Breaking news

Holiday Table Costs Remain Steady Amid Digital Promises and Price Cuts

Stable Pricing Despite Seasonal Discounts

The cost of the New Year’s table in Cyprus has remained largely unchanged, even as minor discounts on select items such as tomatoes and cucumbers have surfaced. According to Mario Drousiotis, President of the Cyprus Consumers Association, these minimal price cuts have not significantly altered the overall expenditure for festive meals.

Detailed Cost Analysis for a Range of Tables

A comprehensive study conducted by the Association in Nicosia revealed that a “luxurious table” comprising 34 items cost approximately 160 euros for a family of four and 227 euros for a family of six. In contrast, an “economical table” featuring 19 items was priced at 98 euros and 129 euros, respectively. For lower-income households, a selection of 11 products from the 34 required was estimated to cost only 33 euros for a family of four and 49 euros for a family of six. Notably, these figures reflect a 9% increase compared to the previous year.

Methodology and Regional Considerations

The research was strictly carried out in prominent supermarkets in Nicosia, ensuring price consistency by using the same chains as in previous studies. Drousiotis emphasized that in the provinces there were no voluntary submissions and that the four major chains examined are known to set uniform prices across Cyprus.

e-Kalathi App: Unmet Expectations and Limited Participation

Drousiotis also scrutinized the performance of the e-Kalathi application. He has called on the Consumer Protection Service to release an accountability report on the app’s performance to date. The application, which initially promised coverage of 3,000 products, now displays only 478—a stark discrepancy when supermarket chains offer between 8,000 to 10,000 product codes. Moreover, participation by a major supermarket chain was limited to just 15 out of 60 days during the October–November period, with only 120–125 products available, and a complete absence of involvement from December 17 to 29. A separate chain managed to list 135 products in October.

User Engagement and Future Outlook

The data, according to the President, clearly indicate that consumers are not being adequately served. User adoption also remains abysmal, with nine out of ten users failing to return to the app. Drousiotis publicly urged the relevant authorities to ascertain whether the application succeeded or failed after six months of operation, and to identify how many of the 10,000 initial users continue to utilize it.

In summary, while minor price adjustments offer little reprieve in overall festive costs, a digital solution intended to empower consumers has yet to live up to its promise, raising wider concerns about transparency and efficacy in consumer support tools.

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

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.

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.

Uol
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
Aretilaw firm
eCredo

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter