вторник, 29 декабря 2015 г.

uMusician Files $150M Lawsuit Against Spotify For Royaltiesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Philippe Put)
    To make a song available on a streaming service like Spotify or Apple Music, the services negotiate with record labels and representatives of songwriters. David Lowery is a musician (best known for the bands Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven), a professor, and an activist for artists’ rights in the new music economy, and his latest effort is a class action lawsuit against Spotify for mechanical royalties.

    Lowery’s argument has been that performers and songwriters aren’t benefiting from the new music economy as much as they did from the model from last century, where they collected royalties from selling albums and singles. The new system, where they earn teeny fractions of a penny per play of a song,

    The lawsuit argues that while Spotify (and other streaming services) may have licensed recordings from record labels, they didn’t seek permission for a mechanical license from the songwriter for the song itself, which would give artists the opportunity to withhold their music from streaming services if they wanted to.

    One of those artists is, of course, David Lowery, who notably wrote a few years ago about how he earned $16.89 for one million plays of Cracker’s hit song “Low” on Pandora, which isn’t really a sustainable income stream.

    There’s another related issue that involves streaming services playing music without paying songwriters or securing their permission. When services can’t find an artist or their representatives, but the recordings are available to stream, they simply hold it in an escrow account until they get around to finding the artist, or their representatives or heirs. The question is: how hard are the streaming services working to find the artists and cut them checks?

    Spotify Hit With $150 Million Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties [Billboard]

    SEE ALSO:
    Who Is Really Making Money When We Don’t Buy The Music We Listen To?
    How Much Does A Songwriter Earn When Pandora Plays His Song 1.16 Million Times? Hint: It’s Not Much



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uSidecar Calling It Quits, Ceasing Service Dec. 31r


4 4 4 9
  • sidecardeliveryThere will be one less ride-sharing company to shuttle you and your packages around the city come January 1: Sidecar plans to shutter its ride and delivery service by the end of the year. 

    Sidecar CEO Sunil Paul announced that the company would cease ride and delivery operations at 2 p.m. PST on December 31.

    While the end is near for Sidecar’s services, Paul made it clear that the company as a whole wasn’t going away. Instead it will focus “on strategic alternatives and lay the groundwork for the next big thing.”

    “This is the end of the road for the Sidecar ride and delivery service, but it’s by no means the end of the journey for the company,” he wrote.

    Sidecar, which was founded in San Francisco in 2011, was a rival for Uber and Lyft for a time before transitioning to focus more on deliveries of packages and medical marijuana in certain areas.

    “I’m extremely proud of our team and all that we’ve accomplished,” Sunil said. “We are the innovation leader in ride-sharing despite a significant capital disadvantage, continually rolling out new products that set the bar for others to follow.”

    [via TechCrunch]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uSay Goodbye To Microbeads: President Signs Act To Ban Microscopic Plastic Particlesr


4 4 4 9
  • microbeadsIf your favorite face wash includes tiny microbeads, you better savor it. After playing catch-up with several states, the U.S. has finally passed a measure that would keep the microscopic plastic spheres from going down the drain and possibly into the stomachs of our seafood. 

    President Barack Obama yesterday signed into law the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 [PDF], which would phase out the use of microbeads in consumer products over the next several years, MLive reports. 

    The Act, which passed the U.S. House unanimously in early December signaling widespread support for the ban, prohibits the “manufacture and introduction into interstate commerce of rinse-off cosmetics containing intentionally-added plastic microbeads.”

    Under the bill, a ban on manufacturing products with the beads, the first step, would begin on July 1, 2017, followed by product-specific manufacturing and sales bans in 2018 and 2019.

    The bill’s definition of a microbead — “any solid plastic particle” less than five millimeters in size intended for use as an exfoliant — also closes a potential loophole that environmental groups feared could keep the small spheres in use: simply using a different kind of plastic.

    “As someone who grew up on Lake Michigan and represents a large chunk of Michigan coastline, I understand firsthand how important it is to maintain the beauty and integrity of our Great Lakes,” Illinois Representative Fred Upton, who co-sponsored the bill, said in a statement in early December.

    The small bits of plastic, often found in face washes, soaps and toothpaste, have become a hot topic for lawmakers and environmentalists in recent years, with many states taking action to end the use of microbeads.

    A report issued by the New York Environmental Protection Bureau last year outlined just how unsafe the small plastic pieces can be.

    According to the report, after microbeads are washed from our bathrooms, they easily travel through wastewater treatment plants and enter our waterways. The tiny beads then act as sponges for toxic chemical pollutants and become an attractive snack for marine wildlife. And because we humans often like to eat seafood, that means there’s a pretty good chance the spheres could end up in your stomach.

    Despite the findings, legislation to phase out the use of microbeads state-wide has passed the New York Assembly twice in the last two years, but has stalled in the Senate both times.

    Last year, Illinois became the first state to pass an ordinance that would gradually fade out the use of microbeads beginning in 2017 and ending in 2019.

    The state bill even had the cooperation of product manufacturers. An official with the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois said at the time that the quick deal resulted from unique circumstances, and the availability of substitute ingredients, such as oatmeal and sea salt.

    Earlier this year, the state of California voted to phase out the use of microscopic exfoliating beads in personal care products sold in the state.

    Michigan also considered a ban on the use of the beads this year. MLive reports that legislators debated the bill, but failed to reach a consensus.

    The issue hasn’t just been on the minds of activists, either. Several major manufacturers, such as Proctor & Gamble, and Unilever, have pledged to phase out use of plastic microbeads.

    In February 2014, L’Oréal said it would begin phasing out the materials this year in their Biotherm products and continue with Body Shop products in 2015. All of the company’s products are expected to be microbead-free by 2017.

    Colgate-Palmolive has already discontinued using microbeads in all its products, telling Consumerist in a statement in October: “Some groups have raised concerns regarding the potential contribution of microbeads to pollution of the world’s oceans. Recognizing that consumers have questions, as of year-end 2014 we are no longer using this ingredient.”

    Obama signs ban on microbead pollution [MLive]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uGuacamole Lovers, Rejoice: Avocados Are Pretty Darn Cheap Right Nowr


4 4 4 9
  • (poopoorama)
    If you’re the kind of person who runs shouting through the streets for all to hear when you find cheap avocados, pay attention: despite earlier concerns that the growing popularity of the fruit would make it more expensive for shoppers, avocado prices instead have fallen steeply. More guacamole for everyone!

    One California-based growing company, Calavo Growers,said it had to battle sharply lower avocado prices in its fourth fiscal quarter. It wasn’t quite predicting that.

    “During our fiscal fourth quarter, the industry experienced prolonged and meaningful downward pricing pressure on per-unit avocado prices,” Chief Executive Lee Cole said in the company’s earnings release reported by MarketWatch. “This was a unique situation, reflective of an avocado industry rapidly transitioning to annual consumption well in excess of two billion pounds.”

    Calavo packed 22% more fresh avocados in that quarter this year, compared to a year before, and said the company expects the trend to continue into 2016.

    The big drop in prices is likely unexpected, especially as California is in the middle of a drought that’s dragged on for three years so far. That state produces more than 80% of the avocados in the country, according to trade group Hass Avocado Board. Elsewhere, Chile and Mexico have also had issues with water, and Mexican growers have faced issues with drug cartels.

    In any case, now would be a great time for you to serve an absolutely ginormous bowl of guacamole at your New Year’s Eve party, just because you can.

    Avocado prices are falling sharply, not rising [MarketWatch]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uHealth Care Providers Repeatedly Violate HIPAA, Nothing Happensr


4 4 4 9
  • (Fujoshi Bijou)
    You’re probably familiar with HIPAA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, a federal law that protects the your health information from being shared with anyone who doesn’t need to see it. This includes things like mailing someone the wrong set of test results, shouting information in a pharmacy for everyone to hear, and of course mass breaches of paper or digital data. What happe

    While you’ve heard of HIPAA if you’ve visited a doctor or filled a prescription in the last 20 years, you probably aren’t as familiar with the federal Office of Civil Rights, which is in charge of actually enforcing HIPAA and handing out punishments to health care providers that violate it.

    Yet an analysis by investigative reporting nonprofit ProPublica shows that many of the same providers violate the law and their patients’ or customers’ over and over, and aren’t punished for it. In the last four years, the top violator was part of the federal government: there were 220 complaints filed against the Veterans Administration, including one where a VA employee posted a veteran’s medical information on Facebook and chatted about it with her friends.

    publicaTaking the silver and gold medals, though, were pharmacy chains CVS Health and Walgreens, followed by mega-health organization Kaiser Permanente and Walmart. If the violations for Walgreens and Rite Aid were combined, they would have taken the top spot from the VA.

    One patient in California didn’t discover a breach until, three months after giving birth, she thawed out her placenta and noticed that it had a different mother’s name on it. Hospital staff hadn’t checked the name on the container against her bracelet, resulting in a HIPAA complaint.

    An Office for Civil Rights official explained to ProPublica that their priority has been dealing with large breaches, where 500 or more people were affected. Small but repeated breaches are investigated but not necessarily punished.

    Few Consequences For Health Privacy Law’s Repeat Offenders [ProPublica/NPR]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uSomeone Pranked Maine Residents With Sign Promising New IKEA Store That Will Never Openr


4 4 4 9
  • (Håkan Dahlström)
    While there are plenty of people interested in spreading cheer and goodwill during the holiday season, there are also those intent on making a lot of folks really, really sad. Such was the case in Portland, ME, where a prankster duped passers-by into believing that an empty lot would soon be the site of a new IKEA store.

    The sign was first spotted on Christmas Day, reading “Future home of IKEA … Opening 2016,” as seen in a photo submitted to the Portland Press Herald.

    Though the sign was removed soon after, several people had already posted photos of it on social media, wondering whether lingonberries and Swedish meatballs would soon be within their reach. Not gonna happen, says IKEA.

    “We currently do not have plans to open a store in Portland, Maine,” IKEA Public Affairs Manager Joseph Roth told the Press Herald. “If we were opening in 2016, construction would have needed to begin already.”

    The company hasn’t been seriously looking at Maine, and says that it isn’t currently a candidate for expansion. Plus, at only 2.5 acres, the site doesn’t have a big enough footprint needed for an IKEA store, which usually need about 25 to 35 acres.

    It’s still a mystery as to who put the sign up in the first place, but you’ve got admit, a lot of work seemed to have gone into it.

    “Somebody’s got a lot of time on their hands,” said Portland Deputy City Manager Anita LaChance, adding that the retailer has never approached the city about the possibility of opening a store.

    Mystery sign says IKEA coming to Portland in 2016. But it isn’t. [Portland Press Herald]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uRegulators Stop Alleged Office Supply Scam That Targeted Charitable Organizations, Small Businessesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Gumby Liberation Organization)

    We’ve said it a thousand times: scammers are the worst, and those that take advantage of organizations trying to do good in the world are the lowest of the low. Such was allegedly the case for Liberty Supply Co., which federal regulators have accused of running an office supply scam that targeted charitable organizations and small businesses. 

    The Federal Trade Commission today announced that, at its request, a federal court temporarily halted and froze the assets of Liberty Supply Co. after the operation allegedly bilked millions from nonprofit organizations and small businesses.

    According to the FTC’s complaint [PDF], since at least 2012 the operation, which did business as Omni Services, initiated calls to churches, schools and businesses.

    Operators for Omni claimed they worked for a local company that was going out of business, and offered to sell pens, paper clips, and other office supplies at low prices.

    When describing their sales offer to consumers, Omni’s telemarketers typically used vague or confusing terms about the cost or quantity of goods offered.

    For example, the FTC claims the company quoted a per-unit price even though they only sold multi-unit quantities, causing consumers to believe the quoted price applied to a package of items, instead of an individual item.

    As a result, the company failed to disclose the final price, quantity or shipping cost, even when asked, according to the FTC complaint.

    In one instance, the complaint alleges that if a consumer asked for a purchase order for their organization to approve, instead of sending a purchase order the defendants sent unordered merchandise and an invoice.

    Once a company received the unordered office supplies, Omni aggressively sought payment for the merchandise.

    Consumers who paid the invoice in full received a “thank you” call from Omni and the offer of a free gift. When the gift arrived it came with even more unordered office supplies and a new invoice.

    The FTC claims that when consumers questioned the invoices, Omni allegedly said they had a transcript of the conversation in which the order was placed, but refused to produce the transcript to the customer.

    When businesses or organizations asked to return the unordered merchandise they were told they had to pay a restocking fee, about 15% of the invoice amount.

    Some consumers paid for the products in order to avoid the burden or expense of the defendants’ onerous return policy, but the prices they paid were typically higher than the amount the defendants had stated in their initial phone call.

    In all, the FTC accuses Liberty Supply Co. and its operators, Mia McCrary and John B. Hart, of violating the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Unordered Merchandise Statute.

    The FTC is seeking to permanently stop Liberty Supply’s alleged illegal practices and make the company refund affected customers.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist