seen to be inefficient (child safety and public library website filtering software) and the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms that have malfunctioned, have caused the instance of the work to become inoperable or which are no longer supported by their manufacturers.
Whether Internet intermediaries are liable for copyright infringement by their users is a subject of debate and court cases in a number of countries.[45]
Internet intermediaries were formerly understood to be internet service providers (ISPs). However, questions of liability have also emerged in relation to other Internet infrastructure intermediaries, including Internet backbone providers, cable companies and mobile communications providers.[46]
In addition, intermediaries are now also generally understood to include Internet portals, software and games providers, those providing virtual information such as interactive forums and comment facilities with or without a moderation system, aggregators of various kinds, such as news aggregators, universities, libraries and archives, web search engines, chat rooms, web blogs, mailing lists, and any website which provides access to third party content through, for example, hyperlinks, a crucial element of the World Wide Web.
Early court cases focused on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) for hosting, transmitting or publishing user-supplied content that could be actioned under civil or criminal law, such as libel, defamation, or pornography.[47] As different content was considered in different legal systems, and in the absence of common definitions for "ISPs," "bulletin boards" or "online publishers," early law on online intermediaries' liability varied widely from country to country. The first laws on online intermediaries' liability were passed from the mid-1990s onwards.
The debate has shifted away from questions about liability for specific content, including that which may infringe copyright, towards whether online intermediaries should be generally responsible for content accessible through their services or infrastructure.[48]
The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) and the European E-Commerce Directive (2000) provide online intermediaries with limited statutory immunity from liability for copyright infringement. Online intermediaries hosting content that infringes copyright are not liable, so long as they do not know about it and take actions once the infringing content is brought to their attention. In U.S. law this is characterized as "safe harbor" provisions. Under European law, the governing principles for Internet Service Providers are "mere conduit", meaning that they are neutral 'pipes' with no knowledge of what they are carrying; and 'no obligation to monitor' meaning that they cannot be given a general mandate by governments to monitor content. These two principles are a barrier for certain forms of online copyright enforcement and they were the reason behind an attempt to amend the European Telecoms Package in 2009 to support new measures against copyright infringement.[49]
Peer-to-peer file sharing intermediaries have been denied access to safe harbor provisions in relation to copyright infringement. Legal action against such intermediaries, such as Napster, are generally brought in relation to principles of secondary liability for copyright infringement, such as contributory liability and vicarious liability.[50]
These types of intermediaries do not host or transmit infringing content, themselves, but may be regarded in some courts as encouraging, enabling or facilitating infringement by users. These intermediaries may include the author, publishers and marketers of peer-to-peer networking software, and the websites that allow users to download such software. In the case of the BitTorrent protocol, intermediaries may include the torrent tracker and any websites or search engines which facilitate access to torrent files. Torrent files don't contain copyrighted content, but they may make reference to files that do, and they may point to trackers which coordinate the sharing of those files. Some torrent indexing and search sites, such as The Pirate Bay, now encourage the use of magnet links, instead of direct links to torrent files, creating another layer of indirection; using such links, torrent files are obtained from other peers, rather than from a particular website.
Since the late 1990s, copyright holders have taken legal actions against a number of peer-to-peer intermediaries, such as Napster, Grokster, eMule, SoulSeek, BitTorrent and Limewire, and case law on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) in relation to copyright infringement has emerged primarily in relation to these cases.[51]
Nevertheless, whether and to what degree any of these types of intermediaries have secondary liability is the subject of ongoing litigation. The decentralised structure of peer-to-peer networks, in particular, does not sit easily with existing laws on online intermediaries' liability. The BitTorrent protocol established an entirely decentralised network architecture in order to distribute large files effectively. Recent developments in peer-to-peer technology towards more complex network configurations are said to have been driven by a desire to avoid liability as intermediaries under existing laws.[52]
Copyright law does not grant authors and publishers absolute control over the use of their work. Only certain types of works and certain kinds of uses are protected; only unauthorized, protected uses of protected works can be said to be infringing.
Article 10 of the Berne Convention mandates that national laws provide for limitations to copyright, so that copyright protection does not extend to certain kinds of uses that fall under what the treaty calls "fair practice," including but not limited to minimal quotations used in journalism and education.[53] The laws implementing these limitations and exceptions for uses that would otherwise be infringing broadly fall into the categories of either fair use or fair dealing. In common law systems, these fair practice statutes typically enshrine principles underlying many earlier judicial precedents, and are considered essential to freedom of speech.[54]
Another example is the practice of compulsory licensing, which is where the law forbids copyright owners from denying a license for certain uses of certain kinds of works, such as compilations and live performances of music. Compulsory licensing laws generally say that for certain uses of certain works, no infringement occurs as long as a royalty, at a rate determined by law rather than private negotiation, is paid to the copyright owner or representative copyright collective. Some fair dealing laws, such as Canada's, include similar royalty requirements.[55]
In order to qualify for protection, a work must be an expression with a degree of originality, and it must be in a fixed medium, such as written down on paper or recorded digitally.[56][57] The idea itself is not protected. That is, a copy of someone else's original idea is not infringing unless it copies that person's unique, tangible expression of the idea. Some of these limitations, especially regarding what qualifies as original, are embodied only in case law (judicial precedent), rather than in statutes.
In the U.S., for example, copyright case law contains a substantial similarity requirement to determine whether the work falls under the fair use clause. Likewise, courts may require computer software to pass an Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC Test)[58][59] to determine if it is too abstract to qualify for protection, or too dissimilar to an original work to be considered infringing. Software-related case law has also clarified that the amount of R&D, effort and expense put into a work's creation doesn't affect copyright protection.[60]
Evaluation of alleged copyright infringement in a court of law may be substantial; the time and costs required to apply these tests vary based on the size and complexity of the copyrighted material. Furthermore, there is no standard or universally accepted test; some courts have rejected the AFC Test, for example, in favor of narrower criteria.
The POSAR test,[61] a recently devised forensic procedure for establishing software copyright infringement cases, is an extension or an enhancement of the AFC test. POSAR, with its added features and additional facilities, offers something more to the legal and the judicial domain than what the AFC test offers. These additional features and facilities make the test more sensitive to the technical and legal requirements of software copyright infringement.
Corporations and legislatures take different types of preventative measures to deter copyright infringement, with much of the focus since the early 1990s being on preventing or reducing digital methods of infringement. Strategies include education, civil & criminal legislation, and international agreements,[62] as well as publicizing anti-piracy litigation successes and imposing forms of digital media copy protection, such as controversial digital rights management (DRM) technology and anti-circumvention laws.
In addition to legal maneuvers to curb copyright infringement, the music and motion picture industries have been trying different methods of digital distribution, reforming and sometimes abandoning the traditional system of "windowing" that keeps content from being available in all forms, worldwide, at the same time. By working with manufacturers, broadcasters, and distributors to deliver content efficiently and maintain acceptable revenue flows, the industries are slowly but increasingly meeting global consumer demand for immediate, in-home access to copyright-protected works. Nevertheless, the industry's position is that with the Internet being a global entity, it will still take a combination of worldwide legal agreements, agencies tasked with enforcement, and new ways of selling products to substantially reduce copyright infringement.
Legislatures have reduced infringement by narrowing the scope of what is considered infringing. Aside from upholding international copyright treaty obligations to provide general limitations and exceptions,[53] nations have enacted compulsory licensing laws applying specifically to digital works and uses. For example, in the U.S., the DMCA, an implementation of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, considers digital transmissions of audio recordings to be licensed as long as a designated copyright collective's royalty and reporting requirements are met.[63] The DMCA also provides safe harbor for digital service providers whose users are suspected of copyright infringement, thus reducing the likelihood that the providers themselves will be considered directly infringing.[64]
Some copyright owners voluntarily reduce the scope of what is considered infringement by employing relatively permissive, "open" licensing strategies: rather than privately negotiating license terms with individual users who must first seek out the copyright owner and ask for permission, the copyright owner publishes and distributes the work with a prepared license that anyone can use, as long as they adhere to certain conditions. This has the effect of reducing infringement—and the burden on courts—by simply permitting certain types of uses under terms that the copyright owner considers reasonable. Examples include free software licenses, like the GNU General Public License (GPL), and the Creative Commons licenses, which are predominantly applied to visual and literary works.
The BSA outlined four strategies that governments can adopt to reduce software piracy rates in its 2011 piracy study results:
The U.S. GOA's 2010 findings regarding the great difficulty of accurately gauging the economic impact of copyright infringement was reinforced within the same report by the body's research into three commonly cited estimates that had previously been provided to U.S. agencies. The GOA report explained that the sources—a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) estimate, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) press release and a Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association estimate—"cannot be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology."[2]
Deaner explained the importance of rewarding the "investment risk" taken by motion picture studios in 2014:
Usually movies are hot because a distributor has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting the product in print and TV and other forms of advertising. The major Hollywood studios spend millions on this process with marketing costs rivalling the costs of production. They are attempting then to monetise through returns that can justify the investment in both the costs of promotion and production.[3]
In 2008 the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) reported that its six major member companies lost US$6.1 billion to piracy.[65] A 2009 Los Angeles Daily News article then cited a loss figure of "roughly $20 billion a year" for Hollywood studios.[66]
In an early May 2014 Guardian article, an annual loss figure of US$20.5 billion was cited for the movie industry. The article's basis is the results of a University of Portsmouth study that only involved Finnish participants, aged between seven and 84. The researchers, who worked with 6,000 participants, stated: "Movie pirates are also more likely to cut down their piracy if they feel they are harming the industry compared with people who illegally download music".[22]
According to a 2007 BSA and International Data Corporation (IDC) study, the five countries with the highest rates of software piracy were: 1. Armenia (93%); 2. Bangladesh (92%); 3. Azerbaijan (92%); 4. Moldova (92%); and 5. Zimbabwe (91%). According to the study's results, the five countries with the lowest piracy rates were: 1. U.S. (20%); 2. Luxembourg (21%); 3. New Zealand (22%); 4. Japan (23%); and 5. Austria (25%). The 2007 report showed that the Asia-Pacific region was associated with the highest amount of loss, in terms of U.S. dollars, with $14,090,000, followed by the European Union, with a loss of $12,383,000; the lowest amount of U.S. dollars was lost in the Middle East/Africa region, where $2,446,000 was documented.[67]
In its 2011 report, conducted in partnership with IDC and Ipsos Public Affairs, the BSA stated: "Over half of the world's personal computer users—57 percent—admit to pirating software." The ninth annual "BSA Global Software Piracy Study" claims that the "commercial value of this shadow market of pirated software" was worth US$63.4 billion in 2011, with the highest commercial value of pirated PC software existent in the U.S. during that time period (US$9,773,000). According to the 2011 study, Zimbabwe was the nation with the highest piracy rate, at 92%, while the lowest piracy rate was present in the U.S., at 19%.[1]
The GAO noted in 2010 that the BSA's research up until that year defined "piracy as the difference between total installed software and legitimate software sold, and its scope involved only packaged physical software."[2]
The methodology of studies utilized by industry spokespeople has been heavily criticized. Inflated claims for damages and allegations of economic harm are common in copyright disputes.[68][69] Some studies and figures, including those cited by the MPAA and RIAA with regards to the economic effects of film and music downloads, have been widely disputed as based on questionable assumptions which resulted in statistically unsound numbers.[70][71]
In one extreme example, the RIAA claimed damages against LimeWire totaling $75 trillion – more than the global GDP – and "respectfully" disagreed with the judges ruling that such claims were "absurd".[72]
However, this $75 trillion figure is obtained through one specific interpretation of copyright law that would count each song downloaded as an infringement of copyright. After the conclusion of the case, LimeWire agreed to pay $105 million to RIAA.[73]
The 2011 Business Software Alliance Piracy Study Standard estimates the total commercial value of pirated software to be at $59 billion in 2010, with emerging markets accounting for $31.9 billion, over half of the total. Furthermore, mature markets for the first time received less PC shipments than emerging economies in 2010, making emerging markets now responsible for more than half of all computers in use worldwide. In addition with software piracy rates of 68 percent comparing to 24 percent of mature markets, emerging markets thus possess the majority of the global increase in the commercial value of pirated software. China continues to have the highest commercial value of pirated software at $8.9 billion among developing countries and second in the world behind the US at $9.7 billion in 2011.[74][75] In 2011, the Business Software Alliance announced that 83 percent of software deployed on PCs in Africa has been pirated (excluding South Africa).[76]
Some countries distinguish corporate piracy from private use, which is tolerated as a welfare service. This is the leading reason developing countries refuse to accept or respect copyright laws. Traian Băsescu, the president of Romania, stated that "piracy helped the young generation discover computers. It set off the development of the IT industry in Romania."[77]
Free Software Foundation, Linux, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Apple Inc., Steve Jobs
India, Canada, United Kingdom, Africa, Australia
Bucharest, European Union, Romanian language, Transylvania, Nato
Intellectual property, United Kingdom, Trademark, Internet, Public domain
Case citation, Copyright infringement, 9th Cir., United States courts of appeals, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Julio M. Fuentes, Michael Chagares, Louis H. Pollak, Julio M. Fuentes, Michael Chagares
Intellectual property, Citation, Copyright infringement, Ethics, Journalism
Social media, Child pornography, China, Alcohol, Tobacco
United States Reports, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ha...


text:
The past year has seen an interesting rise in so-called mini-tablets, multi-touch devices with 7- to 8-inch screens. After reviewing many of these devices, I've begun to revise my expectations and needs, and I've come to a sobering and disheartening conclusion. There is no obvious choice.
As a reviewer, this makes life difficult. When readers or acquaintances approach me looking for advice on the right product to buy, I want to be able to make a good recommendation that meets their needs. Sometimes the answer is obvious, but not always.
And it's not just that. As a technology enthusiast, I'm swimming in a sea of devices. And as a user I'm always trying to cull my own product use down to the bare essentials, at least until the next wave of new products hits. With the mini-tablet market reaching a point of maturity, I figured it was time to revisit some previously reviewed products and see whether I could find just one that makes the most sense for me.
(And to be clear, this is just about me. I obviously usually write with an eye towards general usage needs, but in this case, I'm trying to figure out which of these devices makes the most sense ... for me.)
The choices run the gamut. I've got a (2013) Google Nexus 7, which I'd used semi-exclusively for many months and like quite a bit. An Apple iPad mini with Retina Display. An Amazon Kindle HDX. And several Windows mini-tablets, including the Dell Venue 8 Pro, the Lenovo Miix 2, and of course the ThinkPad 8.
A few general thoughts.
Using the iPad mini and Windows mini-tablets have made me realize that the bigger screen size (roughly 8 inches) on these devices is important and desirable. Going back to the Nexus 7 or Kindle HDX is tough, if only because of their smaller screens. (This begs the question about whether a 9-inch tablet would make some sort of sense, but I do think that 8-inches is roughly the ideal size for a mini-tablet. At least for me.)
I read two newspapers every day on a Kindle Paperwhite, but would like the option to read those papers on whatever mini-tablet I choose as well, if only so I don't need to carry both when traveling. I also read graphic novels from time to time. These experiences are ether impossible or lackluster depending on the device, and for reasons that are almost too complex to describe.
I subscribe to numerous magazines via Kindle and would like to read them on whatever mini-tablet I choose. The experience varies a bit from device to device, but this need immediately eliminates the Windows devices: The Kindle software for Windows does not support periodicals. (At least not the ones I read.)
Here, you can see that Kindle graphic novels, like periodicals, are not available on Windows devices:
I would occasionally watch rented movies on trips on such a device and play crossword puzzle-type games. All of the devices can meet this need.
Looking at the devices individually, each has some pluses and some minuses.
The Nexus 7 is the kind of bare bones Android experience I like, and there is a great version of the Kindle software. But the screen is a bit small. And there's no microSD expansion.
The Kindle Fire HDX has a smallish-screen and is heavy with its magnetic cover. (I cover all my non-Windows mini-tablets.) The performance is surprisingly and noticeably lousy in Kindle graphic novels. Some Kindle periodicals don't work—which is amazing—I think because they offer native apps instead. And the Kindle UI is pretty terrible, the worst of the lot. I'm reminded again why I didn't like this one very much.
The iPad mini's screen is fantastic, and a real selling point. The Kindle software works well and actually performs better than Amazon's own device for graphic novels. But you can't access the Kindle store from within the app—thanks, Apple—which is problematic. And there's no microSD expansion. I wish I had gotten a higher-end version with more storage. I'm stuck with a 16 GB version.
The Dell Venue 8 Pro and Miix 2 are basically identical. I prefer the Dell a bit, but they both have microSD expansion, nice screens, and good performance. Windows compatibility on such a devices buys me surprisingly little, and the Kindle software for Windows, as noted, sucks.
The ThinkPad 8 is interesting. The screen is superior, about as good as the iPad mini's. It has microSD expansion. But it also suffers from the same limitations as the other Windows mini-tablets. Also, I didn't buy this device, so I'll need to return the review unit and buy my own. It's a bit expensive at $400.
What's odd here is that if I'm just looking just for a great reading device, the iPad mini is the best choice ... assuming I can get past the lack of an in-app store. (You can pin an iPad-friendly version of the Kindle web site to the home screen, which I've done.) But then I have my soul to consider, and I'd rather have more storage, so I'd want to buy a new one. But a 32 GB iPad mini with Retina Display costs $500.
What I'd really like, I guess, is an 8-inch version of the Google Nexus 7. And this leads me to think that there's an Android-based tablet out there I've not reviewed that might make the most sense. So in many ways, the search continues.
Or, maybe Amazon will dramatically improve their Kindle software for Windows. I can dream.


text:
There is plenty to do for everyone on Ameland. This 'Parel (Pearl)' is suitable for families. In this luxury and cosy 'Commandeurs' Villa you will feel at home immediately.
Located in a unique location with views of the meadows and the 'Waddendijk'. The centre of the village Nes, with many terraces, restaurant and original shops, is just 3 minutes away by foot. It is a 10 minute walk from the ferry and only 10 minutes by bike to the beautiful beaches and dunes.
This luxury villa is situated at a small, newly established park called 'De Parel van Nes'. The 14 villas were built in 2013 in the old Ameland 'commander' style.
The ground floor features a spacious living room with natural light. From the living room you have access to the terrace, via the sliding doors, to enjoy the Ameland fresh air during breakfast or while reading a book. The large open kitchen is fully equipped and has a large dining table. Also located on the ground floor is a beach shower.
All bedrooms are located on the first floor and are stylish. One bedroom has its own bathroom with shower. Further, a bathroom with bath and shower can be found on the first floor.
This 'Parel' has private parking space available for 2 cars and free Wireless Internet throughout the house. Also, a desk is located in one of the bedrooms where you can work quietly.
Lastly, this house has a Wii game computer with many games for the whole family.
*Please note: No pets allowed.
Metz Verhuur & beheerStrandweg 219163 GK Nes Ameland
+31 (0)519 543 436


text:
Consumer Research Reports: In-depth Market Analysis & Consumer Trends
To get access to critical analysis, studies and recommendations across a range of categories and consumer markets around the world, we provide you with business-critical information through our detailed consumer reports.
Each consumer report offers the primary research and in-depth data found in our market data reports alongside expert insights, trend analysis and market forecasting to give you the decision-making information and competitive analysis you need.
Online access
Previous editions
Multiple formats


text:
Sometimes you take what you can get
Durban kicked the can down the road, the key points being that the Kyoto process survived and that the developing countries (India and China) accepted some responsibility for limiting emissions.
The deal renews the Kyoto Protocol, the fraying 1997 emissions agreement that sets different terms for advanced and developing countries, for several more years. But it also begins a process for replacing it with something that treats all nations equally. The expiration date of the protocol — 2017 or 2020 -- and the terms of any agreement that replaces it will be negotiated at future sessions of the governing body, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.The later was the sticking point
United Nations global warming talks headed toward a deadlock as China and India blocked a European Union proposal the 27-nation bloc said was essential for it to extend limits on pollution.
India's Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan said she objected to efforts by the EU to force developing nations into a legally-binding treaty limiting fossil fuel emissions by 2020. Chinese envoy Xie Zhenhua said rich nations are "not acting on their commitments" to cut greenhouse gases.
"India will never be intimidated by threats," Natarajan said at the talks in Durban, South Africa today. "How do I give a blank check and give a legally-binding agreement to sign away the rights of 1.2 billion people?"
More details emerge this morning at the Guardian
A major crisis had been provoked after 3am on Sunday morning when the EU clashed furiously with China and India over the legal form of a potential new treaty. The EU plan to bind all countries to cuts was close to collapse after India inserted the words "legal outcome" at the last minute into the negotiating text. . . .
With tempers rising and the talks minutes from being abandoned, the chair, South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, ordered China, India, the US, Britain, France, Sweden, Gambia, Brazil and Poland to meet in a small group or "huddle".
Surrounded by a crowd of nearly 100 delegates on the floor of the hall, they talked quietly among themselves to try to reach a new form of words acceptable to all.
But it was Brazil's chief negotiator, lawyer Luis Figueres, who came up with the compromise, proposing to substitute "an agreed outcome with legal force" for "legal outcome". This, said an EU lawyer, was much stronger, effectively meaning "a legally binding agreement".
"Yes, yes," cheered the crowd of onlookers around the politicians, and the talks were back on track.
Two hours later the 16-day talks were effectively over, with a commitment by all countries to accept binding emission cuts by 2020. As part of the package of measures agreed, a new climate fund will be set up, carbon markets will be expanded and countries will be able to earn money by protecting forests.
This outcome, although not nearly what was needed shows that the world knows that a climate treaty is necessary.
In other important news United Russia (aka the Party of Swindlers and Thieves ) is under increasing pressure to admit stealing the recent election and have another one. Evidence of outright vote stealing is clear. The Arab Spring turns into the Occupy Wall Street Fall and now the Russian Winter.


text:
Keystone State Thrust Into General Election Spotlight
-- Democratic strategist James Carville once famously described Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between."
As the fight for November comes in to focus, the Keystone State's 21 electoral votes will be key as the '08 race pits red against blue and moderate against moderate in Pennsylvania, a state that has gone Democratic in the last four presidential elections, though by ever-shrinking margins.
Sen. John McCain set sights on Pennsylvania as one of his top three Blue State targets in November; Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama lost the primary battle there to Sen. Hillary Clinton who was boosted to a 10-point lead by working-class white voters during the April primary.
McCain's hurdles include increased numbers of registered Democrats at the polls - a lead over Republicans that set state records by growing to 1.1 million following the primary. Obama faces an uphill battle where working-class whites and former Clinton supporters are concerned; the Illinois senator made conscious choices in Scranton son Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., as his running mate and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey who (opposes abortion rights and) was given a prominent speaking role at the party's convention.
During an editorial board meeting with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who stumped for Clinton during the primary season, said some whites in his state are "probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."
The Philadelphia suburbs will be the keystone within the keystone come November -- McCain's maverick brand is said to resonate strongly with moderates there, a pocket of Pennsylvania where Clinton enjoyed strong support among women voters.
Check back to see when ABC News is headed to this battleground state and if -- and how! -- the political tide turns for either candidate.


text:
Some of you all come to this blog when you are searching for Colombian Food Recipes.
I have a variety here that I have created photo tutorials on how to make these labor intensive but delicious foods.
If you do not see a recipe here that you would like, let me know and I will see if I can work that project into the plan!
You may also want to type a keyword into the search box at the top right of the page to see if it on the site.
- Fermented Colombian Sausages: Salchichas
- Colombian Tamales How-2 Guide
- Lengua de res en salsa de alcaparras (Beef Tongue in Caper Sauce)
- Arepa de huevo (Arepa with egg)
- How-2 guide on how to make Platanos (fried plantains or tostones)
- Yucas Fritas (Fried Yucas or Cassava Root) Recipe and How 2 photos
- Empanadas – The Recipe
- Flash Flickr Movie of How to make Colombian Empanadas
- How to make Colombian Empanadas – directions
- Chicharron – Deep fried pork belly – How To
- Latest full recipe for Colombian Bunuelos (2006 post)
- Last year's Christmas Bunuelo Decadence
- A Colombian breakfast How-2 guide
- Colombian Frescos
- Lechona preparation


text:
Follow the Twists and Turns in the Lives of Five Tough-as-nails Barrel Racers as They Confront Tumultuous Relationships and Fierce Competitors
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11 AT 11/10c
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12 AT 10/9c
New York, NY - November 11, 2013 - A&E(R)Network has brought in its newest original series Rodeo GirlsTMfrom The Weinstein Company and Left/Right. The six-episode series follows five female barrel racers as they pack up their lives and their horses to test their skills at rodeos across the country. Aspiring to keep their relationships and riding in check while they're on the road, these ladies work hard, ride fast and play rough. Rodeo Girls premieres Wednesday, December 11 at 11PM ET/PT and Thursday, December 12 at 10PM ET/PT and continues every Thursday at 10PM ET/PT.
Follow model-turned-rodeo queen Darcy "No Fear" LaPier. With three famous husbands behind her, Darcy brings a big checkbook as well as her grit and determination to the competition. Marvel Murphy is a seasoned rider whose wild past haunts her at every fairground and keeps her running in and out of the ring. Former champ Barb West returns to the circuit to reclaim her title after getting married and spending two years nesting at home. Rookie racer Megan Etcheberry grew up on the circuit, but still needs to win some races before she can officially call herself a pro. Youth barrel racing champ Jessica Holmberg has the skills to compete, but not always the funds.
And where there are cowgirls there are sure to be cowboys. Ty Murphy is Marvel's hot-headed cousin and trainer, who is good with horses and bad with women. Anthony Lucia, a professional stunt roper and amateur Lothario, wines and dines more than one cowgirl.
These ladies prove that rodeo life is more than just boots, chaps and spurs. Tumultuous relationships and fierce competitions leave plenty of drama to go around.
Rodeo Girls is produced for A&E Network by The Weinstein Company and Left/Right. Executive Producers for The Weinstein Company are Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein, Meryl Poster, Patrick Reardon and Barbara Schneeweiss. Executive Producers for Left/Right are Banks Tarver, Ken Druckerman, Nina L. Diaz and Sara Mast. Darcy LaPier and Roe Baker also serve as Executive Producers. Lily Neumeyer and Devon Graham are Executive Producers for A&E Network.
About A&E Network
Now reaching 100 million homes, A&E(R)is the home to 100% original content that inspires and challenges audiences to BE ORIGINAL. A&E offers a diverse mix of high-quality, uniquely immersive entertainment ranging from the network's original scripted series, including Bates Motel, Longmire and Those Who Kill, to signature nonfiction franchises, including Duck Dynasty(R), Beyond Scared Straight and Storage Wars(R). The A&E website is located at aetv.com. Follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/aetv and Facebook at ?facebook.com/AETV.