News and notes from around the interweb:
- Hacker posts data of 10,000 American Express accounts for free
- Woman found hiding in the ceiling of a hotel while more than a third of a pound of methamphetamines were sitting in her car.
Fresh tracks in the snow led them to a hotel room. When they searched, they found an 18-inch hole in a bathroom wall that led to another room. They say they found Edie hiding in the ceiling.
- Marriott Kauai will become a Sonesta hotels property
- California law won’t let food delivery services offer takeout from restaurants that haven’t agreed to be on the platform.
I certainly am sympathetic to caring what happens to one’s work, but if a restaurant offers takeout shouldn’t a customer be able to send someone to pick it up for them? Perhaps a restaurant should be able to create its own rules, publishing them clearly, and refuse to hand over a package to someone clearly picking up food for someone else – but should this be enforced by the State of California?
- Etihad will ‘work closely’ with Air Serbia after the Serbian government recapitalized the airline and diluted Etihad’s ownership stake from 48% to 18%. It could be worse for the Abu Dhabi-based carrier, they once almost bought Pakistan International Airlines.
- What this Turkish Airlines plane looked like after colliding with a flock of birds
You confuse California with a place where personal rights are still available. Preview of America that is coming. #electionshaveconsequences
For the California restaurants, the article hints at why. Outdated menus are a big issue, but a restaurant near me was dealing with this as well and the main problem was a delivery service (I think GH, but may be wrong) bought a domain similar to the restaurant and had an order link with prices that were way higher than the restaurant’s own (to build in their “commission”). If someone searched for the restaurant and clicked on the delivery service link, they’d see prices way higher and may click away, thinking the restaurant is insanely overpriced (e.g. tacos for $14 instead of $10).
California = Commiefornia
Having said that, restaurants who offer takeout but are not voluntarily on doordash etc. are very dumb cock suckers.
I agree with California. Where you sell is part of your brand. Companies have often chosen not to sell via certain companies or channels. High end clothing companies have restricted companies like Costco from selling their product because they don’t want to be seen as a discount product.
Local restaurants shouldn’t be forced on a sometimes poor customer experience that’s not something they agreed to be part of.
So Gary, you don’t think that your work should be protected by copyright or intellectual property laws. That other people should be able to take all of your content and put it on their viewfromthewings blog and profit from it? Am I missing something or is that pretty much exactly what was happening to those California restaurants?
@farnorthtrader –
1. if the issue is copyright then California wouldn’t need a new law specific to restaurants
2. more broadly on intellectual property I am generally sympathetic to the positioned laid out by the incredible John Perry Barlow in his still-excellent 25 year old piece “Selling Wine Without Bottles” https://www.eff.org/pages/selling-wine-without-bottles-economy-mind-global-net
I had the privilege to correspond with Barlow about, of all things, an Avis customer service issue a couple of years before his death.
On the restaurant issue you completely misunderstand the situation.
Restaurants should have the choice which delivery partner to tie up with. By selling for the restaurant without a formal tie up, all complaints and problems become the restaurants even when the delivery provider is at fault. Grub hub amongst others has also used some unethical practices like buying similar domain names and overcharging there, thus making the restaurant seem like less of a value for money proposition for you guessed it, the consumer.
@jason again transposes his own issues onto another. In this case, restaurants. No need to prove you’re a very dumb c*^k sucker, Jason. You’ve proved it many times already
I agree completely with the California law. All the law requires is consent. If that’s not forthcoming, presumably there’s a reason. @Gary I’m surprised that someone like you who espouses Libertarian perspectives takes issue here.
@747always Take a course in epistemology, you got no clue what proof means.
To be fair to the CA restaurants, the delivery services have been very abusive in their practices — putting up popular restaurants on their platforms, even when the restaurants do not even do take-out! They pretend to fulfill the orders from “cloud kitchens” who make food only for deliveries, and when quality or price do not match what customers expect, then the restaurants get the complaints — but never fulfilled the order or gotten payment. Lots of lawsuits in CA right now over this practice.
https://www.eater.com/2020/1/29/21113416/grubhub-seamless-kin-khao-online-delivery-mistake-doordash
https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Restaurants-refuse-delivery-apps-Grubhub-Doordash-15689418.php