Entertainment News

Usually, when you play a daily fantasy sports (DFS) through DraftKings and FanDuel, you either win or you don't.

But players from New York stand to recover the money they paid to play -- if New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman gets his way, anyway.

Schneiderman has amended his lawsuits against the two enterprises, which he has accused of violating New York state gambling laws, to include a demand for restitution. The suit now asks that FanDuel and DraftKings be required to produce an accounting of monies collected from consumers in New York playing any of its games in violation of the law.

Not only is Schneiderman asking the court to order the two companies to repay all entry fees to New York players, his suit seeks a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation.

The Wall Street Journal reports the sites took in a combined $200 million from 600,000 New York players last year. A judgment could potentially be staggering.

Investigation began in October

Schneiderman opened an investigation into DFS in October following reports of an employee at one of the companies profiting through the use of insider information. Not long afterward, Scheiderman issued a cease and desist order before going to court to have the two companies declared illegal gambling operations.

“DFS is a new business model for online gambling,” the suits allege. “The DFS sites themselves collect wagers (styled as 'fees'), set jackpot amounts, and directly profit from the betting on their platforms. DFS’ rules enable near-instant gratification to players, require no time commitment, and simplify game play, including by eliminating all long-term strategy."

Schneiderman's suit claims New Yorkers have been harmed by the games, especially those who have a gambling addiction.

Mickey is acting Goofy since he got his raise. Disney theme parks have hit the $100 mark to be able to stay and play with all your Disney friends.

A one-day ticket to the Walt Disney World Resort's flagship theme park, the Magic Kingdom, now costs $105, up from $99. They just had a $4 increase last year. The price of admission applies to anyone 10 years and older entering the Orlando-area theme park. Younger children, aged 3 to 9, pay $99.

Prices also increased for the other Disney World theme parks -- EPCOT, the Animal Kingdom Park and Hollywood Studios -- to $97 for visitors aged 10 and older, compared to $94 last year.

An adult one-day ticket to Disneyland or Disney California Adventure will rise from $96 to $99. A one-day park hopper add-on will increase from $54 to $56.

Tickets for children ages 3 to 9 will climb from $90 to $93. A price for a Premium annual pass with parking and no blackout dates will go up 11 percent, from $699 to $779.

Cutting corners

It's not easy for a family to afford a vacation like this. There are some ways to cut corners though when visiting.

The best route is to avoid single park tickets altogether and buy a "Park Hopper" instead. A "Park Hopper" allows you to hop from one Disney park to another in a single day, and it's only an additional $50 per person

Decide where you are going to stay -- at one of the Disney hotels or off-site.

Disney hotels are crazy expensive and just because you can get a wakeup call from Mickey or Snow White you need to think if that is really worth it. On the other hand having to pay for parking at $15 a shot and lug a stroller around can also be enough to wear you out before you get there.

Food at a theme park is overpriced. Pack a lunch and agree with your kids that they can buy one treat. You can easily save $100 a day by bringing your own food and drinks. You can get lockers if you don’t want to carry around your items -- or swing a backpack over your shoulder and save the extra walking to go back to the locker.

Everyone wants a souvenir but if your kids are young enough that you can get by with it, buy them ahead at Walmart -- they are so much cheaper and what a surprise you can give them when you get back to the room and Donald Duck is in your suitcase.

Buy things on sale at the Disney Store ahead of time and have them sent directly to your hotel. Imagine the surprise when it comes right to your door. Yes this requires planning but you will save money and make your kids happy and what is the goal

There are several free apps that you can download to keep track of the wait times for rides. If you stay at a Disney Hotel you can get into the park an hour early. That hour goes crazy fast (and note there are big lines at the hotel too so don’t leave your room at the last second or you might miss part of your hour.)

Would you like to have this site at your fingertips while you’re at Disneyland? Accessing MouseSavers.com on a smartphone (iPhone, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry, etc.) makes it convenient to look up tips and tricks, check on dining discounts, see what events are happening during your stay, and lots more.

Although this costs nothing remember to have fun.

It's been just about a year since the Federal Communications commission (FCC) took up the issue of set-top boxes, and now it looks like the issue may be settled by the end of the month.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler today began circulating his "Unlock the Box" plan, publishing an abridged version as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times and posting the full version on the FCC's website.

In a nutshell, Wheeler proposes eliminating set-top boxes except for consumers who want to keep them. Everyone else would use a free app to watch pay-TV and streaming video on the device of their choice, such as Roku, Apple TV, Xbox One, PS4, smart TVs, or Windows, iOS, and Android devices. 

Cable companies and the entertainment industry have been lobbying the issue heavily, claiming that eliminating the boxes will open up new avenues for thieves to steal content, depriving content creators of their just desserts.

But Wheeler has held that protecting consumers and encouraging competition take precedence over industry interests. He argues that 99 percent of pay-TV subscribers currently rent set-top boxes because there aren’t meaningful alternatives.

"Few choices and high prices"

"Lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers – $231 in rental fees annually for the average American household. Altogether, U.S. consumers spend $20 billion a year to lease these devices," when they could be using free apps, Wheeler says in his plan.

"Apps will liberate consumers from set-top boxes: The new rules will require pay-TV providers to offer to consumers a free app, controlled by the pay-TV provider, to access all the programming they pay for on a variety of devices, including tablets, smartphones, gaming systems, streaming devices or smart TVs," Wheeler writes.

Consumers will still have to pay for pay-TV programs, but they'll be freed of paying for the set-top box. Wheeler and others argue that the use of free apps will also create a bigger market for content and innovation in device development.

"Pay-TV providers must provide their apps to widely deployed platforms, such as Roku, Apple iOS, Windows and Android. Doing so will spur competition in the marketplace to develop new competitive products like next-generation streaming devices, smart TVs and tablets," Wheeler contends.

"A win for consumers"

The proposed rule is expected to be voted on by the full commission before the end of September, setting the stage for a final few weeks of fervent lobbying by both sides.

Competition advocate Chip Pickering, CEO of the advocacy group INCOMPAS, called Wheeler's plan "a win for competition, consumers and innovators."

"Competition is the law, and we commend Chairman Wheeler and the FCC for standing up for consumers who want lower prices, more choice, and the freedom to discover new and exciting content streaming online, said Pickering. “The FCC has made the critical key choice for an open, not closed future. By presenting a balanced approach, which takes input from all sides of the debate, the FCC has come down on the side of the consumer, and the innovators of the future.

Although Wheeler's plan is seen as firmly pro-consumer, it is still something of a compromise from his initial vision. The cable industry lobbied for the provision that would allow consumers to keep their set-top boxes if they wanted, but otherwise the plan falls pretty squarely on the consumer side of the issue.

Some commissioners wanted to go a bit further. Republican Ajit Pai wanted to eliinate set-top boxes altogether. But Wheeler said in his op-ed that his plan adequately protects the cable and entertainment industries.

"To ensure that all copyright and licensing agreements will remain intact, the delivery of pay-TV programming will continue to be overseen by pay-TV providers from end-to-end. The proposed rules also maintain important protections regarding emergency alerting, accessibility and privacy," he said.

"This is a golden era for watching television and video. By empowering consumers to access their content on their terms, it’s about to get cheaper—and even better," Wheeler concluded.

Maybe you occasionally find yourself wondering how old your favorite actor is. It's pretty easy to find out. A quick visit to IMDb.com will tell you, though maybe not for much longer.

A new California law that takes effect in January will require IMDb and other entertainment industry websites to remove birthdates when a subscriber requests it.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed the measure, AB 1687, Saturday. It was backed by the Screen Actors Guild and SAG-AFTRA as a way to combat age discrimination in Hollywood.

“Gov. Jerry Brown today stood with thousands of film and television professionals and concerned Californians who urged him to sign AB 1687, a California law that will help prevent age discrimination in film and television casting and hiring," said SAG-AFTRA President Gabrielle Carteris in a statement issued after the bill was signed. 

The measure was authored by Majority Leader Ian Calderon (D-Whittier), who said revealing actors' ages online could lock them out of roles before they even had a chance to audition.

“Even though it is against both federal and state law, age discrimination persists in the entertainment industry,” Calderon said. “AB 1687 provides the necessary tools to remove age information from online profiles on employment referral websites to help prevent this type of discrimination.”

Privacy groups unhappy

Privacy groups argued against the measure, saying it was unnecessary and unconstitutional. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which normally takes a pro-privacy stance, said the law infringes on companies' First Amendment right to publish truthful information.  

Among the sites most obviously affected is Amazon's IMDb, a vast database that contains just about everything anyone could want to know about movies, actors, and the producers, directors, and screenwriters who form the core of the entertainment industry.

The measure got its start several years ago when actress Junie Hoang sued Amazon for revealing her true age on IMDb.

Hoang alleged that Amazon violated her privacy by accessing credit card data to learn that she was 40 and then added that information to her professional profile. 

Hoang said she looked younger than 40 but couldn't get as much work after her true age became known.

A jury ruled against Hoang, however, and an appeals court declined to reinstate her suit.

The holiday shopping season officially kicked off this past weekend with Black Friday, and consumers are scrambling to pick up the goods they want. One popular kind of gift this year will be a gift of experience, like tickets to a concert, play, or sporting event.

Unfortunately, demand for tickets far outweighs supply most of the time, so it’s up to consumers to try and grab them as soon as they become available online. However, many buyers often walk away with nothing because the tickets seem to magically disappear within minutes or even seconds.

While slow internet speeds or bad luck can play a factor, one reason for the lack of available tickets has been the existence of ticket bots -- software used by scalpers that manipulates sales systems to buy up as many tickets as possible. Then, after all the available tickets are gone, they sell them at ridiculously inflated prices to desperate consumers.

However, the practice may become less common thanks to a new law signed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Previously, state laws had banned the use of ticket bots and imposed civil penalties on violators, but now the use or control of ticket bots, or reselling tickets knowingly obtained by ticket bots, is a class A misdemeanor.

The classification change means harsher penalties for those who break the law. Violators can now expect exorbitant fines or even jail time if they’re caught using or knowingly benefitting from the software. The definition of a “ticket bot” has also been expanded under the new law to mean any system, whether autonomous or human-controlled, used to quickly buy up tickets before the general public has access to them.

Predatory and wrong

Ticket bots have long-been abhorred by performers in New York. Back in June, Lin-Manuel Miranda – creator and original lead of the Broadway hit Hamilton – railed against users of ticket bots and how the profited from his show; The New York Times reported that scalpers made around $15.5 million from reselling tickets to Miranda’s last 100 shows before stepping down from his role as the titular character.

“My concern is that our show is about the founding of our country and if bots are buying up all the tickets and charging this insane secondary market price, most of the country can’t see it,” he said.

Gov. Cuomo agreed with the sentiment in a recent statement, saying that “these unscrupulous speculators and their underhanded tactics have manipulated the marketplace and often leave New Yorkers and visitors alike with little choice but to buy tickets on the secondary market at an exorbitant mark-up.”

“It’s predatory, it’s wrong and, with this legislation, we are taking an important step towards restoring fairness and equity back to this multi-billion dollar industry.”

When the movie "Jurassic Park" premiered 22 years ago, it was a wild fantastical tale that packed theaters. If you'll recall it was the story of a rich philanthropist who hired a team of scientists to clone dinosaurs for his private Central American amusement park.

It predictably led to disaster when the beasts turned on the humans but made for great science fiction entertainment. The film grossed over $900 million worldwide.

Even though the premise of bringing back long-extinct man-eating beasts was proven to be a horrible idea in "Jurassic Park," the scientists didn't learn their lesson because they were at it again in "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" in 1997 and then again in "Jurassic Park III" in 2001, both with similar results.

Third sequel

Surely by now every geneticist on the planet knows not to go playing around with dinosaur DNA, but apparently not since next week Hollywood releases "Jurassic World," the third sequel, and the mayhem starts all over again.

Insanity is said to be doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. Maybe the movie's scientists are insane, but what about the people filling the seats? They kinda have to know how all of this is going to turn out.

Chris Hansen, independent filmmaker and chair of the film and digital media department in Baylor University’s College of Arts & Sciences, says decisions about which films to make come down to marketing. 

Recycling is profitable

“One of the biggest considerations in determining which movies get made, from the studio’s perspective, is marketing,” Hansen said. “That process is made much easier if the intellectual property already exists in the minds of the general public. People know who Batman is. People know who The Avengers are. Half or more of the marketing work is done. When the intellectual property is original, the studio’s marketing arm has to spend a lot more time and money acquainting viewers with the concept and generating interest.”

And that's why you're going to see even more cinematic retreads in the future. Reboots and sequels to "Ghostbusters," "Point Break" and "Independence Day" are in the works.

Disney is even bringing back Harrison Ford as a 70-year old Hans Solo to do yet another sequel to the original "Star Wars," in time for a Christmastime release.

Blaming the marketing

When an original movie doesn't do as well as expected at the box office, Hansen says the studios don't blame a bad script or clumsy directing. Rather, they see it as another example of how hard it is to pack theaters when the public is unfamiliar with the story.

In that world 1962's "To Kill A Mockingbird" and 1967's "The Graduate" might never have been made. But if they were made today, it's not entirely certain moviegoers would be all that interested in original material.

Economic decision

“They say one thing, but they often vote differently with their box office dollars,” Hansen said. “This sometimes comes down to an economic decision for audience members. They have less disposable income than they used to, so they see fewer movies in the theater. And if they’re going to have to choose between several movies to see in an actual theater, they’ll often choose the one that has more spectacle.”

Of course, the entertainment world is a very different place than it was in the 1960s. Today, movie theaters have huge competition from cable TV and on-demand streaming, where plenty of quality, original programming is available. Hansen says movie theaters have to play to their strengths and that means showing movies that are long on special effects, even if they're short on story.

“There’s a feeling that it’s more ‘worth it’ to see something like that on the big screen, and that smaller movies won’t suffer from being seen on the TV in your living room,” Hansen said.

Meanwhile, studio execs are far from insane. They know producing the same thing over and over again usually provides the same result. At least they hope it does.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has launched an investigation of the two major one-week fantasy sports enterprises amid charges that employees of the companies are benefiting from inside information.

It was disclosed this week that an employee at DraftKings had access to information about other participants' player selections when he fielded a team at rival FanDuel and won $350,000. That produced an outcry from other participants and critics of the new billion dollar industry.

“It’s something we’re taking a look at,” Schneiderman said.” Fraud is fraud. And, consumers of any product – whether you want to buy a car, participate in fantasy football – our laws are very strong in New York and other states that you can’t commit fraud.”

Fired off letters

Schneiderman said he can't comment on the specifics of the investigation, which presumably has just gotten underway. In a letter to DraftKings CEO Jason Robbins, Schneiderman expressed concern over reports that company employees or agents may have gained an unfair financial advantage in the contests by accessing non-public data.

“These allegations, and your company’s subsequent statement, raise legal questions relating to the fairness, transparency, and security of DraftKings and the reliability of representations your company has made to customers,” Schneiderman wrote.

Schneiderman asked DraftKings to provide the names and titles of employees who:

• Compile and aggregate athletes’ statistical data;
• Determine inputs used to set athletes’ prices for daily fantasy contests;
• Code athlete pricing algorithms (note if and where different from 1b.);
• Compile and aggregate athletes’ ownership percentages for pending contests;
• Compile and aggregate historical ownership percentages for past contests; and
• Compile and aggregate daily fantasy players’ data, including but not limited to win/loss records, types of contests entered, number of entries per contest, and money spent and earned

Schneiderman sent a similar letter to FanDuel CEO Nigel Eccles, requesting a reply by October 15.

Integrity and trust

Both FanDuel and DraftKings have denied any of their employees benefited from inside information. CNBC quotes a FanDuel spokesman as saying the company “has always operated on the basis of integrity and trust.”

But ESPN appears to be pulling back from some of its one-week fantasy sports associations. “Outside The Lines” host Bob Key said the sports network will still air commercials for the daily fantasy sports sites but won't run individual shows sponsored by the companies.

Meanwhile, USA Today columnist Nate Scott opines that the scandal is “the beginning of the end” for one-week fantasy sports enterprises. He calls one-week fantasy sports gambling that is legal only because of a loophole in the law. That loophole, he predicts, is about to be closed.

A day after a New York judge refused a bid by Fanduel and DraftKings to slap a temporary restraining order on New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Schneiderman has gone to court against the two daily fantasy sports (DFS) enterprises.

Schneiderman is seeking a preliminary injunction against the two companies, which already face a cease and desist order the attorney general issued last week.

In the court filing, Schneiderman lays out his case that the two companies constitute illegal gambling under state law.

“Under New York law, a wager constitutes gambling when it depends on either a (1) 'future contingent event not under [the bettor’s] control or influence' or (2) 'contest of chance.' So-called Daily Fantasy Sports (“DFS”) wagers fit squarely in both these definitions,” Schneiderman wrote. “DFS is nothing more than a rebranding of sports betting. It is plainly illegal.”

Disputing the game of skill argument

Schneiderman went on to reject the two companies' argument that their games involve skill, not chance. He says chance plays just as much of a role, if not more, than it does in games like poker and blackjack.

“A few good players in a poker tournament may rise to the top based on their skill; but the game is still gambling,” Schneiderman declared. “So is DFS.”

Schneiderman goes on to charge both FanDuel and DraftKings are winking at the law, maintaining in public that they run games of skill, but privately evoking the profits of gambling to investors.

He says DraftKings has also embedded gambling keywords into the programming code for its website. Some of these keywords include “‘fantasy golf betting,’’ “weekly fantasy basketball betting,” ‘‘weekly fantasy hockey betting,” “weekly fantasy football betting,” “weekly fantasy college football betting,” “weekly fantasy college basketball betting,” “Fantasy College Football Betting,” “daily fantasy basketball betting,” and “Fantasy College Basketball Betting.” This increases the likelihood that search engines, like Google, will send users looking for gambling straight to the DraftKings site.

Nevada was first

New York is the second state to find that DFS amounts to gambling. In October, Nevada gaming officials reached the same conclusion.

In a memorandum, Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman A.G. Burnett said he asked the state attorney general's office and others to examine enterprises like DraftKings and FanDuel to determine if they were gambling operations.

“Based on these analyses, I, along with staff, have concluded that DFS constitutes gambling under Nevada law,” Burnett wrote. “More specifically, DFS meets the definition of a game, or gambling game pursuant to Chapter 463 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.”

Under current law, Burnett says, if you are going to operate such games – as DraftKings and FanDuel do – then you must be licensed.

The Nevada decision isn't nearly the problem for the two companies, however, that New York's action is. That's because a large percentage of players in both companies' games live in New York.

In light of the state attorney general's action, both companies have barred New Yorkers from playing until the matter runs its course in court, resulting in a significant drop in revenue.

It started when Comcast bought NBCUniversal for $30 billion. Then Verizon snapped up AOL and Yahoo. Now the consolidation of media content and distribution has perhaps climaxed with AT&T's $85.4 billion deal to buy Time Warner, the corporate parent of HBO, CNN, and other media treasures.

The sweeping roll-ups are basically a hedge against a future in which fast-growing rogue players like Netflex, Amazon, or Facebook might be a consumer's first choice for information and entertainment.  

The immediate effect on consumers isn't likely to be noticeable, but, assuming the deal is approved by antitrust regulators, it should make it easier for consumers to get access to the content they want without having to pay hefty cable television fees.

Of course, the downside of consolidation is that it puts more power in fewer hands, often stifling innovation and raising prices over the long term. Those concerns are certain to be studied by the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Justice Department as they review the anti-trust aspects of the transaction.

Trump says no

Among the announced opponents of the deal is none other than GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who told a crowd in Gettysburg, Pa., that if he wins the election, his administration will block it, CNBC reported.

While Verizon's purchase of AOL and its still-pending takeover of Yahoo got lukewarm receptions, the Time Warner acquisition is generally seen as a winner for AT&T. The boards of both companies unanimously approved the deal over the weekend and executives at both firms say it is a natural fit. 

"It's the revolution of both of our businesses," Time Warner chief executive Jeff Bewkes told reporters after the deal was announced. "Whether its the movies, television series, or an original show, we want our audiences to access them whereever they are, whenever they want to. We think AT&T gives us tremendous access to do that."

"Time Warner, we believe, is the clear leader in premium content," said Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T's CEO. Besides HBO and CNN, Time Warner's table includes Warner Bros., TNT, TBS, and Turner Sports. It earlier spun off many of the older Time Inc. print titles as well as AOL.

Besides its vast cellular network, AT&T provides cable service and also operates satellite provider DirecTV. It has announced plans for a streaming version of DirecTV. Time Warner's cable operations were recently taken over by Charter Communications. 

Consolidation continues in the media and communications industries, but the latest proposed deal is getting some strong push-back.

Over the weekend, AT&T confirmed that it wants to buy Time Warner for more than $85 billion. It comes on the heels of Verizon's deal to buy Yahoo and AT&T's own purchase of DirecTV in 2015.

But Yahoo Finance reports the deal may have a tough time getting a green light from government regulators. It quotes analysts as saying both the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice are likely to put the deal under a microscope to determine how it will affect consumers.

Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, says these kinds of deals are almost always better for the combined businesses than for their customers.

Time to grab your wallet

"Any time you hear media executives talking about synergies, throwing around the business-babble that always accompanies these rumors, you know it’s time to grab your wallet and hang on tight,” Wood said in an email to ConsumerAffairs. “Big mergers like this inevitably mean higher prices for real people, to pay down the money borrowed to finance these deals and compensate top executives.”

Wall Street, of course, was quick to celebrate the proposed deal, because reducing competition and combining resources is usually good for the bottom line. But Wood says the evidence is clear that it doesn't help consumers. He says AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV was followed by price hikes.

"It’s a good thing there’s a renewed interest among lawmakers and antitrust enforcers in addressing this merger-mania,” Wood said. “It’s also a good thing we have solid Net Neutrality rules on the books — even though companies like AT&T continue to test those rules in the market, threaten them in Congress, and challenge them in the courts.”

Bipartisan opposition

Opposition to the proposed deal also surfaced on the presidential campaign trail. Speaking in Pennsylvania, GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump denounced the deal in unusually harsh terms, saying “deals like this destroy democracy.” If elected, Trump said his Justice Department would move to quash the merger.

On the other side of the aisle, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) took to Facebook over the weekend to express his reservations.

“I'm skeptical of huge media mergers because they can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers,” Franken wrote in a post. “And regulators often agree, like when Comcast unsuccessfully tried to buy Time Warner Cable, a deal that I fiercely opposed.”

In the coming days, Franken said he will press for further details about the proposed deal and how consumers would be affected.