Welcome

Welcome to my Blog. I mostly re post articles that i find interesting on the web. After the article you will find a link that leads you to the original one.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

This Bag Of Clancy’s Ripple Potato Chips Needs More Nokia Phones [Freebies]

via Consumerist by Carey on 2/28/09

A Nokia phone found its way into a bag of Clancy's Ripple Potato Chips, where it surprised Wisconsin nosher Emma Schweiger. The phone, which didn't work, was slathered with "greasy potato-chip film" and looked like it once lived on a belt clip. The chip's distributor, Aldi, pulled all other Clancy's chips with the same batch and expiration date and, by way of apology, offered Schweiger a free bag of chips. She isn't biting...

"You kind of don't want chips for a while" after something like that, she said.

Schweiger contacted the Madison office of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and an official there told her to hang onto the bag for an investigation, she said.

FDA officials could not be reached for comment Friday.

Schweiger isn't sure what she'll do next but hopes the FDA can track down the owner of the phone.

She's glad she found the phone and not a child who might have put it in his or her mouth, she said. She's also glad the phone wasn't in a product she would have heated, she said.

Schweiger doesn't know when she'll have an appetite for potato chips again, but when she does, she'll do things a little differently.

"I will never, ever eat chips out of a bag again," she said. "They will be dumped in the bowl."

Local woman finds unpleasant surprise in her potato chips [The Janesville Gazette] (Thanks to Rob!)

PayPal Charges $81,400,836,908 For $26 Tank Of Gas [Whoops]

via Consumerist by Carey on 2/28/09

Juan Zamora fed his 1994 Chevy Camaro $26 worth of gas, a transaction for which PayPal charged his debit card $81,400,836,908. Unsurprisingly, PayPal saw nothing wrong with the charge and demanded that Juan prove that he didn't actually buy $81.4 billion worth of gas.

He only learned of the astounding figure when he received an email later that afternoon informing him that his debit card, which started out with $90 on it, was maxed out.

Initially, Mr. Zamora thought it must've been a joke. But after contacting PayPal customer service he was surprised to see that the company treated it as anything but a laughing matter.

"Somebody from a foreign country who spoke in broken English argued with me for 10 to 15 minutes," Zamora said. " 'Did you get the gas?' he asked. Like I had to prove that I didn't pump $81,400,836,908 in gas!"

He would have needed more than 3 billion fill-ups of the amount he actually pumped into his tank in order to reach that outrageous sum.

Eventually, Zamora said, he was finally able to convince the representative that he didn't deserve to be in the same position as General Motors, who has lost roughly 80 billion dollars since 2005.

When Zamora returned to the Conoco gas station, he said, the attendant would not believe him until he showed her the printout of the PayPal receipt.

What moral is Juan taking away from the story? "Pay cash."

Driver Fills up Gas Tank, Receives Bill For $81 Billion [Consumer Energy Report via Jalopnik]
(Photo: NASA)

Friday, February 27, 2009

@Bell Canada backpedals, Twitter SMS now -- almost -- free

via Engadget by Sean Cooper on 2/27/09

We had a quick chat with Bell Canada's Julie Smithers, and apparently the user gripes, moaning, and all around sadness seem to have helped Twitter and Bell strike up a new conversation about your beloved. Bell and Twitter have agreed that incoming Twitter SMSes will be free on Bell -- provided you have a Bell SMS bundle -- and that outgoing will be charged just like any other text would be. So if your plan includes 30 sent messages -- like the $3 SMS bundle -- and you go over, you'll get dinged just like you would sending normal text messages. So let the merriment begin Canada, go forth, sign up for unlimited texting, and tweet like we know you've been itching to since November last year.

Filed under:

@Bell Canada backpedals, Twitter SMS now -- almost -- free originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:16:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

NY AG To Find Out Who Got The Merrill Bonus Money "By Whatever Means Is Nece...

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 2/27/09

The NY AG has served Bank of America with a subpoena after they refused to release the names of the individuals who received over $3 billion in bonuses while Merrill Lynch was hemorrhaging money.

"Bank of America has made the decision they don't want to turn that information over to us and we, therefore, tonight served Bank of America with a subpoena to turn over that information," said Special Assistant to the New York Attorney General Benjamin Lawsky Thursday evening, "and we intend to get that by whatever means is necessary going forward."

Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, told the media that he was fully cooperative when he met with the NY AG, but ABC News says that New York officials are telling a different story.

New York officials told ABC News the session with Lewis was ugly and combative. They accused Lewis and the bank of stonewalling, saying they refused to provide a list of which executives got what of the billions in bonuses.

ABCNews also took an opportunity to make fun of Lewis' mode of transportation — a $50 million private jet. Hey, lighten up, maybe he bought it off Starbucks used.

Stonewalling in Style: Bank of America Subpoenaed [ABCNews]

American Express Cancels Your Card Right Before You Were Supposed To Get You...

I wonder how long Costco will stay with American Express as their only major credit card company.

via Consumerist by Alex Chasick on 2/27/09

Andrea, an American Express member for over 20 years, is upset because AmEx canceled her cash-back card two weeks before her $500 rebate check was supposed to arrive, and declared the rebate forfeit.

Andrea writes:

I am sure I am not the first one. AMEX canceled my credit card on 01/31/2009. I have been a member since 1986 and always pay my full balance every month. They were supposed to mail me my yearly Costco cash rebate check of about $500 with my 02/14/2009 statement. Since they canceled my card 2 weeks ago they told me that the rebate is forfeited. They tell me Experian provided them with a bad credit report but my credit score is 720 and when I called Experian they told me that AMEX has been canceling many customer with excellent credit scores.

I wonder how much money AMEX has saved by canceling customers who were due rebates? This is outrageous.

That is outrageous. We suggest calling them up and having a chat with someone higher up. Perhaps also try calling Costco, which is generally pretty good about customer service, and would probably like to know that it's partner isn't.

(Photo: Tengaport)

Illinois Couple Swindles Best Buy Out Of $31 Million [Scams]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 2/27/09

The Chicago Tribune says that Russell Cole calls his $2.75 million Deerfield, IL home "the house that Best Buy built," but now investigators are claiming that the Best Buy money was obtained through fraud.

The Trib says:

Missing from the Kenmore Avenue property are the Ferrari coupe, Lamborghini convertible and a collection of nine other luxury and high-performance vehicles worth about $2.8 million that federal agents seized in November and December.

An investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, FBI and U.S. Postal Service that triggered the seizure was spurred by a "multiyear, multimillion-dollar online bid-rigging scheme," according to the documents.

Abby Cole, Russell Cole's wife started a computer chip supply business in the basement of her home in Arlington Heights in 1988. The business took off, and through 2003-2007 the Coles reported about $15.5 million on their income taxes.

Now investigators say that $14.2 million of that income was from fraud.

The scheme worked like this, Chip Factory, the Cole's company, would submit winning low bids to Best Buy, but then later charged a much higher price. Objections from Best Buy were quieted with gifts to employees.

In one example outlined in the documents, Chip Factory won a bid for 20 computer parts at $42 per part, while the next lowest bid was $72. Chip Factory later charged Best Buy $571 per part, according to documents.

The Coles have not been charged with a crime, but their fleet of sports cars have been confiscated.

Deerfield couple swindled $31 million from Best Buy, federal court documents say [Chicago Tribune]
(Tribune photo by David Trotman-Wilkins / February 17, 2009)

Fwd: Verizon Wireless Sues "Velveteen Rabbit" Telemarketers [Feature Films For Fa...

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 2/26/09

Hooray for Verizon Wireless! Wait, what? The cellular carrier has just filed a lawsuit against Feature Films For Families for illegally telemarketing. Specifically, they're accusing the company of using an auto-dialer to cold call hundreds of thousands of Verizon Wireless customers earlier this month, which is illegal according to NJ state laws (where the suit was filed) and the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the suit, Feature Films made about 500,000 calls in a 10-day period earlier this month to Verizon Wireless customers and employees from the phone number 917-210-4609. People who answered either heard an automated message or an individual encouraging them to see the movie.

...

Verizon Wireless suspects the use of an auto-dialer since many of these calls came in rapid succession. Between 4 PM and 5 PM on Feb. 13, for example, the same number placed 11,000 calls, Verizon said.

Verizon Wireless is seeking a preliminary injunction against the company, which may not mean much since the movie is opening in really, really limited release tomorrow. However, the carrier is also seeking $500 in damages for each call made to a Verizon Wireless customer, which is a punishment we like very much.

Although this is great news, you shouldn't let it stop you from filing your own complaint with your state Attorney General and the FTC if you received a call on behalf of the company. The best way to send a clear message to unethical telemarketers—and Feature Films For Families was caught doing this exact same stunt two years ago—is to throw every resource you can at them.

"Verizon Sues Telemarketers Pushing Kids Film" [PC Mag] (Thanks to Brian!)
"Verizon Wireless Hunts Rabbits" [WSJ]
"Bad Rabbit!" [Radar Online]

RELATED
"This 'Velveteen Rabbit' Teaches You The Triumph Of Love. Also Of Telemarketing."
"How The "Velveteen Rabbit" Company Is Bypassing The Do Not Call List"

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Blockbuster Reduces Total Access Benefits, Disguises Change As "No More Due ...

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 2/24/09

Blockbuster's Total Access subscription service—their bid for relevance in the Netflix era—used to ship the next movie in your queue as soon as you dropped it off at a Blockbuster store in exchange for a free rental. Now the next movie won't ship until you return that free store rental—in other words, now it will count as the next movie in your queue. Of course, in Blockbuster marketing-speak, that's considered a great new benefit.

Two readers have caught the changes and alerted us to them. Ryan writes,

Blockbuster has a new policy that decreases the amount you can rent at any time, and disguises it as a benefit of "no due dates". Previously they would exchange movies in store, and continue to ship your online queue as usual.

Another reader, Jon, is particularly annoyed because he was an early customer:

Blockbuster total access was a dream for me, 19.99 a month unlimited rentals and unlimited movies by the mail (I was grandfathered into that deal). But now they changed the plan for the worse and [are] trying to make it look like a great deal.

Their new headline reads, "No More due dates for total access in store returns," but the fine print is they don't send you your next mailings until you return the movies to the store. You used to get both in store and mail movies at the same time.

Here's the new fine print from Blockbuster:

You'll receive one free in-store movie rental for each online rental sealed in its return mailer, up to your plan's limits. The maximum number of free in-store movie exchanges is based on the plan to which you subscribe. At participating stores, your free in-store exchanges will not have due dates. You can keep them as long as you want without incurring additional fees, as long as you remain a BLOCKBUSTER Total Access subscriber. However, in all cases, any free in-store movie exchanges will count towards how many online rentals you may have out under your plan. Your next online movie will ship after the in-store movie exchange has been returned to the store you rented it from.

Conan copyright trolls censor fan-readings of public domain stories

via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow on 2/25/09

The Time Traveler sez, "Broken Sea Audio, a nifty non-profit audiodrama troupe has been threatened with litigation if they continue to adapt 'public domain' stories that were written by the late Robert E. Howard: 'Broken Sea Audio Productions, headquartered in New Zealand, has shut down all their Robert E. Howard projects after receiving another threatening letter from the lawyers for Conan Properties International LLC (aka Paradox Entertainment). CPI is the limited liability company that claims all licensing powers over works by Robert E. Howard worldwide.'

"CPI says that since Broken Sea's productions reach countries where these stories are not in public domain (a doubtful claim in itself) they have to remove all Conan material from their site. Under this logic, any country could hijack public domain from the rest of the world by just claiming a copyright never expires and could also claim fair use does not exist. 'Take that etching of Charles Dickens off your website.' could be the new rule."

Damned right -- IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if Broken Sea Audio's free Conan readings infringed upon CPI's copyrights in Outer Freedonia, CPI's remedy would be to sue Broken See in Outer Freedonia, and that that unless Broken Sea has assets in Outer Freedonia, the suit would probably end badly for CPI.

CONAN attacks fans (Thanks, Time Traveler!

Slavery among Florida's tomato pickers

via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow on 2/26/09
Colleen sez, "Gourmet magazine goes political? In this interesting and horrible piece, the author investigates modern slavery among immigrant workers in Florida."

For two and a half years, beginning in April 2005, Mariano Lucas Domingo, along with several other men, was held as a slave at that address. At first, the deal must have seemed reasonable. Lucas, a Guatemalan in his thirties, had slipped across the border to make money to send home for the care of an ailing parent. He expected to earn about $200 a week in the fields. Cesar Navarrete, then a 23-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico, agreed to provide room and board at his family's home on South Seventh Street and extend credit to cover the periods when there were no tomatoes to pick.

Lucas's "room" turned out to be the back of a box truck in the junk-strewn yard, shared with two or three other workers. It lacked running water and a toilet, so occupants urinated and defecated in a corner. For that, Navarrete docked Lucas's pay by $20 a week. According to court papers, he also charged Lucas for two meager meals a day: eggs, beans, rice, tortillas, and, occasionally, some sort of meat. Cold showers from a garden hose in the backyard were $5 each. Everything had a price. Lucas was soon $300 in debt. After a month of ten-hour workdays, he figured he should have paid that debt off.

But when Lucas—slightly built and standing less than five and a half feet tall—inquired about the balance, Navarrete threatened to beat him should he ever try to leave. Instead of providing an accounting, Navarrete took Lucas's paychecks, cashed them, and randomly doled out pocket money, $20 some weeks, other weeks $50. Over the years, Navarrete and members of his extended family deprived Lucas of $55,000.

Taking a day off was not an option. If Lucas became ill or was too exhausted to work, he was kicked in the head, beaten, and locked in the back of the truck. Other members of Navarrete's dozen-man crew were slashed with knives, tied to posts, and shackled in chains. On November 18, 2007, Lucas was again locked inside the truck. As dawn broke, he noticed a faint light shining through a hole in the roof. Jumping up, he secured a hand hold and punched himself through. He was free.

Politics of the Plate: The Price of Tomatoes

Identifying Yourself As A Lesbian Gets You Banned On XBOX Live [Gaming]

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 2/25/09

Teresa says that she was harassed by other players and later suspended from XBOX Live because she identified herself as a lesbian in her profile. When she appealed to Microsoft, she says they told her that other gamers found her sexual orientation "offensive."

Teresa says:

I just recently saw a thing on your site about someones gamer tag being banned because it had the word gay in the tag.

I had a similar incident, only my account was suspended because I had said in my profile that I was a lesbian. I was harassed by several players, 'chased' to different maps/games to get away from their harassment. They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap.

As if xbox live is really appropriate for kids anyways! My account was suspended and xbox live did nothing to solve this, but instead said others found it offensive.

Today I received a message from another gamer calling me a fag. I am a lesbian, so they aren't too smart if they cant get their anti-gay slurs right.

Microsoft does nothing to stop this or prevent it, but instead sides with the homophobes. No one will help me get the word out about Microsoft's anti-gay policy. Not even the HRC who says Microsoft has a positive image with them. Not to me it doesn't!

We've heard of gamers being suspended for identifying themselves as gay in their GamerTag, and even one case of a guy whose name was actually "Richard Gaywood" but his tag was suspended anyway because apparently the word "gay" is so offensive that it doesn't matter if its actually your name.

As far as we know, Microsoft is unwilling to reconsider this position.

(Photo:Milkham)

Parking Meters Fake Their Own Deaths to Slap Motorists with Parking Violatio...

via Gizmodo by Andrea Wang on 2/25/09

In Washington D.C., parking meters are allegedly out to destroy the human race as "out-of-order" meters are suddenly coming back to life and repairing themselves, leaving a number of motorists with "wrongful" parking tickets.

According to the D.C. Department of Transportation, 74% of more than 15,000 very old parking meters in D.C. are designed to self-correct themselves. This means if you park your car at a broken parking meter, there is a great chance that while you are gone, the meter will fix itself, resetting the time to say there's zero left on the meter and leaving you stuck with a parking ticket.

In 2008 alone, there apparently had been a record of 116,354 calls to the D.C. Department of Transportation, complaining about such broken meters. When contacted, Jim Graham, chairman of the public works committee, said he was oblivious to the idea that dead parking meters had the ability to correct themselves. Sure, but then again, I can't help but wonder if this is yet another traffic conspiracy. [NBCWashington via Geekologie]

Troubles With Redeeming Quiznos Free Sandwich Coupons [Quiznos]

via Consumerist by Ben Popken on 2/25/09

Looks like some Quiznos aren't too happy about the free sandwich campaign. Readers report interactions ranging from coupons being denied, to local franchises making up new limitations on it (like only certain sandwiches are eligible, or requiring drink and chip purchase), to being treated like thieving jerks. The coupon says the offer is only good at "participating stores," but doesn't say anything that in lieu of free sandwich the coupon will be exchanged for rude attitudes. Inside, the conflict between corporate, the franchises, and the customer caught in-between. Oh, and yes, they do check IDs.

John blogs:

"Fake!" I says, "Fake!"

E and I diligently signed up for the email list at quiznos.com yesterday and happily printed our coupons a few hours ago.

We walk into Quiznos store #2129
Mid-Pike Plaza
11802D Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852

Only to find:

The cashier-girl is sitting at one of the dining room tables hamming it up with her gentleman friend. There are no workers to be seen behind the counter. I ask distracted cashier-girl what's going on with the coupons she says, "the best we can do is give you $2 off." THAT'S WHACK!
Take what you can get right? There's a reason why the NO COUPONS SIGN is posted inside the restaurant and not on the glass door.

The two sandwich makers are rude.

Upon checkout, cashier-girl forgets she offered a $2.00 discount. I remind her that we have coupons, she scans one and gives us $1.00 off and claims it's only one discount coupon per purchase. I suppose I could have made a fuss and separated our sandwiches to make two transactions at this point, but I didn't want to keep her from her gentleman visitor any longer, she was clearly irritated with the concept of customers in her workplace.

Of course, E. called Quiznos customer service - no answer. Call Quiznos customer service if you want to listen to an automated voice leading to an automated directory of extension numbers to strangers.

Evan B. writes:

The proprietor posted a sign on the door saying that they would only honor the Million Quiznos' small subway offer was if I purchased a drink and bag of chips. I verified with the proprietor that her posted sign was in effect and there'd be no "free" subway without a purchase of a drink and chips. I had no desire to eat in the store and intended to make a to-go order, and I had no wish for a corn-syrup laden beverage or grease-packed bag of crispy wafers, so I decided to forget about this supposed "free" subway deal.

Jay writes:

I've taken advantage (as countless other readers I'm sure) of the Quiznos "Free Sub" you posted about… except it's proven to be a tough one to use in my area.

"We do not except coupon in this store"

The picture below is from the La Quinta, Calif. franchisee, taken over lunch today;another one in Palm Desert (different owner) had a similar sign a few weeks ago about when Quiznos announced "new lower prices". I stopped eating there when the sign went up – now the one I've been going to instead is doing it as well.

Quiznos seems to like keeping a tight leash on its franchisees, but its more aggressive handing out of coupons coupled with lower prices seems to be causing some of its owners to "revolt".

Thought I'd bring this to your attention. Seems to me that as the corporate office is passing out the discounts and freebies, I can't be the only one witnessing some store owners snubbing all offers.

-Jay
Palm Desert, Calif.

Brent writes:

I went to Quizno's tonight to redeem my free coupon and to pick up another sub for my wife. I showed the coupon to the kid behind the counter (couldn't have been older than 16). He told me rudely, "Every Day Value only." I pointed out that the coupon said that it could be used for a small Every Day Value OR Signature Sub. He told me that he didn't care what the coupon said, the owner of this Quizno's told him that it was only for the Every Day Value. I chuckled, honestly thinking he was joking. Then he said, "If you don't like it, there's the door." I couldn't believe how I was being treated and headed out the door. I saw on the door that there was a phone number that one could call with comments. Unfortunately, the middle number had been scratched out (1-866-?-TOASTED). I popped back in and asked what the missing number was. He said, "It's right there. Just dial 866-TOASTED." (The correct number is actually 1-866-4-TOASTED but it's currently not connecting when dialed.)

I went to a different, nearby Quizno's and was treated very well - with no issues regarding the coupon.

I've sent a comment to Quizno's but honestly don't expect to hear back

Kentaro writes:

I headed out to the nearest Quiznos in Brighton, MI (store number 2116). Upon arrival I walked inside with a couple friends I had brought, showed the woman at the counter our coupons, and she said I should buy something. I told her I was a musician and college student and that with the $2 a week I must live off of, I would rather receive just the free sub. She then said that I was required to buy something. I showed her the coupon and told her that I should be receiving a free sandwich. Nowhere on the coupon does it say that a purchase must be made in order to receive the free sub.

She persisted in her stance and, as two other buddies of mine were there, we ended up having to give her a couple bucks each to buy a drink in order to receive the "free" sub. I asked her again before I was about to pay and asked her to show me where on the coupon it said that a purchase must be made. She said it's not on the coupon, but a separate purchase must be made. I asked if the manager was in, and she told me she was the manager. We gave her our money and left the store.

I am not upset that I had to give up two dollars for a sub. I am upset that Quiznos didn't keep their word for their own coupon. It is as if I went up to some friends and said, "Hey guys, let's go out for lunch. I'll buy." and upon seeing the tab, following up with "Oh by the way, I'll buy, but you each need to give me five bucks." This "campaign" has lost Quiznos my business for at least a very long time, and I am pretty dissatisfied with what happened there today. I do not think I am being irrational, but please let me know if I am missing something.

Thank you.

Regards,
Kentaro R.
Michigan

Rusty writes:

Tell me you guys are on top of this one - I saw that you guys posted something yesterday - but here in Washington, DC no Quiznos are honoring the coupons - the front desk person calls the manager who bascially says no way - "and who is supposed to pay for the subs" - what a scam - then they try and get you to order something else. I can't believe that Quiznos would embark on such a huge campaign without communicating the scope of the give away to its stores- that's why it seems like such a scam - I wonder if other parts of the country are being shown the door when they go in for their free subs - this may go down as the worst promotion since New Coke.

Frank writes:

The lady behind the counter actually wrote down my driver's id number which scares me as an invasion of privacy and could possibly cause identity theft. When asked about the reason she needed the number she said they were for"resource management" whatever that means.

PREVIOUSLY: Free Quiznos Subs
RELATED: Slickdeals forum members describe their experiences with the coupon

Authors´ Guild vs. reality: Kindles and read-aloud

via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow on 2/25/09
In yesterday's New York Times, Author's Guild president Roy Blount Jr. rails against the Kindle's text-to-speech feature, opining that it infringes copyright because it provides a "derivative work" by creating audio editions of your textfiles. Blount says that eventually, text-to-speech will be so darned perfect, the audiobook market will be destroyed by it, so he aims to do something about it right now.

He doesn't actually say what that thing is. Presumably, he'd like Amazon to simply remove the feature. But if you take Blount at his word, then we can only assume the feature will spread to other platforms -- does he think that iPhones shouldn't be able to read your email to you as you jog? And if it can read your email, what's to stop it from reading your ebooks? Blount implies that there's a simple solution to his technological problem, but if you truly believe that it should be illegal to ask software to produce audio of copyrighted works, then Blount's lining himself up to fight the entire future of technology that can convert text to speech.

Continuing to take Blount at his word, let's assume that he's right on the copyright question, namely, that:

1. Converting text to speech infringes copyright

2. Providing the software that is capable of committing copyright infringement makes you liable for copyright infringement, too

1. is going to be sticky -- the Author's Guild is setting itself up to fight the World Blind Union, phone makers, free software authors, ebook makers, and a whole host of people engaged in teaching computers to talk.

But 2. is really hairy. If Blount believes that making a device capable of infringing copyright is the same as infringing copyright (something refuted by the Supreme Court in Betamax in 1984, the decision that legalized VCRs), then email, web-browsers, computers, photocopiers, cameras, and typewriters are all illegal, too.

Time and again, the Author's Guild has shown itself to be the epitome of a venal special interest group, the kind of grasping, foolish posturers that make the public cynically assume that the profession it represents is a racket, not a trade. This is, after all, the same gang of weirdos who opposed the used book trade going online.

I think there's plenty not to like about the Kindle -- the DRM, the proprietary file format, both imposed on authors and publishers even if they don't want it -- and about Amazon's real audiobook section, Audible (the DRM -- again, imposed on authors and publishers even if they'd prefer not to use it). But if there's one thing Amazon has demonstrated, it's that it plans on selling several bazillion metric tons of audiobooks. They control something like 90 percent of the market. To accuse them of setting out to destroy it just doesn't pass the giggle-test.

One of the most powerful weapons in the publishing industry's arsenal is that it isn't the record or film industry. By and large, publishing is undertaken by bookish people who love books and bookselling and readers and writers. By and large, writers get a decent deal from their publishers -- especially relative to recording artists; most writers don't have to sign over their copyrights, don't have the promotion of their books deducted from their royalties, etc. By and large, publishers don't sue tool-makers or accuse readers of being crooks.

Unlike the record and film industries, who seem bent on doing everything in their power to build the moral case for ripping them off -- to convince the public that they are a passel of greedy, clueless technophobes who deserve to have their industries killed, if only to protect the 21st century from them -- there are very few people who feel this way about publishing and authorship.

Unless, that is, groups like the Authors' Guild continue to make us all out to be cut from the same cloth as media execs like Universal Music's Larry Kenswil, who once bellowed "FAIR USE IS THE LAST REFUGE OF THE SCOUNDREL" at me from a stage at the RSA in London.

Dear Mr Blount: you don't represent me. You don't represent the future of authorship. You and your group are jeopardizing the future of authorship and of society with your petty little grabs and ridiculous posturing. Cut it out before someone gets hurt.

True, you can already get software that will read aloud whatever is on your computer. But Kindle 2 is being sold specifically as a new, improved, multimedia version of books — every title is an e-book and an audio book rolled into one. And whereas e-books have yet to win mainstream enthusiasm, audio books are a billion-dollar market, and growing. Audio rights are not generally packaged with e-book rights. They are more valuable than e-book rights. Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat.
The Kindle Swindle?

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Oklahoma Congress Has Cocaine (The Drink) Party, Stays Up All Night Debating...

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 2/25/09

Should an energy drink be allowed to brand itself with the name of an outlawed drug? A state lawmaker in Oklahoma says no, especially not when kids can buy it, and he's trying to get the drink pulled off of shelves in the state.

Representative Shelton... said he first learned about 'Cocaine' when he saw two young boys buying it.

"They were talking about it," Representative Shelton said. "They were happy they had it. I looked at it, went back to the cooler and they had a bunch of it."

Representative Shelton said he bought it all and brought it to the state capitol. He's now passed around 'Cocaine' to House and Senate leaders in hopes of stopping its sale in Oklahoma.

"It doesn't need to be sold in Oklahoma," Repsentative Shelton said. "There's no need for it. Plenty of other energy drinks that don't have ugly names like cocaine."

We don't think it's an ugly name for a drink. Ugly would be something like "Sludgefart the energy liquid!" We wouldn't buy something named Sludgefart. But "Cocaine," now, you have to admit that it's a catchy brand. Or how about something like "Likquidd Meth"? Or "Slamphetamine"?

Maybe the makers of "Cocaine" can just shorten the name to something less obvious sounding, like Coca- oh, never mind.

What do you think? Should drinks marketed at least in part to kids avoid referencing illicit substances? Or are kids smart enough to see through the tongue-in-cheek "lifestyle reference" (we're not sure how else to describe it) and know when they're being marketed to?

"Cocaine Energy Drink Sparks Debate with Lawmaker" [News9.com] (Thanks to Zachary!)
(Photo: Cocaine website)

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The Government is NOT Spying on You Through Your DTV Converter Box [DTV Hoax]

via Gizmodo by Adrian Covert on 2/24/09

Last week, Spokane-based engineer Adam Chronister posted a Youtube video, where he cracked open a government-subsidized DTV converter box, only to find a hidden camera. Turns out, the whole thing was a hoax.

Threat Level says that conspiracy theorists jumped all over the video, which racked up 200,000 views since going up. However, Chronister simply used old cellphone parts and a hot glue gun to push the paranoid and mentally unstable into a state of crisis. However, these tin foil heads aren't resting any easier: they believe pranks like this only create a smoke screen for the government to carry on with their clandestine activity. Who am I to say they're wrong? (Original video below) [Threat Level via BBG]

Kit Kat Vending Machines Get Some Sophistication

via OhGizmo! by Evan Ackerman on 2/24/09

humanvending-custom

By Evan Ackerman

We saw a pretty sophisticated vending machine at CES this year, but it can't hold a candle to these new machines selling Kit Kats in London, since they have a real live (for a while, anyway) human inside them. The economy must suck pretty badly for "vending machine gnome" to be an actual job now, but on the upside, you'd get to enjoy such perks as easy access to change and unlimited fresh Kit Kat smell.

For the purchaser, it works just like a standard vending machine. Try to shake it, fail, try to stick your arm up the slot, fail, and as a last resort put your money in, tell the machine what you want, and enjoy your snack. If you're poor and desperate, though, this is one vending machine you might actually be able to threaten some candy out of.

VIA [ Core77 ]

Man charged $28,000 for using data card, Slingbox to watch football game

via Engadget by Ross Miller on 2/24/09

While waiting for a Caribbean cruise liner to set sail from the Port of Miami last November, a Chicago native with an AT&T wireless card and Slingbox decided to catch the Bears vs. Lions football game on his laptop. The end result? A $28,067.31 bill from for international data charges, despite the ship never leaving the harbor. Apparently the card was picking up a signal it shouldn't have, and while the bill was eventually dropped to $290.65 after a considerable number of calls to customer service, let that be a warning to mobile users traveling on the fringe of international roaming areas -- and in case you were wondering, the Bears ended up winning 27 to 23.

[Via The Register]

Filed under: , ,

Man charged $28,000 for using data card, Slingbox to watch football game originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:31:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

AT&T Charges $27,788.93 To Watch A Bears Game On Your Laptop [Local Media In...

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 2/24/09

Wayne has an AT&T wireless card that he uses in combination with his Slingbox to watch TV while he travels. It's normally a good system, but he recently got a shockingly huge bill after watching about 2 1/2 hours of a Bears game while waiting for his cruise to depart Miami.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

So there I was at the Port of Miami. It was 1 p.m. Florida time. The Bears game was starting. The ship was not leaving Miami until 4 p.m., so I slid in my wireless card and brought up my Slingbox and watched the game on my computer.

I watched for about 2½ hours. Then I shut down my computer and cell phone, because it's expensive to use your Internet or phone when you sail out of the country.

Anyway, I got home from our cruise, and about two weeks later I got my cell phone/wireless card bill, which is usually about $220, and it said I owe $28,067.31.

I called AT&T and told them there was either a mistake or fraud and to please take this off the bill. That's where the fun starts. They told me that the bill was correct and somehow I was charged international rates for Internet use, and the cost is 2 cents per kb. That came out to $27,788.93.

I explained that I was not at sea but in port and my cell phone was still working without roaming, and that I should have still been on my unlimited wireless card. I have since been in contact with five or six different people at AT&T, and the best they could do, even though I am not at fault, is to bring the bill down to $6,000.

I have confirmation from the cruise line that we were still in port and I provided that information to AT&T.

The Sun-Times' Stephanie Zimmermann (AKA The Fixer) called and retold Wayne's story to AT&T and, oh my gosh, suddenly they were able to fix the bill. Isn't it amazing how that works?

Apparently, Wayne's card was picking up a signal that it shouldn't have and the mistake was entirely AT&T's fault.

$27,000 to watch a Bears game?!? [Sun-Times](Thanks, Keith !)
(Photo:Señor Codo)

Tearful Atlanta Cops Express Remorse for Shooting 92-Year-Old Kathryn Johnst...

via Boing Boing by Mark Frauenfelder on 2/24/09
I liked Radley Balko's headline for this story (about three Atlanta police officers who are going to prison) so much that I copied it above.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

The trio of officers was involved in a Nov. 21, 2006, drug raid at the Neal Street home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston.

She was killed by officers after they used a no-knock warrant — obtained with falsified evidence — to storm into her house in search of drugs an informant had inaccurately told them were inside. Apparently thinking the officers were robbers, Johnston fired a shot through the door. Officers responded with 39 shots, five or six of which struck her.

The officers initially sought to cover up their actions in obtaining the warrant, but their story eventually unraveled. All three pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate Johnston's civil rights.

Do you think they rooted all the bad apples off the force?

Monday, February 23, 2009

Fosters Drinkers Defeat Grocery Shrink Ray [Grocery Shrink Ray]

via Consumerist by Ben Popken on 2/23/09

When Fosters switched to 330ml from 375ml while charging the same price, consumers let their discontent be known in a highly visible fashion: they stopped buying it. Fosters reported a 33% drop in sales and some retailers reported up to a 50% drop. In response to the steep drop-off, Fosters is going back to 357ml. For a crap beer whose main selling point was that it came in large-unit sized cans, reducing the size of those cans is a fatal error.

Foster's cans 330ml stubbies [smh.com.au] (Thanks to Kevin!) (Photo: buildscharacter)

Another Month, Another Massive Credit Card Data Breach [Data Theft]

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 2/23/09

Don't be too surprised if you get a letter from your bank or credit union in the next few weeks telling you it's replacing your credit card. If your data was among the latest set compromised, Visa and Mastercard are already alerting financial institutions so they can cancel the account number. There's no official word on which payment processor was hit this time, but our tipster says his credit union told him it was Heartland Payment Systems yet again.



I was just contacted by my credit union that both my MasterCard check cards had been compromised. I was told by my credit union that the breach occurred through Heartland Payment Systems.

I was told that they process the payment for over 175,000 retailers, and that thousands of people at my CU alone had been impacted.

In SC Magazine US, a security expert says that Visa and Mastercard know who the processor is, but won't name names:

The victim in this case appears to be a provider that processes online transactions, said David Shettler, vice president and CTO of Open Security Foundation, a nonprofit that researches data breaches.

He told SCMagazineUS.com on Monday that the group has been receiving tips about the breach since Feb. 12, but few details have been confirmed.

"What concerns me is that Visa and MasterCard, they clearly know who it is," Shettler said. "That just won't say anything because the processor hasn't come clean. The of sort feel it gives people is that Visa and MasterCard are covering for some unnamed organization."

ComputerWorld notes that the blog Office of Inadequate Security has posted notices from "the Tuscaloosa VA Federal Credit Union in Alabama, the Pennsylvania Credit Union Association, the Community Bankers Association of Illinois and the New York State Consumer Protection Board," as well as the Alabama Credit Union (also in Tuscaloosa).

As with the confirmed Heartland breach reported in January, it's likely that only account numbers and expiration dates were grabbed, and not SSNs or PINs.

"Just weeks after Heartland breach, another payment processor said to be hit" [ComputerWorld] (Thanks to Steven!)
"Visa confirms another payment processor breach" [SC Magazine US] (Thanks to Mike!)

RELATED
"Banks starting to report breach at unnamed processor" [Office of Inadequate Security]
(Photo: Ollie Crafoord)

Merrill Lynch CEO: "Nothing Happened In The World Or The Economy" That Would...

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 2/23/09

You know how Merrill Lynch recently lost $15 billion? Remember how we're in a unbelievably huge global financial crisis that threatens to unravel the fabric of our economy? John Thain says that's no reason not to pay billions of dollars in bonuses.

NY AG Andrew Cuomo is seeking to force John Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, to release the names of the Merrill executives who shared over $3.6 billion in bonuses before the merger with Bank of America. Thain is refusing, and said this about the bonuses:

"Bonuses were determined based upon the performance and the retention of people, and there is nothing that happened in the world or the economy that would make you say that those were not the right thing to do for the retention and the reward of the people who were performing," Thain said, according to the transcript.

Mr. Cuomo's office recently released information that suggests that Merrill Lynch may have moved up the bonuses in order to pass the cost on to tax payers, and claims that the bonuses were not spread evenly throughout the organization — but were structured in such a way as to enrich the top Merrill executives. Cuomo says that the top four bonus recipients received a combined $121 million, and that 696 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more.

Cuomo said the bonuses were set Dec. 8 and not adjusted later when it turned out pretax losses were $7 billion more than expected. Merrill reported Jan. 16 that it lost $15.31 billion in the fourth quarter and $27 billion for the year.

Thain was dismissed in January by Bank of America chief executive officer Kenneth D. Lewis. The move came after disclosure of the bonuses and Merrill's unexpectedly large fourth-quarter loss.

Cuomo Seeks to Force Thain to Reveal Merrill Bonuses (Update2) [Bloomberg]

Ticketmaster Agrees To Stop Linking To TicketsNow [TicketMaster]

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 2/23/09

When the recent Bruce Springsteen ticket sales event blew up in Ticketmaster's stupid face, it brought down the wrath of New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram. Now Ticketmaster and New Jersey have reached a settlement that will change how the company conducts business across the U.S. Here's what will change:

  • 1. No more linking to TicketsNow directly from a Ticketmaster transaction screen. This applies nationwide.
  • 2. Ticketmaster will pay New Jersey $350,000 to cover the cost of the investigation.
  • 3. Ticketmaster will stop an advertising agreement with Google which redirected Ticketmaster searches to the TicketsNow website.
  • 4. Ticketmaster will hold a lottery to sell 2,000 Springsteen tickets at face value to customers who complained about the botched sales. Another 1,000 customers who don't win the lottery will be given $100 gift certificates and an opportunity to purchase tickets to an upcoming NJ Springsteen concert.

All in all, it's a pretty good smackdown of Ticketmaster's misleading and unfair business practices, although we suspect Ticketmaster caved so quickly partly to improve its reputation as the government begins to look at their upcoming merger with Live Nation.

"Ticketmaster will stop linking customers to subsidiary" [NJ.com] (Thanks to Doug!)

RELATED
"Congressman Wants Ticketmaster Investigated For 'TicketsNow' Website"
(Photo: alexik)

Circuit City Liquidation: If You Buy A Shattered TV, You Are Out Of Luck [Ci...

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 2/23/09

WCVB TV in Boston has an interview with two Circuit City liquidation customers who are out $1,100 after they bought a Samsung LCD TV from Circuit City's liquidation sale — only to find out that it was totally shattered. When they tried to return it — Circuit City told them the merchandise was sold "as is" and cannot be returned for any reason. WCVB TV says there's a sign in one store telling customers not to open the merchandise, and another that allows customer to check their merchandise only after they've paid for it. Is this ethical?

Team 5 Investigates discovered that while consumers are warned about final sales, they have no way of knowing if what they're buying is bad. In the Natick store, inspections are allowed only after a customer pays, and in Somerville, one sign says "Check your purchase," but another sign says, "Don't Open The Merchandise."

In Minnesota, we found a similar story. A family paid $1,500 for a TV at the Circuit City liquidation sale — and claim that they were prevented from opening the box to make sure the TV wasn't damaged. The TV was, of course, totally shattered. When the local Fox affiliate tried to investigate, they say they were "kicked out" of the store.

Meanwhile, back in Boston, the customers told reporters that they were going to try to get their credit card company to help them — but honestly, we're not optimistic. All sales are final in a liquidation sale. That's only one of the many reasons you should avoid them.

UPDATE: For those of you asking why state laws don't apply here, it's because federal bankruptcy laws are in play.

Customers Burned In Circuit City Closeout Sale [WCVB]
(Photo:catastrophegirl)

Sunday, February 22, 2009

When is a free credit report not a free credit report? When it's from freecr...

via Boing Boing by Mark Frauenfelder on 2/20/09
I wrote an article for PC.com on my idiotic blunder of signing up with freecreditreport.com. In short, don't go there. If you want a truly free credit report use annualcreditreport.com, not freecreditreport.com.
I clicked on the large bright orange button that said "Get your Free Credit Report & Score!" and was presented with a form. I filled it out. I hesitated for a second when the site asked for my credit card number, which it stated was "required to establish your account," but the site assured me that my "credit card will not be charged during the free trial period." Having done this before (or so I thought), I went ahead and entered the information. A shopping cart receipt indicated that the total was $0.00.

I got my credit report, looked it over, and forgot about it. A week later I was looking at my checking account register online and I noticed a $14.95 charge from a company called CIC*Triple Advantage. I didn't recall buying anything from a company with that name, so I entered "CIC*Triple Advantage" into Google. The search results made my eyes bug out of my head. This was the name of the billing entity for freecreditreport.com. The thousands of search results were full of words like "deceptive practices," "scam," "ripoff," "unauthorized billing!" and "beware!" In fact, all the top results were either from people complaining that they'd been conned into signing up for a $14.95 monthly credit monitoring service without their permission, or they were about how to cancel the service.

When is a free credit report not a free credit report? When it's from freecreditreport.com

California's Anti-Violence Video Game Law Thrown Out [Video Games]

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 2/20/09

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2005 California law that prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional, saying that the "lawmakers failed to produce evidence that violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to children," and that there were other ways to deal with access to violent games, including the current voluntary rating system, public campaigns to educate parents, and parental controls.

The law was never enforced because a lower court barred it from taking effect back in 2006.

Jack Thompson is going to be pissed.

"California's video game law ruled unconstitutional" [Reuters]
(Photo: No More Heroes, Ubisoft)

Is Last.fm Sharing User Data With The RIAA? [Rumors On The Internets]

via Consumerist by Carey on 2/22/09

TechCrunch has published a damning rumor accusing the social music site Last.fm of helping the RIAA find users who downloaded leaked copies of U2's new album. Relying on a tip, TechCrunch claims that the Last.fm, a subsidiary of CBS, handed over a "giant dump of user data to track down people who are scrobbling unreleased tracks."

Last.fm was designed to watch over your music collection. Every time you play a song, the site is notified and the song is added to your profile, or scrobbled. Over time, the site uses your listening patterns to generate recommendations.

According to the Last.fm, over 7,000 users have listened to U2's unreleased album. TechCrunch's tipster says that that part of that data was handed over to the RIAA.

I heard from an irate friend who works at CBS that last.fm recently provided the RIAA with a giant dump of user data to track down people who are scrobbling unreleased tracks. As word spread numerous employees at last.fm were up in arms because the data collected (a) can be used to identify individuals and (b) will likely be shared with 3rd parties that have relationships with the RIAA.

The RIAA released a sentence-long response declaring: "To our knowledge, no data has been made available to RIAA." Last.fm's system architect also denied that any data had been shared.

We release no data linking users and plays to any third parties.

The only data we provide to labels (in addition to the data publicly available on their artist pages) are historical graphs of listeners and plays. There's no way to link these to individual users.

Basic user data is already on Last.fm for anyone, including the RIAA to see, but without personally identifiable data like IP addresses, it's tough to see how the RIAA could do anything other than rustle up some scaremongering publicity.

Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA? [TechCrunch]

Citibank Sends Nigerian Scammer $27 Million [Whoops]

via Consumerist by Carey on 2/22/09

37-year-old Nigerian scammer Paul Gabriel Amos convinced Citibank officials to wire him $27 million belonging to Ethiopia. Rather than go with the usual Nigerian nom de plumes like prince or will executor, Famous Amos pretended to be an official with the National Bank of Ethiopia. Amos forged "official-looking" documents that confirmed his status with the central bank and instructed Citibank to await faxes telling them where to send the country's cash.

There was also a list of officials who could be called to confirm such requests. The signatures of the officials appeared to match those in Citibank's records and were accepted by Citibank, the complaint says.

In October, Citibank received two dozen faxed requests for money to be wired, and it transferred $27 million to accounts controlled by the conspirators in Japan, South Korea, Australia, China, Cyprus and the United States, the complaint says.

Citibank called the officials whose names and numbers it had been given to verify the transactions, prosecutors said. The numbers turned out to be for cellphones in Nigeria, South Africa and Britain used by the conspirators.

Citibank, in its investigation, later determined the package of documents had come via courier from Lagos, Nigeria, rather than from the offices of the National Bank of Ethiopia, in Addis Ababa.

The FBI arrested Amos when he tried to visit Los Angeles. Citibank sent the $27 million back to Ethopia and may soon form a support group with this guy.

Nigerian Accused in Scheme to Swindle Citibank [The New York Times]
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

Microsoft Cuts 1,400 Employees And Then Asks For Severance Package Refunds [...

via Gizmodo by Jack Loftus on 2/22/09

What's the best way to create an HR firestorm in three easy steps? If you're Microsoft, layoff 1,400 employees, give them severance on the way out, and then ask for part of it back.

Better yet, let's add a step four: Make sure you do all of this during one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. Stir.

Sounds almost too terrible to be true, and yet there's photographic evidence that exists proving Microsoft overpaid a bunch of its former employees and now wants its money back. Oh, and some employees were apparently underpaid as well. What do you think you would do in this situation? [TechCrunch]


Saturday, February 21, 2009

Update: Facebook Agrees To Take Down Dead Relative's Page [Facebook]

via Consumerist by Ben Popken on 2/21/09

Stephanie Bemister says that after our post went up Facebook contacted her and agreed to take down the facebook page of her dead brother, an award-winning investigative journalist and Nazi hunter. "Thank you again, Ben," she wrote. "My family has no words that truly express how we feel." Previously Facebook told her they wouldn't remove the page because...

...it was their policy to keep dead members profile's in a "memorialized" state. Facebook spokesperson Barry Schnitt responded in our comments that they would have honored her request had she identified herself as next of kin. (However, they never told her that's what she had to do). Barry apologized for the confusion and admitted they should have asked for more info instead of summarily rejecting her request.

Barry's note, and Stephanie's letter of thanks, below...

Facebook wrote:

Hi there, all the user has to do is identify themselves as the next of kin and we are happy to close the account. The user in this instance only said she was a relative and used a different name (not the same last name as the user), otherwise we would have granted the request. We should have asked the user for more info and, for that mistake, we apologize. However, it is a simply misunderstanding and your story and their note does not reflect our actual policy.

When we find out a user is deceased, we automatically memorialize an account. Users can also ask to have an account memorialized here: [www.facebook.com] This means that it is frozen (no more friends can be added) and the privacy options are made more strict (friends only). The vast majority of people who contact us about deceased friends want these records maintained so that they and others can remember and celebrate the person. Here is an example: [www.nytimes.com] However, as I mentioned, we're happy to close the account, too, if the person identifies themselves as someone who should have that authority.
Sorry for the confusion.

Barry Schnitt
Facebook Communications

Stephanie Bemister wrote:

Dear Ben - I honestly shed tears this morning, when I saw my brother's photo and the article on your site. And what do you think? I received an email from Facebook and they have removed his site today. You did this for me. You have no idea what a relief it is and how much I appreciate what you have done.

A journalist recently said to me, "We can't get people to comprehend the issues when using group social sites. We can't get people to even make Wills. How on earth is anyone going to understand what happens to their virtual life when they die. Will they listen?"

No one has thought what the consequences are when they leave this earth, even temporarily when suffering say concussion that puts them out of action for weeks. I read a few years ago about a man who died whose family had no way of accessing his insurance, his Will, his investments, his bank, his group social pages, his websites, et al. He had secured his computer and password protected all his personal information. They had even gone as far as asking several people if it was possible to hack his computer but to no avail. It takes years to resolve if one is lucky, unlike the real world.

My brother didn't make a Will or anything that suggested his wishes should the unthinkable happen. Last year, he was having trouble storing files and suggested he find a web server where he can store his information. I am sure he did so, but there is no way I will ever be able to find this out. He left no information on his computer as to where this web server is located. And as for his passwords that will allow one to access his information, I can also forget this. I also made suggestions to him about how to use more secure passwords.

When I returned to the U.S. after my brother died, the first thing my husband and I did was to make our Will. And we did this online so that the executors will be able to contact the online law firm and have access to our Living Will. In the Living Will we have stipulated what we want done with our virtual life. We have also included where our passwords can be found in hard copy and its location.

Lawyers should take note. Do they ever ask their clients what they want done with their virtual life? I doubt it. I would suggest to anyone to make a Will and a Living Will when you are relatively young. Then you can get on with your life. As for those of us who have reached middle age, if you haven't already done so, do so. Don't leave this up to your family to deal with. It will break their hearts.

Thank you again, Ben. My family has no words that truly express how we feel.

- Stephanie Bemister

PREVIOUSLY: Facebook Won't Let You Remove Dead Relative's Page, Per "Policy"

Friday, February 20, 2009

How The "Velveteen Rabbit" Company Is Bypassing The Do Not Call List [Telema...

via Consumerist by Chris Walters on 2/20/09

We were wondering how Feature Films For Families, the company that's randomly calling home lines and cellphones to sell a movie to people who are on the Do Not Call list, was able to get around federal and state telemarketing rules. It turns out they're hiding behind a non-profit, and non-profits are exempt from following the Do Not Call list. Something similar happened in 2006 between Feature Films For Families and a different non-profit named the Dove Foundation, and the state of Missouri fined the Dove Foundation $70,000. It might be time for you to start filing complaints with your state Attorney General and the FTC.

I've been curious about this story since being tipped off to it on Wednesday. It combines two known evils on this planet—badly made children's movies and telemarketing—and yet the company behind it claims to be a morally upright, praise Jesus sort of place that you wouldn't expect to try to skirt morally unambiguous laws or tell lies.

When I first tried to talk to somebody at Feature Films For Families on wednesday, I was routed to 801-284-7206 and told it was "the corporate office." There a woman named Vicki cut me off as I explained why I was calling and asked, "How did you get this number?" Vicki told me I'd have to speak to Russel, and she transferred me to Russel D. Harris. Russel put me on hold, then came back and said he would only answer questions via email, and said his email address was russeldharris@lawyer.com, which I'm pretty sure is a fake email address. I sent an email to that address anyway and have yet to hear back.

This morning, a reader tipped us off to the Dove settlement from 2006. In March of that year, the Missouri Attorney General obtained a restraining order against the two organizations for trying to evade the Do Not Call rules:

The temporary restraining order is part of a lawsuit alleging that Feature Films For Families Inc. of Murray, Utah, and the Dove Foundation of Grand Rapid, Mich., conspired in a scheme to evade state No Call laws. Telemarketers from the Dove Foundation claimed its status as a charitable organization provided them with an exemption to the Missouri No Call law. In reality, the Dove Foundation was using that status to solicit sales for Feature Films For Families, a for-profit organization that sells DVDs and videos. The Attorney General's No Call unit received almost 300 complaints about the calls.

In August of that year, Feature Films For Families and the Dove Foundation agreed to a $70,000 settlement:

According to the agreement, the Dove Foundation and Feature Films For Families must pay $70,000 to the state Merchandising Practices Revolving Fund and obey all merchandising practices and No Call laws in the future. The respondents must also provide the Attorney General's Office with a detailed plan of practices and procedures they will implement in their businesses to ensure compliance with the state No Call law. They have also agreed to subscribe to, and remain current with, the Missouri No Call database.

Any future violation of the agreement by the respondents could result in contempt of court proceedings and civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation.

I called the corporate number again this morning and asked started asking questions. A woman named Holly, who said she was a manager at the call center, explained it to me this way:

  • Feature Films For Family is a for profit company and is only calling the numbers of people who are existing customers (which is allowed)
  • Kids First (aka Kids First Cares) is a non-profit company and is randomly calling everyone else—but since they're not collecting any money for the film, it's okay, see?



So that's the secret—get a non-profit to make your sales pitch for you and you can call any damned person you want, la la la, nobody can stop you. Well, unless you anger an Attorney General somewhere because you're obviously trying to break the rules against telemarketing.

By the way, I asked Holly how people can get put on the Kids First internal Do Not Call list, and she said they can call the number I called and tell whoever answers: 801-284-7206.

Here's another option for you, taken from a message board at 800notes.com:

They are people from New York oprating a bussiness in Sante fe, using a Utah firm to solicit via telemarketing as a no-profit org. That's how they get away w/it. Does this sound kosher?

file a complaint. Be sure to check out your state's attorney general website to make a state complaint as well.

"Company selling films used non-profit organization as front to try to circumvent state No Call law, Nixon says" [Missouri Attorney General] (Thanks to Bruce!)
"Company selling films will pay $70,000 over No Call complaints in agreement obtained by Nixon" [Missouri Attorney General]

Don't Bother Calling In With Complaints, United Is Disconnecting The Phone [...

via Consumerist by Meg Marco on 2/20/09

United Airlines doesn't want to talk to you on the phone about your complaints — so they're disconnecting it. MSNBC is reporting that starting in April, the airline will shut down the call center that deals with customer complaints.

United Airlines spokesperson Robin Urbanski says the company did research on the success of the feedback line and concluded that "people who e-mail or write us are more satisfied with our responses."

You can still call United's reservation line to speak with someone, but if you try to complain you'll probably be given an email address to use.

Thankfully, we have some pretty good executive customer service contact information for United, though we imagine Mr. Atkinson is about to get much busier.

Don't bother calling with your travel complaints [MSNBC] (Thanks, melinda!)
(Photo:afagen)

Hot Cartoon Makes Understanding Credit Crisis Simple And Fun


The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.