USA news on Youtube Aug 2 2018

There's no denying that Hooters with its scantily-clad waitresses and looks-based hiring practices

has always targeted a certain client base.

It's hard to believe the chain's been doing it for more than 30 years, but according to

USA Today, Hooters is in a slump.

There's only one year in recent memory that the chicken wing slinger saw a sales increase,

and even then it was just one percent.

In 2008, there were 400 Hooters restaurants.

By 2011, 35 locations had closed and the company lost an annual revenue of more than $100 million.

According to Business Insider, between 2012 and 2016 they closed a further seven percent

of their locations.

So what's going on with this bro-centric chain?

Boycotts and protests

You know what's not good for any company's image?

People staging protests and picketing your plans to open new locations.

That's exactly what happened when Hooters announced it was expanding in the UK.

In 2010, protesters started campaigning against the imminent opening of a Hooters in Cardiff,

with one spokesperson saying,

"Everyone should have a job but they should be good jobs with dignity.

Not only is it a sexist institution, but it encourages a sexist culture."

According to The Telegraph, in 2010 British retailer Marks & Spencer was threatened with

boycott when a Bristol location announced they would sublet space to Hooters.

A Birmingham location was only open for a year before closing, and Sheffield's Hooters

got such strong opposition that it never even opened.

I just came to eat some wings.

And these people are out here telling me I'm a w--- and going to hell and stuff."

Times have changed

Hooters' message of objectifying women has never looked more dated than it does post-2017.

Thanks to movements like Me Too and Time's Up, the world is listening to women who are

sick and tired of suffering sexual assault and harassment in silence.

And that makes the hot pants and low-cut tops of Hooters' waitresses even more uncomfortable.

The presence of a Hooters restaurant and an increase in the potential for sexual assault

was connected by Cathy Jamieson, deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party, who told The

Independent,

"Violence against women is a big problem, and these types of establishments do nothing

to promote equality of women in the workplace."

Psychological toll

Not only are we more aware of sexual harassment these days, we're also more aware of the damage

that can be done by objectifying women.

In 2015, faculty from the University of Tennessee's psychology department set out to discover

what impact working in a Hooters environment had on waitress's mental health, and the findings

were pretty disturbing.

According to The Conversation, all the waitresses they interviewed suffered from some degree

of depression, anxiety, anger, confusion, and feelings of degradation.

They also reported feeling demeaned on a regular basis, suffering from poor work relationships,

and becoming more susceptible to eating disorders.

Legal discrimination

Today, headlines are dominated with movements to give women equal rights, equal pay, and

equal opportunities… and that makes it pretty weird that Hooters is legally allowed to discriminate

during the hiring process.

Business Insider looked at why Hooters can get away with only hiring young, well-endowed

women as servers.

In 1997, two men sued the company after being turned away on the basis of their gender.

Hooters settled, but was not forced to employ men as servers.

The chain claimed it wasn't hiring waitresses, it was hiring "entertainers" who didn't interview

as much as "audition."

Hooters did agree, however, to offer some gender-neutral positions.

Casual dining

Part of Hooters' struggles is a decline in the industry that's also affecting its competitors.

Chains like Applebee's and Outback Steakhouse are closing, too, and these places all have

something in common: millennials just don't like their style.

According to Business Insider, millennials in particular are abandoning casual dining

restaurants in favor of fast-casual chains like Chipotle, meal delivery services, and

trendier new chains like wine bars.

In 2013, USA Today looked at how Hooters was trying to get more millennials in the door,

and the chain started by overhauling locations with new technology, outdoor seating areas,

and better AV systems for more sports.

Hoots

Another reason Hooters restaurants may keep disappearing is because in their place, their

parent company is trying out a fast-casual version of the chain called Hoots.

Hoots has a smaller menu and counter service for take-out and dine-in customers and Hooters

higher-ups are hoping that will get millennials in the door.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, they're also hoping that switching to employing both

men and women and dressing them a little more modestly will help shift their image to something

a bit more wholesome.

Depending on how well Hoots does, it could mean a few different things.

The two versions of the chain may coexist, or the entire chain might be rebranded into

Hoots.

Only time will tell if this fast-casual, more conservatively-dressed restaurant can save

the brand.

For more infomation >> The Real Reason Hooters Is Disappearing Across The Country - Duration: 5:07.

-------------------------------------------

Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:48:38 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 3:51.

For more infomation >> Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:48:38 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 3:51.

-------------------------------------------

Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:26:27 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:01.

For more infomation >> Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:26:27 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:01.

-------------------------------------------

Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:36:31 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:00.

For more infomation >> Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:36:31 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:00.

-------------------------------------------

Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:57:32 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 2:17.

For more infomation >> Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:57:32 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 2:17.

-------------------------------------------

Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:31:29 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:01.

For more infomation >> Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:31:29 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:01.

-------------------------------------------

Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:21:01 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:01.

For more infomation >> Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:21:01 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 5:01.

-------------------------------------------

Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:41:34 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 2:01.

For more infomation >> Autoboy Blackbox : Dashcam App - 2018-08-02 14:41:34 1271 E Ogden Ave, Naperville, IL 60563, USA - Duration: 2:01.

-------------------------------------------

How Copyright Works: Fair Use Copyright Law | Berklee Online - Duration: 6:59.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

In this video, we will discuss fair use.

Fair use is something all of us have done and will continue to do.

Fair use is the use of copyrighted material that you did not create.

You use that-- someone else's material and you do not ask for permission.

If you just hear it stated that way, it sounds like you infringe copyright.

You're taking something you didn't create,

and you're not asking permission, you're not paying for it,

you're just using it.

How can that ever be right?

Well, it's how education is for example.

If you're in high school and college and you

have to write a term paper or some kind of paper,

the teacher or professor doesn't want this to be 100% your thoughts.

You don't have to look up any facts.

You don't have to look at how other people have treated the subject.

You're just going to spew stuff and that's that.

Well, of course not.

There are supposed to be some standards, here.

You're supposed to know the field.

And you have to look at other sources.

You have to quote from newspapers, magazines, books, television shows.

So the way it's always done is that you take an excerpt, you copy it,

copy paste, film, however-- you take this work

and you insert that into yours.

What you do is you give attribution.

You say, OK, it's from this writer at the Washington Post.

It was published on this day, this page, and so forth.

You do things like that.

Another example where you see this is in professional sports.

In a Major League Baseball game, that's considered a copyrighted event.

They'll say near the end of the game-- they'll

say any account of the events of this game,

without the strict, express, written, permission of Major League Baseball

is strictly prohibited.

Now, that's something you've heard, and you've not paid attention to.

We shouldn't pay attention to it.

Because that's a copyright claim, but what that literally means is you cannot

talk about the game.

If Major League Baseball were to be that strict and authoritarian about,

you can't talk about the game without permission--

society says otherwise.

So that's a reason you'd break a copyright law, too,

to talk about a Red Sox loss, a Red Sox win.

That's another example of fair use.

If you talk about a film with someone, then your work

is derived from the film.

If you speak about it in public, you are--

you probably would want to think that's fair use.

To consider something a fair use, you need to consider at least four factors.

In other words, how do you take someone else's work?

And they give you, kind of, a guideline.

First factor is, what is the point of your use?

Are you copying material to use in a nonprofit situation or educationally?

You have a paper to submit to the professor?

That would be educational.

Or are you copying to then insert it in your song that you're going to sell?

That would be for profit.

And the law would tend to say nonprofit is more fair of a use than for profit.

And that seems sensible.

The second thing to consider is, what is the material you're copying from?

Is it factual?

Or is it fictional?

Facts and news sources and news events are not creative.

Remember, copyright is to protect creators.

And creators aren't necessarily going to just try

to be strict and just do the news.

It's stories-- it's stories they make up.

It's talking about feelings, it's not talking about facts.

So the second factor is, is it fact or fiction?

And the law protects creative and fiction much more

than it protects factual works.

The third is an important factor.

It's kind of in two parts.

It's what's the amount you're taking from that other work?

And what's the substantiality of it?

By that, they're meaning, is it the most important part?

Is it the most original, creative part?

That gets to be very important.

I call it the quantity and the quality of it-- the amount and substantiality.

So you could take a small work, a small amount,

but it could be the most important part of a song, for example.

OK, well, I only took the chorus, and the chorus is short.

Yeah, but it's the chorus.

Where if you took a long chunk of a bridge or something

else that wasn't as important, it'd be a different argument for fair use.

The fourth factor is, what is the effect on the market of your copying?

Like you're copying and you're creating a new work

and you release your new work.

Would your new release hurt the market for the original?

And that's an important consideration.

If it did hurt, then that would tend to say, well,

that's not a fair use because look what it's doing to what you copied from.

So those four factors are spelled out.

There's one more that always is a part of it,

but is never really enunciated clearly.

And that is, when you copied something, did you give it transformative use?

Did you add value to it?

Did you do more than just copy?

You copied and added new words.

You changed something.

You did something other than just copying.

So that's the transformative factor.

Did you add transformative value?

And transformative value, that phrase, is in a lot of copyright cases.

So to repeat, there are those four factors--

four and the other one I just said--

to determine whether the use is fair or not.

And you kind of go through them in a checklist kind of way,

but you can't be assured your copying is going to be

OK with the person you copied from.

To repeat, is your use for educational, nonprofit purposes?

Or for for profit uses?

Are you copying creative material, the fictional poems

and creative expression?

Or are you copying factual material?

It's better to copy facts than it is to copy creative expression.

The third is the amount and substantiality.

How much did you take?

If you copied from a book and you took 30 pages out of a 70 page book,

obviously, that's a gigantic chunk of a book to copy.

That wouldn't be good.

But what's the originality and the quality of that material?

So the amount and substantiality.

The fourth is, what's the effect on the market?

Does your new song now hurt the other song?

Doesn't happen too often, but it can.

And the fifth factor really is, have you given this transformative value?

Or did you simply just copy?