Breaking news

Parliament Prepares Vote on Revised Operating Hours for Recreational Venues Amid Industry Divide

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

November 13, 2025

The final draft for the legislation governing recreational centers now rests with Parliament. Lawmakers are set to present the proposal for approval at an extraordinary session. Despite a two‐week consultation period granted by the Parliamentary Commerce Committee to the government and affected agencies, the discussions have so far failed to yield a unified stance.

Proposed Regulatory Changes

The reintroduced bill, which is once again slated for debate before the Commerce Committee, outlines specific operating hours for various categories of establishments. Among the key provisions are:

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Restaurants, Taverns, Pizzerias, Cafes, and Snack Bars: Permitted to operate daily from 6:00 a.m. until 1:30 a.m.
Pubs and Bars: Authorized to operate from 8:00 a.m. until 2:30 a.m.
Indoor Banquet Halls and Reception Venues: Allowed to function every day from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. the next day.
Outdoor Reception Areas: Authorized operating hours from 8:00 a.m. until 1:30 a.m.
Nightclubs: Indoor venues can function daily from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., while outdoor venues must close by 1:30 a.m.
Discos and Cabarets: Permitted to operate from 8:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. the following day.

Industry Reactions and Concerns

Preliminary submissions to Parliament reveal significant industry dissent. The Pan-Cypriot Association of Recreation Center Owners (ΠΑΣΙΚΑ) rejects the differentiation in operating hours, especially the inclusion of banquet halls under extended operational status. They warn that the bill could trigger cascading effects by reducing revenues for taverns, restaurants, bars, and breweries, thereby jeopardizing small businesses and endangering local employment.

Similarly, the Paphos Recreation Center Owners Association (ΣΙΚΑΠ) has voiced its opposition. According to the group, the proposed legislation favors a narrow segment of large enterprises while threatening the survival of hundreds of neighborhood venues, particularly in non-touristic locales and areas with traditionally modest business scales. The association is urging lawmakers to consider amendments that reduce both the extended hours and associated penalties, calling for a limitation of powers granted to the Deputy Ministry of Tourism and the exclusion of less frequented regions.

Divergent Views Within the Sector

In contrast, the Ammochostos Recreation Center Owners Association (ΣΙΚΑΑ) supports the general direction of the bill, even as it calls for further revisions. The association distances itself from what it describes as sweeping and alarmist criticism. According to ΣΙΚΑΑ, many industry representatives see the bill’s core provisions as beneficial for modernizing and streamlining sector operations, while still acknowledging that certain details, such as the designated operating hours for dining venues, warrant further refinement.

Closing Remarks

During previous debates, the General Director of the Deputy Ministry of Tourism, Kostas Konstantinou, indicated that all avenues for consultation have been exhausted, noting that discussions on the draft have persisted since 2018. With mounting pressure from industry stakeholders, members of the Commerce Committee have already signaled that the forthcoming debate may be held in a closed session, underscoring the high stakes inherent in these proposed changes.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.