If visiting the Dominican Republic on Carnival’s latest Fathom cruise line for a few days of volunteer work didn’t seem like the right fit for you, there’s now another island option: Cuba.
Carnival says it will be the first cruise line to offer trips to the Caribbean island since the 1960s.
“This is an important first step for our company and the cruise industry,” CEO Arnold Donald said in a statement. “It begins our efforts to shape a long sustained industry experience in Cuba.”
The new weeklong cruises will carry up to 710 passengers on the Andonia. The company, which expects high demand for the new route, says prices will start at $2,990 per person plus taxes and port fees.
Because Cuba remains closed for general tourism by Americans — unless they travel to the country as part of a humanitarian trip or to visit family living on the island — Carnival’s trips will mostly focus on volunteerism in the country, much like its newly announced Dominican Republic Fathom trips.
The AP reports that Carnival is still finalizing its itinerary while it waits for the official approval of the Cuban government. So far, the plan is for the ship to visit several ports. Passengers will sleep onboard the vessel each night.
While the details of the Cuba trip are still being worked out, we can imagine it would be similar to the Dominican trips announced in June. At that time Carnival said the Fathom trips wouldn’t have the traditional casino or Broadway-style aspects that many mega-ships offer. Instead, passengers will be offered training and education in preparation for their volunteer work.
Passengers would then spend about three days in the region helping to cultivate cacao plants and organic fertilizer at a woman’s cooperative, working with English-language learners or helping in the production of clay water filters.
When the Treasury Department announced it had awarded several licenses for travel services between Florida and Cuba back in May it didn’t specify exactly which companies received the go-ahead for travel to the country, only that at least four were ferry companies, the AP reports.
As part of those licenses, vessels are not allowed to stop in other countries, so it’s fairly safe to say that the Carnival cruises will be making a beeline for Cuba and then going directly back home again.
Reputable companies that sell personal emergency alert devices might air disturbing TV ads, but at least they mean well, don’t lie in their ads, and–here’s the important thing–don’t bombard America’s seniors with robocalls about the “free” alert system they’ve been given. The attorney general in Florida and the Federal Trade Commission have teamed up to stop this scam further up the food chain.
Only that firm wasn’t really the company behind the scheme, and the calls would simply start up again. That’s why the state and federal governments are now going after the company that sells the actual emergency alert systems. They allege that the company knew perfectly well what the telemarketing firms selling its devices have been up to, and they would simply find someone else to place the calls when any one provider was shut down.
“When we sued Lifewatch’s telemarketers for making deceptive robocalls, they just continued the same illegal practices with new telemarketers,” the FTC’s Director of Consumer Protection, Jessica Rich, said in a statement. “The FTC and the Florida Attorney General won’t be deterred, and will continue to work together to stop illegal robocalls.”
If you’ve been basing your lottery dreams on the same Powerball odds that have been in place, you better prepare for an adjustment in your sleep-time calculations: The folks behind the curtain are changing the rules, making it tougher to win the Powerball jackpot.
For those pinning their hopes on the jackpot — which hit a record $590.5 million in 2013 — you’ll have to wish even harder than you did in the past. The odds of winning the top prize will increase to 1 in 292,201,338, a change from the former 1 in 175,223,510, reports LoHud.com.
But there’s a bright spot for anyone playing in the 36-state lottery, as the odds of winning any money whatsoever are going down at the same time: The chance of winning $4 will improve from 1 in 111 to 1 in 92, so there’s something. Overall, the likelihood that players will win a reward will increase from about 1 in 32 to 1 in 25.
The new rules will go into effect with the Oct. 7 drawing.
“The rules change is intended to increase the odds of winning any prize, while making it more difficult to win the jackpot prize,” New York’s Gaming Commission, which oversees the multi-state lottery game, said in a memo to board members.
The changes are due to a modification in the pool of numbers to be picked from: Right now Powerball players choose from two fields of numbers, with 59 numbers in the first field and 35 in the second. The new changes will see 69 numbers in the first field and 26 in the second.
New York’s state Gaming Commission approved the changes at its board meeting this week, saying the tweaks to the system will make the game more sustainable.
“The proposed rule is intended to increase the odds of winning any prize while decreasing the odds to win the jackpot,” said Robert Williams, executive director of the state Gaming Commission.
Does your wallet feel a bit lighter after paying for your morning cup of Starbucks coffee? It just might (unless, of course, you used the company’s order-ahead mobile app or any other form of payment besides cash), and that’s because the coffee chain has once again raised its prices for many drinks.
Starting today, Starbucks stores around the country upped their prices between $0.05 and $0.20, the Associated Press reports.
The company says that as a result of the new price hike a customer’s average receipt could be about 1% more expensive.
A spokesperson for the company tells the AP that small and large brewed coffees will each go up by $0.10 in most regions of the country, meaning a large coffee will be around $2.45.
The price of food items, packaged coffee and some drinks such as Frappuccinos and grande-sized brewed coffees will not be affected by the new increases, the AP reports.
Starbucks says it continually evaluates pricing to “balance the need to run our business profitability while continuing to provide value to our loyal customers and to attract new customers.”
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.
