Sure, sure, you can make a alleged faux Key Lime pie out of crushed-up Oreos, flavored gelatin, and whipped non-dairy topping, but why would you do that when you can have an entirely different Oreo-infested simulation of the actual pie?
Like the other “limited edition” novelty flavors, these pie-flavored cookies come in a package that’s only 10.7 ounces, slimming down the package rather than the cookie.
We didn’t hear about this product before it hit stores, which means that Nabisco might finally have a handle on the flavor-leakers who would let horrified bloggers know in advance about the new flavors. We spotted these at a Price Chopper store in upstate New York, and our snack pals over at The Impulsive Buy reported a sighting last week at H-E-B in Texas.
Aereo only operated for two years, and in that time the company commanded a small but loyal fan base. Customers in the cities where the streaming service operated enjoyed being able to capture, record, and stream local over-the-air broadcasts… until the company got shot down by the courts and went bankrupt. Now, another company is trying to fan those flames of affection for its own marketing — and the deal on offer is not good at all.
A former Aereo subscriber in Massachusetts received an e-mail today with the subject line “Aereo Bankruptcy Resolution.”
At first, she said, the Aereo-branded message looked like it was going to be just that: some kind of information about the bankruptcy process. Instead, though, it turned out just to be a thinly-veiled ad for TiVo. The e-mail (reprinted in full at the bottom of this post) urges former Aereo customers to jump on the TiVo Roamio OTA DVR as soon as possible.
When Aereo’s assets went on the auction block, TiVo snapped up the defunct company’s trademarks and subscriber lists. TiVo was pretty transparent about their plans for that data.
At the time, CEO Tim Rogers said that the acquisition “will enhance our ability to serve the growing segment of consumers who want access to both broadcast television and over the top content,” adding, “TiVo has found success in providing a more comprehensive offering and sophisticated user experience than any other player in the marketplace and we look forward to expanding on that success.”
In other words, TiVo planned to ply their wares selectively to former Aereo customers, and now that day has come. And the deal’s a doozy.
“With the court’s blessing,” the message our reader received says, “we’ve been granted permission to contact you because, like you, we feel there’s never been a better time to make the most of this free, over-the-air bounty.”
And what better way to make use of a free bounty than by paying TiVo $20 per month (with a two-year commitment) to access it?
The special deal for former Aereo subscribers is, unfortunately, very much the wrong kind of special. The standard subscription fee for the TiVo Roamio OTA is $15 per month plus $50 for the device. Over the course of two years, that works out to about $410.
Signing up through TiVo’s e-mailed promotional URL for the free device and a $20 monthly fee, on the other hand, will cost $480 over that same time span. In other words, taking this offer will cost users $70 more than ignoring it and just heading to a big box store or TiVo’s website directly.
Expanding success, TiVo: you’re doing it wrong.
The full text reads:
Hello,
As a former Aereo customer, you’ve experienced firsthand the power and potential of over-the-air television. However, as a result of the Supreme Court’s Aereo ruling last year, these uncompressed, eye-popping HD signals and the free programming they deliver remain a largely untapped resource.
We’re working to change all that.
With the court’s blessing, we’ve been granted permission to contact you because, like you, we feel there’s never been a better time to make the most of this free, over-the-air bounty.
TiVo fought for the right to keep you informed on our progress, and we’re happy to inform you that our new TiVo Roamio™ OTA was conceived, developed and introduced for people just like you. This HD antenna DVR and streaming player in one brings two exciting worlds of content together in a single experience. You can also watch local TV wherever you are. We’ve set aside a small cache of these DVRs for former Aereo customers and want to offer it to you at an exclusive price, $19.99/mo. with a 2-year commitment. I encourage you to visit http://ift.tt/1EhXz0W to learn more while supplies last. Use promo code:ZH0Z016EU1
And thank you for helping us keep the Aereo dream alive.
Best regards,
Aereo Transition Officer
P.S. Don’t miss this opportunity. TiVo Roamio™ OTA was created with your needs in mind.
Back in February 2007, a mother of a young boy posted a short, grainy video of her baby “dancing” around the kitchen while a Prince song plays, barely audibly, in the background. In the eight years since, the video has received nearly 1.3 million views on YouTube — not because it’s a particularly interesting clip, but due to its role in a copyright lawsuit that won’t go away.
While most copyright claims on YouTube are now performed by automated systems that compare sounds and images with databases of copyrighted content, at the time the dancing baby video was uploaded, many record and movie companies had actual humans monitoring YouTube.
Thus, in the summer of 2007 a real person at Universal Music saw the above video and was somehow able to discern above the distorted audio and screaming children that the song blaring in the background is “Let’s Go Crazy” from the 1984 Prince and The Revolution album Purple Rain.
Additionally, that presumably living and breathing sentient being also came to the conclusion that this 29-second non-commercial home video was a valid case of copyright infringement and had it included on a list of Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices sent to YouTube.
The video was initially removed by YouTube and remained down for about six weeks, but after retaining an attorney, the mom was able to convince the Google-owned site that her video constituted a “fair use” of the song and it was reinstated.
For many YouTubers, that would have been the end, but the mom decided in July 2007 to take a more lasting stand against frivolous copyright claims. She sued, with assistance from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the publisher in federal court [PDF], claiming Universal had violated the DMCA by failing to consider the video might constitute “fair use” before demanding a takedown.
Though it rarely gets enforced, the DMCA does stipulate that “Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents” that something infringes on copyright “shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer… who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing.”
In the mom’s eyes, Universal knowingly misrepresented an infringement claim to YouTube when it did not take into account the possibility that the inclusion of background music in a very short amateur video might constitute a fair use.
Universal countered that the DMCA doesn’t mention fair use and that fair use is not an authorized use of a song, but an excusable use. To the publisher, this means that the shoot first, ask questions later approach of the takedown demand was appropriate — Universal requested a takedown because it was not an authorized use, and it was reinstated when it was later determined to be fair use.
However, in a 2008 order [PDF] denying Universal’s motion to dismiss, the District Court judge notes that the Copyright Act’s section on Fair Use explicitly states that fair use is “not an infringement of copyright.”
Universal claimed that requiring copyright holders to consider fair use before requesting a DMCA takedown would slow down the process of combating actual infringement, but the judge wasn’t won over by this argument, pointing out that the DMCA “already requires copyright owners to make an initial review
of the potentially infringing material prior to sending a takedown notice… A consideration of the applicability of the fair use doctrine simply is part of that initial review.”
But this wasn’t the end, and the case has yet to reach trial. Instead, there have been multiple requests for summary judgement from the court. In Jan. 2013, the court denied such requests from both sides.
The mom had presented evidence making her case that Universal did not instruct the employee in charge of reviewing YouTube videos to consider fair use, and he admitted in a deposition that the fair use doctrine did not enter into his decision. However, the court said no to granting a summary judgement in her favor because she had yet to prove that Universal was willfully blind to fair use in this case.
On the flip side of the coin, the court held that Universal admitted to considering some factors related to fair use in the takedown process, but did no analysis to determine if this was actually a case of fair use. Thus, the court could not come down on the publisher’s side. Additionally, the court disagreed with Universal’s contention that the mother was precluded from claiming any damages as a result of the takedown action.
The case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, where tomorrow morning EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry will argue that the purpose of the DMCA wasn’t just to give copyright holders an easy and quick way to issue takedowns of content without any consequence.
The DMCA has rules, and copyright holders should be held accountable, contend supporters of this lawsuit.
“Unfounded and abusive takedown notices inflict real harms on [online service providers], Internet users, and copyright holders,” reads an amicus brief [PDF] filed in 2013 by Google, Twitter, Tumblr, and Automattic. “Every time an unfounded takedown notice results in the removal of legitimate, non-infringing content posted by a user, it constitutes unjustified censorship of the user’s right to share speech with others and interferes with the OSP’s business of hosting and disseminating that user’s speech.”
A loss by Universal could have a wide-ranging impact on the automated takedown process. It would mean that publishers could be held accountable, and face damages, for submitting takedown requests of legitimate content. Right now, the onus is on the alleged offender, who must often jump through bureaucratic hoops to make the case that they did not infringe on the copyright — or that they are actually the copyright holder of the very thing they are being accused of stealing.
AT&T and DirecTV are still hoping their mega-merger is on track for approval. While they wait, the FCC has been asking them to clarify some of their earlier statements about why this deal is a good idea for the public. And buried in those new answers is the nugget that post-merger, AT&T plans to bring fiber networks to almost 12 million customers… kind of.
AT&T claimed in April that merging with DirecTV would free up the cash for the merged entity to reach an additional 2 million customers with wired broadband. Adding that to their other plans, AT&T now tells the FCC the total plan is to build out fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service to 11.7 million customers.
The plan, as submitted to the FCC (highly-redacted PDF), presumably includes AT&T’s existing GigaPower subscribers and calls for the entire build-out to be completed within four years of the merger’s close. AT&T provided the commission with a more detailed, year-by-year projected timeline, but that information is not, alas, fit for public consumption:
Super detailed!
FCC filings aside, if AT&T’s upgrades are anything like Comcast’s Gigabit Pro service, would-be subscribers should perhaps not hold their collective breath. Kabletown’s 2 GB symmetrical service, which was supposed to launch in May and June and is slated to reach 18 million homes by the end of this year, has yet to launch anywhere or even to have a pricing structure announced.
At this point, the merger seems likely to be approved. If that happens this summer, that would mean AT&T would theoretically be done with their fiber builds in the middle of 2019.
For much of the past year, American Apparel has been embroiled in a public dispute — and several lawsuits — with founder Dov Charney. It appears that problems for the retailer aren’t just confined to the former CEO’s alleged bad behavior, as the company announced it would undergo a $30 million cost-cutting effort in an attempt to return to its former funky glory.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the company launched a restructuring plan that includes cutting jobs and closing stores over the next 18 months.
While the company didn’t specify how many jobs would be cut or stores would be closed, it said the new plan is an attempt to adapt to the changing retail industry while preserving jobs for the “overwhelming majority” of its 10,000 employees.
Still, American Apparel says even if the cost cutting measures succeed, there’s no guarantee that it will have sufficient financing to meet funding requirements.
In another effort to turn sales around, the company plans to launch a new fall merchandise line focused on basic clothing items.
“Historically, the fall season has not been a major focus for the company,” Chief Executive Paula Schneider said. “The new styles are designed to increase revenue as we continue to evolve our product offering during this important selling season.”
In spite of her assertions to the contrary, Amazon insists that Imy is a personal friend of an author whose book she tried to review, but the site won’t disclose how it came to this conclusion.
Any Amazon customer is likely aware that the e-tail giant knows a lot about them. That’s how the personalizes product suggestions and customizes the marketing e-mails it sends. But some Amazon users are now finding out that the site knows — or at least it thinks it knows — who your friends are, and is restricting their reviews accordingly.
Blogger Imy Santiago writes of a particularly odd experience with Amazon that resulted after she tried to review an e-book she’d recently read.
“Your review could not be posted to the website in its current form,” stated an automated message from Amazon, saying her review had violated the site’s review guidelines, but without saying where she’d gone wrong.
After another failed attempt to post the review — also denied without giving a specific explanation — Imy wrote to Amazon hoping to get some more details on why her write-up was being blocked.
“We cannot post your Customer Review… to the Amazon website because your account activity indicates that you know the author,” explained the response from the company. “Customer Reviews are meant to give customers unbiased product feedback from fellow shoppers. Because our goal is to provide Customer Reviews that help customers make informed purchase decisions, any reviews that could be viewed as advertising, promotional, or misleading will not be posted.”
According to Imy, Amazon is making an “erroneous and quite presumptuous assessment” in asserting that she knows the author of the book she’s trying to review.
In her appeal to Amazon, she concedes that the independent publishing community is a small one and that she may have had social media interactions with the author, but “knowing of an author online, and personally knowing an author in real life are two different things. By your definition it would mean that bloggers such as myself are being barred from reviewing books they legitimately purchased, which in turn contravenes with the notion that reviews for a verified purchase are highly encouraged.”
Imy says it is “unfair to the authors whose work I love, to be punished for a claim that simply cannot stand. I don’t know any authors on a personal level.”
Her appeal fell on deaf ears, as the response from Amazon simply restated, “We removed your Customer Reviews because you know the author personally.”
As to how the company came to this conclusion, we’ll never know.
“Due to the proprietary nature of our business, we do not provide detailed information on how we determine that accounts are related,” concludes the denial of Imy’s appeal. “We cannot share any further information about our decision and we may not reply to further emails about this issue.”
We’ve written to Amazon for comment on this story and will update if we hear anything back.
“On behalf of your entire leadership team, let me be crystal clear: there has been no illegal behavior on the part of American Airlines,” Parker said in the letter. “We will comply fully with the demands of the [Civil Investigative Demand] and this fact will be proven.”
Last Wednesday, the Dept. of Justice announced it had requested information from airlines as part of an investigation into “unlawful coordination,” but hadn’t specified exactly which airlines were involved.
Parker goes on to tell employees that the airline is unaware what set off the investigation, aside from recent public comments about aircraft capacity.
In fact, he says that capacity with the airline has grown faster than demand in recent years, leading to fares actually falling.
“We at American have definitely answered a number of questions from investors, analysts and the media over the years about capacity,” Parker wrote. “But there is nothing illegal about that – indeed, transparency is rightly expected by all of our external stakeholders.”
While the merger between the two companies eventually went through, Blumenthal says the issues found beforehand are still problematic.
“DOJ’s original complaint painted a stark picture of an extremely consolidated market, in which a few firms wield enormous market power to the detriment of consumers and competition – and in which high-level executives believe there is an unmistakable link between fluctuations in capacity and fares hikes,” he states. “The Justice Department also correctly predicted that this kind of behavior would continue should the merger be allowed to proceed – as it ultimately was.”
Parker said in his letter to employees that the airline hoped that it had reached a resolution with regard to the merger that satisfied the Dept. of Justice concerns.
“So it is discouraging that less than two years later, with traffic and capacity up, and fares down, DOJ still doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the airline industry is as competitive a business as there is in the world,” he wrote.
