Analyzing baseball statistics turned into a huge field called sabermetrics. A long time ago, geeks were weird people who performed strange stunts like biting the heads off chickens. But geeks nowadays are gathering stats on just about everything, so here are just a few meaty figures to chew on.
Some folks are obsessed with numbers. Others are obsessed with food. Combine these two tastes that taste great together and you get: Reese's peanut butter cups infographics about food. Here are just a few random sets of data on food consumption in the US.
There's a quote attributed to John Wanamaker that goes: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." Marketing analytics is getting better all the time, but it's still pretty hard to pin down what really works. (At least the traveling salesman problem has a brute force approach!) Here are just a few interesting links about advertising.
Eating healthier has a lot of benefits. And all sorts of food distributors are trying to figure out ways to incorporate healthy snacks into people's meals... while still keeping profits as high as the usual not-so-healthy snacks. Here are just a few examples.
A San Diego couple, Michael and Maria Harris claim that their 4-year-old son Isaiah had his face burned from "scalding hot" nacho cheese served to them at Disney World. They appear to be claiming that Disney was negligent in making "no effort" to keep the nacho cheese at a reasonable temperature, and are claiming "permanent scarring, pain and suffering" to Isaiah from the burns, while the parents have suffered "emotional distress." Perhaps there's more to the case than is in the article linked above, but shouldn't parents be at least somewhat responsible for keeping things that are scalding hot from their children's faces?
Preserving food in various ways has been a pretty important part of developing stable societies. Without a reliable food supply, it's kind of hard to move forward and to do anything other than creating a stable food chain. But with modern food processing, food can last indefinitely... though it may have gone a bit too far. Here are just a few quick links on a how a few foods stand up to somewhat extreme conditions.
One of the more famous examples of abuses of the YouTube video takedown process was the case of Lenz vs. Universal Music, which involved Universal Music issuing a YouTube DMCA takedown to a woman who posted a very short clip of her baby dancing to a Prince song that was playing in the background. It was a clear case of fair use, and while after the woman filed a counternotice Universal chose not to sue, the EFF filed a lawsuit against Universal Music, saying that the DMCA notice was fraudulent, since it was such an obvious case of fair use. While Universal Music argued that since fair use is just a "defense" and not a "right" it need not consider fair use in sending a takedown, the court disagreed.
The notice claims that the video contains content for which the copyright is held by record label Razor & Tie. The guy who got the takedown seems a bit confused, in that he appears to be blaming McDonald's for the mess, when it appears McDonald's had nothing at all to do with the takedown. In fact, the record label Razor & Tie may not have anything to do with it either... as I'll explain below. The song used in the video was from a CD that came with a McDonald's Happy Meal. Looking around, it appears that in April, McDonald's announced a promotion with record label Kidz Bop to issue music CDs. Razor & Tie is the parent company of Kidz Bop. The problem here is clearly not McDonald's. All it did was include the CD in Happy Meals. It's got nothing to do with the takedown, and the guy's anger at McDonald's is misplaced (though, you could make the argument -- and it's a stretch -- that McDonald's should tell its partners to avoid these sorts of ridiculous copyright claims that scare people away from buying Happy Meals).
The next assumption, then, would be that Razor & Tie is guilty of sending the takedown, but I don't think that's true. If Razor & Tie had sent a DMCA takedown, the video would be down. When Google receives a DMCA takedown, it almost always (or perhaps always) pulls down the content immediately in order to retain its DMCA safe harbors. The user would then need to file a counternotice to start the process of potentially getting the video back up. The fact that the video is up and the notice the guy received simply tells him to review the videos suggests that no DMCA takedown was sent.
Instead, the blame almost certainly lies with Google's content recognition engine/filters that the record labels pushed them to use to try to catch copyright infringement ahead of time. Now, Razor & Tie is somewhat complicit here, in that it appears to have uploaded its catalog to train Google's filters (if I remember correctly -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Google needs the copyright holder to submit copies for its filter to work). So, Google had this particular song on file, and noticed the similarity. Google's filter algorithms don't appear to consider fair use (or, perhaps more likely, they do a bad job of it in many cases) and the guy then is sent the automated notification, even though it makes everyone -- McDonald's, Razor & Tie and Google -- look bad, though the blame from the recipient appears to be in almost reverse order of culpability.
Unfortunately, the guy who received the notice also appears to be confused concerning his own rights. He says he is going to take down the video, though he clearly has a strong fair use case in asking for the video to be left alone. It seems likely that Google would allow the video to stay up, and I highly doubt that Razor & Tie would do anything else (it would be ridiculous to try to claim that this was not fair use).
Either way, this highlights a variety of interesting things. First, despite all the publicity of the Lenz case, these types of "takedowns" (even if it's not a DMCA takedown) still happen. Second, people on the receiving end of these notices assume that there is no recourse that would allow the video to stay up. People get official sounding notices and they assume they need to jump. Third, Google's content match filter isn't particularly good on fair use issues. Fourth, when these sorts of bogus notices are sent, it reflects very poorly on a variety of companies. In this case, McDonald's is getting most of the blame, despite being almost entirely blameless (well, it did decide to put out these silly music CDs, but that's a separate issue). Even Razor & Tie may be getting misplaced blame (though it may depend on the "rules" it set for Google's filter). Amusingly, it may be Google that deserves the most blame, and it appears to be getting the least.
Still, no matter what the situation, it's simply ridiculous that a guy filming 30 seconds of his kid dancing should have to worry about any of this.
Last month, we wrote about McDonald's attempt to get dismissed from a lawsuit involving a McDonald's employee who is accused of uploading naked photos found on a phone that was left at the fast food joint. Apparently, the company hasn't been dismissed from the lawsuit, but Michael Scott points out that the court has said that McDonald's can sue the employee in question over the matter for any damages. The court appears to have said that because a McDonald's employee promised to safeguard the phone, it became the company's responsibility -- but the fact that the employee was then negligent allows McDonald's to separately sue the employee for any damages.
Late last year, we wrote about the odd case where a guy sued McDonald's over the fact that naked photos of his wife appeared online. Apparently, he had left his phone at a local McD's, and now claims that an employee uploaded the photos. As we pointed out in the original post, we had a lot of trouble believing that McDonald's, the company, should in any way be liable. What if the phone had been found by a random other customer? The situation could have been exactly the same, but would the restaurant have been liable? It appears McDonald's is making exactly that argument. Michael Scott points out that the company has made it clear that, if anything was done wrong here, and it was done by the employee, it was done well outside the scope of employment and it makes no sense for the company to be responsible for it.