пятница, 4 сентября 2015 г.

uWendy’s Brings Back Pulled Pork Sandwich To Close Out Summer Of Fast-Food Pulled Porkr


4 4 4 9
ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uNew Spotify Privacy Policy Aims To Provide “Plain Language” Explanation For Collected Datar


4 4 4 9
  • Just weeks after Spotify ticked off many of its 75 million active users with an updated, potentially invasive privacy policy, the music streaming service has once again revamped the terms, this time including an introduction that provides clear reasoning and examples of data collected.

    In a post on Spotify’s official blog, CEO Daniel Ek wrote an explainer for the latest policy update, noting that many of the changes came after receiving feedback from users of the service.

    While Ek’s post is on Spotify’s corporate blog, the actual policy updates are currently only live in the U.K., Denmark, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand. A spokesperson for the company says they will be rolled out in the U.S. and other markets in the coming weeks and days.

    Ek says the new policy – which he describes as “plain language” – essentially breaks down into two categories of information that Spotify collects and is “intended to be a clear statement of the company’s approach and principals about privacy.”

    The first category Ek refers to is “information that we must have in order for you to use Spotify,” this includes users’ names, IP address, music they listen to and sensor information to rotate videos.

    The second category, which is where most people took issues the first time around, involves “information that enables us to offer you additional features,” namely the collection of data from your mobile devices.

    The newly updated privacy policy aims to simplify several of the clauses in that category, including a sentence that proclaimed that Spotify “may collect information stored on your mobile device, such as contacts, photos, or media files.”

    The relevant section — under the header “Information Stored on Your Mobile Device” — now gives additional context and examples on why the service would even want some of that information from you.

    “We may provide features that rely on the use of additional information on your mobile device or require access to certain services on your mobile device that will enhance your Spotify experience but are not required to use the Service,” the policy introduction reads. “For example, we might allow you to upload photos to your profile, connect with friends, or let you use voice commands to control the Service.”

    According to the updated policy, which again has not yet been rolled out to U.S. customers, “Granting us access does not mean you are granting us unlimited access to that information or that we will access specific information without your permission. To the contrary, for each type of information listed in this section, before we access this information or these features of your mobile device, we will ask for your permission.”

    The soon-to-be released in the U.S. policy – and Ek’s introduction – also includes clarification for specific data collection of photos, location, contacts and voice.

    The policy changes first announced in August also included a controversial clause that said Spotify could “collect information about your location based on… your phone’s GPS location or other forms of locating mobile devices (e.g. Bluetooth).” This raised concerns that the company would be tracking users’ locations.

    The company reiterates it won’t access that information without permission, but the introduction goes on to clarify why those details could be beneficial.

    “This information enables us to create collaborative listening experiences (only with others who have also given permission), and to provide even better recommendations about locally popular music, live venues, and concerts,” Ek writes.

    According to Ek’s introduction, the collection of contacts and photos would allow users to find friends or contacts who use Spotify and customize playlist art. Allowing Spotify to have access to your microphone could allow users to control their selections verbally rather than by physically pushing buttons.

    Users who signed the August privacy policy update do not have to re-sign the new terms. Those who did not agree to the terms last month will see the latest revamp “in the coming days and weeks,” Ek says.

    [via Business Insider]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uTwo Vehicles Crash Into N.J. Wendy’s In Second Car Accident At Restaurant In 3 Monthsr


4 4 4 9
  • They say lightning never strikes twice, but no one ever said cars can’t come crashing through the window of a single Wendy’s more than once. To wit: two vehicles collided with each other in Paramus, N.J. yesterday, sending them both into a Wendy’s that was hit by a car in June.

    Four customers inside the restaurant were taken to the hospital for treatment, though no serious injuries were reported, according to CBS New York. A car and a minivan were headed in the same direction on a road near the Wendy’s yesterday about five p.m., when the driver of the car apparently cut off the van while trying to get into the restaurant’s parking lot.

    The vehicles crashed into each other, jumped the curb and then went careening into the Wendy’s, where the minivan ended up inside.

    “One of the drivers was in shock, crying — her and her I guess I assume it was boyfriend — and then the other driver, she had a child with her,” said the tow truck driver who arrived on the scene minutes after the crash, adding, “Thank God the child was all right.”

    He added that he was relieved to get the cars out of the building without it falling down, which is definitely a concern when there’s that kind of structural damage. Workers had installed a support beam by late Thursday night to hold up the restaurant temporarily.

    In June, a customer was hospitalized after an SUV crashed into the same restaurant. But is it bad luck or a bad design? The two incidents have prompted questions about the location of the restaurant’s entrance, which some say is too close to the exit for another major road.

    “Honestly I think it’s an engineering flaw, and something needs to be done,” the two truck driver said.

    The driver of the car was ticketed for careless driving.

    2 Vehicles Sent Crashing Into Paramus Wendy’s After Collision [CBS New York]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uDisney, Lucasfilm, Sanrio Form Legal Alliance To Take Down Makers Of Counterfeit Marvel, Star Wars, Hello Kitty Cake Frostingr


4 4 4 9
  • This is one of the allegedly infringing cake frosting sheets the defendants are selling on eBay.

    This is one of the allegedly infringing cake frosting sheets the defendants are selling on eBay.

    We’ve all seen local bakeries and supermarkets selling cakes decorated with the images of trademarked cartoon/movie/comic characters and not many people seem to care that the decorator may not have permission to use these images. But there’s also a difference between someone’s hand-iced Captain America cake and a company that uses movie stills and promotional art to make pre-fab cake frosting sheets. Thus, Disney, Lucasfilm and Sanrio — tired of seeing cakes featuring the unauthorized faces of Yoda, Iron Man, and Hello Kitty — have teamed up to sue two Michigan men for trademark and copyright infringement.

    In the complaint [PDF], filed earlier this week in a federal court in California, lawyers representing Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Sanrio allege that the two men (and other unnamed defendants) used an eBay storefront to sell “counterfeit edible cake frosting sheets and related items, which incorporate unauthorized likenesses of animated or live action characters or other logos owned by” the plaintiffs.

    The lists of supposedly violated trademarks take up around 15 pages of the complaint. They range from classic Disney characters — Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Bambi, Frozen, Toy Story, Cinderella… even images from that horrendous mauling of The Black Cauldron — to dozens of Hello Kitty trademarks, to Marvel icons like Captain America, the Incredible Hulk, to the Star Wars universe, including a copyright described as “Darth Vader and Son,” which makes us which Luke and his pop had just patched things up and opened a hardware store together.

    The plaintiffs say they served — and the defendants received — cease and desist demands, but that the allegedly fraudulent frosters continued on with their business.

    “By engaging in this conduct, Defendants have acted in willful disregard of laws protecting Plaintiffs’ goodwill and related proprietary rights and have confused and deceived, or threaten to confuse and deceive, the consuming public concerning the source and sponsorship of the products,” reads the complaint.

    In addition to seeking damages and to stop the defendants from selling anymore infringing cake decorations, the plaintiffs are calling for the seizure of “any molds, screens, patterns, plates, negatives, machinery or equipment used for making or manufacturing” the offending products.

    While we couldn’t find the defendants’ store on the U.S. eBay platform, the folks at ComicBookResources.com found what appears to be the defendants’ items for sale on eBay Australia. Aside from the Yoda birthday cake decoration at the top of this story, this store sells frosting screens for video game titles (Assassin’s Creed, Halo), TV shows (Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead), non-Disney animation (Minions, Curious George)… and random pieces of female apparel.

    The Hollywood Reporter’s Eriq Gardner notes that the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in this case appears to have carved out a nice niche in going after the kitschier end of trademark infringement complaints. This attorney recently settled a lawsuit with the makers of Darth Vader cufflinks and is currently litigating a case involving the legality of Batmobile replicas.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uLongtime L.L. Bean President And Founder’s Grandson Dies At Age 80r


4 4 4 9
  • gormanThe flagship L.L. Bean store in Freeport, Maine doesn’t close. It literally does not have locks on its doors. Yet it’s going to close next weekend during the funeral of the company’s former longtime president and the grandson of founder L.L. Bean himself, Leon Gorman, who died yesterday at age 80.

    When Gorman took over as company president in 1967, the company wasn’t the retail giant that we know today. During his time with the company, it grew 20% per year, and went from having about 100 employees to more than 5,000, mostly in Maine since Gorman resisted the trend of outsourcing customer service.

    Some employees were nervous when the founder died and Gorman took over in 1967, but it turned out that his grandfather and uncle weren’t running things very effectively. “L.L. and his son, Carl, held onto all the authority, yet weren’t doing anything. The product line and catalog merchandising and operations were all going downhill,” Gorman told the Portland Press-Herald in an interview about company history a few years ago.

    L.L. Bean was also an early e-commerce adopter, even though Gorman himself didn’t know how to use a computer. They began accepting orders online in 1995, yet still mail millions of paper catalogs every year, perhaps always understanding the public’s love of glossy catalogs even if they would ultimately place orders online.

    The company remains family-owned, and the current chairman is one of Gorman’s nephews, but the current president and CEO isn’t a family member.

    Leon Gorman, visionary who led L.L. Bean’s growth into a global giant, dies at 80 [Portland Press-Herald]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uU.S. Chamber Of Commerce Sues FCC To Stop Efforts To Block Obnoxious Robocallsr


4 4 4 9

  • Consumers hate getting endless robocalls on their landlines and cell phones, and with good reason: they’re incredibly annoying. But they exist for a reason, too: legitimate businesses and scammers alike both find that, to some degree, they work. So when the FCC proposes a rule to let consumers cut back on the annoyance in their lives, businesses are not necessarily thrilled.

    That’s why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suing the FCC to block that new rule, the Hill reports.

    The FCC voted 3-2 to adopt the changes back in June. As part of that proceeding, the commission delved heavily into the legal technicalities surrounding the definitions of autodialers and what, exactly, is covered under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

    As technology has advanced, so too has autodialer tech. Where once upon a time robocalling hundreds, thousands, or millions of people used to take an actual machine hooked up to an actual phone, that time has gone. Now, it’s all VoIP software that can run on basically computer — including, yes, the phone-sized ones we all keep in our pockets and purses.

    That’s one of the aspects that the Chamber of Commerce most objects to, The Hill explains. In their filing (PDF), claims, “The Declaratory Ruling and Order’s new, overbroad, and atextual interpretations of the TCPA will expose legitimate businesses across the country — of all sizes and types — to liability for simply attempting in good faith to communicate with customers who previously provided valid consent to be contacted.”

    “Furthermore,” it continues, the ruling, “could turn even a mass-market smartphone into a covered ‘autodialer,’ and threatens to create an utterly unworkable regime for the logistics of receiving and processing consent revocation.”

    Therefore, the petition concludes, the new rule is “arbitrary and capricious” and “an abuse of discretion in excess of the Commission’s statutory authority.”

    The effort to stop the new rule is not unexpected. As part of his dissenting vote back in June, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai even dropped a self-fulfilling prophecy that “The primary beneficiaries [of the rule] will be trial lawyers, not American consumers.”

    The Chamber of Commerce, of course, exists to represent business interests — even when those interests are not necessarily good for consumers.

    Chamber of Commerce challenges FCC’s robocall ruling [The Hill]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uPilot Flying As An American Airlines Passenger Caught On Video Texting During Takeoffr


4 4 4 9
  • Where there are rules, there will inevitably be people who break them. But it’s still surprising when someone who’s tasked with enforcing those rules is instead doing exactly what they usually tell others not to do. That was the case for a man flying on American Airlines recently, who filmed an airline pilot traveling as a passenger on a flight from Charlotte to Tampa texting on his cellphone during takeoff.

    The Federal Aviation Administration has eased up on the use of electronic devices while planes are in flight, but travelers are required to put their phones in airplane mode if their gadgets are turned on.

    The man who shot footage on the Aug. 14 flight had his own phone in airplane mode while shooting the video, reports the Charlotte Observer, and says he was at first annoyed, and then disturbed to see a pilot flouting federal regulations.

    After landing in Florida, the passenger wrote a letter to American Airlines CEO Doug Parker to express his concern.

    “I am sure he is a good pilot, but even a small lapse in judgment in his profession can get people killed, and it bothers me that he can so casually disregard FAA regulations in the public view,” he wrote. “I fear what he may be doing in the cockpit that could jeopardize passenger safety.”

    American Airlines said the pilot works for another airline, but didn’t say which one.

    “I do know the other airline addressed the issue with the pilot,” an American Airlines spokeswoman told the Observer. “If someone is concerned about what another passenger is doing, notify the flight attendant so they can address it when it happens,” she added.

    Again, if this was a video of some guy who doesn’t fly planes for a living texting away, it likely wouldn’t be in the news. But the man who filmed the video says it got his goat especially as he’s been told in the past to turn his phone off entirely during takeoff.

    “I started thinking, ‘They’ve got these rules in place for a reason,’” he said. “… The pilots, more than anyone, should know those rules and obey them.”

    Pilot caught texting during takeoff from Charlotte [Charlotte Observer]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist