Have you ever cut loose and kicked off your Sunday shoes at a club in New York City? Unless that establishment had a Cabaret License (only 118 out of more than 25,000 do), you were breaking the law. That’s right. According to New York City law:

The City licenses bars, clubs, taverns, and discos that allow dancing. A place that is open to the public and sells food or drinks must have a Cabaret License to allow customers to dance.

This law started in 1926 during Prohibition when city officials targeted African American jazz establishments. When it was first introduced, there were several other regulations that targeted other bastions of African American culture at the time, including banning saxophones and bands with more than three members. While these other parts of the law have been repealed or found to be unconstitutional, the ban on dancing still remains. With clubs already subjected to safety regulations like fire hazards and noise violations, the Cabaret License requirement seems to serve no purpose.

.@FrankieFatGold explains NYC’s Cabaret Law & why it needs to be repealed! Let’s dance in protest tomorrow → https://t.co/rt7zEh2Acz pic.twitter.com/1lnDQJTOiZ

— BOILER ROOM (@boilerroomtv) May 10, 2017

A petition on change.org has recently been gaining traction. The petitioners, the Dance Liberation Network, are aiming to get 5,000 signatures to present to the New York City Council, with the goal of getting the law repealed once and for all.

The Cabaret License requires proprietors to install security cameras, appear before the community board, and pay anywhere from $270 to $535. Once the license is acquired, club owners must follow the law or risk paying $1,000 per violation. Its intent is to keep patrons safe, but with other existing laws in place, this “no dancing” ban seems superfluous. Coupled with its inherently racist roots, the law is likely on its way out.

Or is it?

The law had a revival during Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s tenure, and was used to crack down on different bars and night clubs. But not without protests. In 2000, protesters participated in the “Million Mambo March” where they danced all the way from Tompkins Square Park to Washington Square Park in an effort to bring awareness to the law.

via GIPHY

In 2003 Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to change the Cabaret Laws to Nightlife Licences that had more logical applications. Rather than curbing dancing and saxophones (truly the Devil’s pastimes, let’s be real), the Nightlife Licences would aim to regulate noise and unruly crowds. Unfortunately, this measure was struck down.

In 2014 Brooklyn bar owner Andrew Muchmore filed a lawsuit after he was fined for having people dancing in his bar. Muchmore contends that these laws go against the First Amendment and the Fourteenth’s promise that no state shall, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  

Muchmore also felt that the ambiguity of what dancing really is can be confusing. Could he be fined if his patrons accidentally started tapping their toes to the jukebox? What about an accidental shake of the hips as you wait at the bar? Standing on a table proclaiming loyalty to La Vie Boheme? The legal definition of dancing is vague, and it is unfair for bar owners.

via GIPHY

Now the law is once again being challenged. By getting enough signatures, the Dance Liberation Network hopes that the New York City Council will once and for all overturn this law and let the people of New York City dance.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hold Back Before You Cut Loose: A Look at NYC’s No Dancing Law appeared first on Law Street.

The New York State legislature passed a bill last week that would make advertising entire-home rentals for fewer than 30 days illegal. The bill would affect many of the city’s residents who rent out their apartments on Airbnb while they are away. Now it is up to Governor Andrew Cuomo to sign or veto the bill.

The new bill would mean that anyone who attempts to rent out their entire home would be subject to a fine of $1,000 for a first offense and up to $7,500 for a third violation. The law would not apply to people who only rent out a room, while also staying in the apartment themselves.

The bill has been criticized by many of Airbnb’s high-profile investors such as actor Ashton Kutcher and venture capitalist Paul Graham:

Tech is the future of the NY economy, but @NYSA_Majority & @NYSenate might throw it all away with terrible anti-tech bill A8704C/S6340A

— ashton kutcher (@aplusk) June 17, 2016

The @NYSenate is trying to quietly rush through a bill banning Airbnb. If you'd like the decision to be more democratic, tell them.

— Paul Graham (@paulg) June 17, 2016

Renting out an entire apartment for less than a month has already been against the law in New York City since 2011, but this new bill would make advertising for such rentals illegal as well. While the multiple dwelling law that took effect in 2011 was meant to target illegal hotel businesses and landlords who own multiple units, it also made the actions of ordinary people in need of some extra income illegal.

If the new bill is signed into the law, it will not only be bad for the company but would also put 30,000 people in New York City at risk of being evicted, according to a survey conducted by Airbnb. After the bill made its way through the state legislature, company spokesperson Josh Meltzer said in a statement:

It’s disappointing—but not surprising—to see politicians in Albany cut a last-minute deal with the hotel industry that will put 30,000 New Yorkers at greater risk of bankruptcy, eviction or foreclosure.

Airbnb has previously been under fire for its unclear responsibility in cases of guests hosting extreme parties, wrecking people’s homes, sexual assault, prostitution, and even death.

Learn More: Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous?

Linda Rosenthal, a member of the State Assembly the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement:

This bill, once it’s signed into law, will send a strong message that we prioritize hardworking New York families and affordable housing, and will give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on illegal hotels that destabilize communities and deprive us of precious units of affordable housing.

The next step is to wait for the Governor to either approve or reject the bill, making Airbnb partly illegal or not. If you live in New York you can weigh in on the bill here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A New York Bill Could Make Listing Your Home on Airbnb Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

Energy drink company Vemma is in a lot of trouble after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced that it was temporarily shutting down the company. The FTC has stated that Vemma was running an illegal pyramid scheme that targeted young adults and students.

#FTC shuts down #vemma nutritional drink’s alleged pyramid scheme http://t.co/iPrGiIbVtP pic.twitter.com/7qhrUpCwAg

— UPI.com (@UPI) August 28, 2015

Vemma recruited “affiliates,” most of them impressionable college students, who then were required to purchase starter kits to sell the nutrition drinks to others. Products that Vemma produced included Verve, and Bod-e. The starter kits were $500 each, and then Vemma affiliates had to purchase an additional $150 in products and marketing tools each month. Vemma told the affiliates that they could make up to $50,000 a week working for the company. Despite those claims, the vast majority of participants ended up losing money, or earning very little.

But most importantly, the affiliates also helped to recruit more affiliates who were then subject to the same outrageous fees. According to the FTC, Vemma made its money by bringing on affiliates–hence the pyramid scheme accusations. Vemma made over $200 million in revenue in 2014 through these methods. Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection stated:

Rather than focusing on selling products, Vemma uses false promises of high income potential to convince consumers to pay money to join their organization. We are also alleging that Vemma is an illegal pyramid scheme.

Vemma is also being accused of misleading marketing–the promotional materials it used to try to attract the affiliates promised that if you worked for the company you’d be “driving a BMW within 90 days” and featured pictures of young people in luxury vehicles, yachts, and jets.

Vemma isn’t the first nutrition drink company to come under a watchful eye. Herbalife was also accused of running a pyramid scheme in 2013, by a hedge fund called Pershing Square. Ironically, there’s a connecting between Herbalife and Vemma as Anthony Powell jumped ship from the former to the latter that same year. The FTC is now investigating Herbalife as well.

Vemma shows the mighty fall far, as it was once heralded as a company on the rise. The Phoenix Business Journal–Vemma is based out of Arizona–named it the Number one fastest growing private company on the Arizona Corporate Excellence. However, at this point it seems like that growth was begotten through illegal means.

For now, the FTC suit is still ongoing, but it doesn’t look like Vemma will be springing back anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FTC Accuses Vemma of Running a Pyramid Scheme appeared first on Law Street.

Internet legalities, security, and commerce are confusing. There a lot of gray areas when it comes to what is legal but also, the consequences for internet crimes are clearly lacking as well. If there is no fear of the law, what incentive is there for people to abide by the law? One ubiquitous internet crime is piracy, or the act of obtaining copy written content without paying for it. This type of crime is conducted by a variety of methods; among them are peer to peer downloading and streaming.

Let’s take a look at the history…

Obtaining content online first commenced with downloading information from a single location. Downloading is the process of copying data, usually an entire file from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one’s own computer. During a direct download, you are only downloading the file(s) from an individual server unlike a torrent.

Today, torrenting is much more popular, where users download crowd sourced content. Torrenting is the act of downloading files from a large network in which all of the users are sharing the same file. A torrent allows you to download the file from multiple users, with the capability to also share some of it back. Both the act of downloading and torrenting content violates the Copyright Act of 1976.

While it is evident that downloading/ torrenting is an issue looking at Voltage Pictures Case, the new issue in piracy is streaming. Streaming is simply the method of relaying the data over a computer network as a steady continuous stream, allowing playback to proceed while subsequent data is being receive

It is significantly more difficult to file lawsuits against perpetrators who are streaming; they are not hosting or sharing the file. Likewise, obtaining IP addresses and personal info of people who stream videos is complicated. Torrents are much easier to track due to file sharing during downloading. This in itself, make torrents easier cases to prosecute. For the time being, companies mainly target the low hanging fruit- people who download from torrents.

Most notably, the latest streaming issue is with Aereo. Currently, Aereo batting television providers  in the Supreme Court. They created an antenna that could receive “free” television, and then charged others to view it using the cable from their antenna.

So is streaming content safe and legal?  

Streaming is a slippery slope for prosecutors, as there are no definitive answers to this question. The answer depends on many variables including the site and file type. Due to the lack of any conclusive rulings, the legality of streaming is in a state of limbo. In an attempt to clear the air, the Copyright Office contends there is no violation when a reproduction manifests itself in a fleeting manner that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated. Though the law is convoluted, it is useful to note that owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America, rarely go after individuals who watch streaming movies. Illegal or not, it’s costly and difficult to track these users down.

Even if the ruling comes down as piracy, I would compare this activity to jaywalking. Yes, it is considered illegal. Yes, you should not do it. But the fact of the matter is everyone does it.

[Mother Jones] [Aereo]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Streaming become Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you who are behind the times, Bitcoin is a unique electronic currency developed five years ago. Among many currencies, Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency, enabling individuals to exchange Bitcoins through the Internet without having to go through a middleman such as a bank. Bitcoins are revolutionizing traditional currencies, as anyone can “mine” the electronic coins. This is a significant reason why Bitcoin is becoming increasingly popular, as anyone can “mine” coins and make money. For a more extensive breakdown of Bitcoin, check out this article.

As Bitcoin emerges into a recognized currency, much of the legality and security of the e-currency has yet to be interpreted and standardized. This poses the complex question of what is needed to create a new currency? Often, the use of the Bitcoin is illegal, though the bitcoin system itself is not. Thus, the issue is not with the currency, but rather with it’s tendency to be prone to illegal activity. Therefore, does Bitcoin enhance criminality?

As Bitcoin is the newest globally recognized currency, agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, Canada Revenue Agency, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are developing new methods of taxing the e-currency. Exclusive to the United States, the Internal Revenue Service affirms the awareness of the potential tax-compliance risks posed by virtual currencies. Consequently, the lacking regulation permits malicious activity detrimental to the states well-being.

Bitcoin incorporates the option of anonymity into every exchange, making it prone to illegal activity. Provided in a case study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “cyber criminals may increasingly use bitcoins to purchase illegal goods and services and to fund illegal activities.” Specifically, this untraceable digital currency has an inherent proclivity towards criminality. However, if a transaction is not anonymized, a third party can geographically locate the individual. Every Bitcoin transaction is public and documented through archiving its Internet Protocol addresses.

As bitcoin technology increasingly becomes popular, criminals develop intricate methods to create an incognito transaction. An example of this illicit method is using a third party eWallet, attempting to consolidate Internet Protocol addresses. Research from the Federal Bureau of Investigation further concludes, “some third-party services offer the option of creating an eWallet that allows users to consolidate many bitcoin address and store and easily access their bitcoins from any device”

Bitcoin is the currency of choice–it has been used on many sites including the late Silk Road. An electronic market to buy potentially illegal goods, the hidden site was seized by the FBI in conjunction with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, ICE Homeland Security Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Prior to the injunction, private brownish markets were prone to criminal activity. The Silk Road allowed “parties to communicate anonymously for the purchase and sale of illegal goods, including the purchase of illegal narcotics, in addition to using Bitcoin.” Prior to the implementation of Bitcoin, Silk Road received very little traffic. Currently, hundred of thousands of transactions have been made through Silk Road and the newest platform, Silk Road 2 via Bitcoin. Such illicit websites cause for questioning the integrity of Bitcoin around the world.

What about this…

Although regulative agencies spanning across the world have yet to concretely define the boundaries, actions against criminality have been taken. On January 27, 2014 Charlie Shrem was arrested for engaging in currency laundering–directly connected to the Silk Road. Regarding the innovative currencies connections to criminal activity, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated, “truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to old-fashioned lawbreaking, and when bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act.”

Bitcoin is highly susceptible to theft. Thieves intending on stealing bitcoins target and exploit third-party Bitcoin services “because there is no central Bitcoin server to compromise.” Malicious actors can steal user “mined” bitcoins by exploiting “the way bitcoins are generated by compromising victim’s computers.” Accomplished by installing malware on a victim’s computer, criminals can then use the compromised computers to generate bitcoins. The evolution of Bitcoin towards a more sustainable and legal future exemplifies the nature of an ever-changing currency. Yet the activity associated with Bitcoin can destroy the currency ad infinitum.

 [Business Insider] [Federal Bureau of Investigation]

—

Zachary Schneider

Feature image courtesy of [Antana via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bitcoin: Why is it Prone to Criminal Activity? appeared first on Law Street.

I have made known how I feel about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.  The cliff notes version is that I think he is a joke.  My colleague Annaliese wrote a pretty funny sendup of him as well.  He has been discussed ad nauseum in the media as of late, mainly for being a mess of a politician and human being.

A few hundred miles away, a different city has been talking about a different politician. Rep. Radel is a freshman congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives and represents Florida’s 19th Congressional District.  In October, he was arrested for purchasing three-and-a-half grams of cocaine from an undercover police officer. This activity, of course, is frowned upon.

Rep. Trey Radel, courtesy of U.S. Government (Office of Congressman Trey Radel) via Flickr.

Ok, I have to be honest.  I did not bat an eye when I read about Radel and his nose candy purchase.  Person in a position of power decides that, in their free time, they want to play Tony Montana; also, today ends in “Y.”  Next controversy?

I got to thinking why I was so incensed about Mayor Ford, and so indifferent regarding Rep. Radel.  Here are my findings:

Their positions

Trey Radel is in his first term as a U.S. Representative. He was sworn in ten months ago, and is at the bottom of the Congressional totem pole.  In addition, there are literally 434 other people who do  the exact same job as Rep. Radel. There is enough of a buffer that a coke binge would not stop the wheels of legislation.  However Radel’s arrest has drawn the ire of many because he recently voted to drug test recipients of public monies like food stamps and welfare (the gall!). His reasoning: if you receive government money as a public benefit, you cannot do drugs. If you receive government money as a result of a job that you are doing, drugs are okay.

Rob Ford, on the other hand, is the executive of Toronto. You know, Toronto, the largest city in Canada.  Imagine the uproar if the mayor of a city like New York said that he was really drunk when he smoked crack?  Bloomberg would never. New York would also have de Blasio’s head.  It would not fly in any major American city: not Los Angeles, not Boston, not Washington, D.C.—oh wait.  Nevermind. Additionally, a mayorship inherently has more immediate power than a member of Congress could have from their job, and the duties of a mayor’s job has a more direct effect on constituents.

Their Images

Trey Radel is a 37-year old Floridian and former news anchor. The guys is good looking. Unfortunately, that helps.  Look, this is not the first time looks have been advantageous to a politician.  He is a favorite of the tea party, hip enough to tweet, and has a young family. Finally, cocaine has a different social connotation than crack. This dates back to the Reagan Administration and the war on drugs.  Drugs are still drugs, of course, but cocaine is more widely accepted as recreational or social.

Rob Ford, on the other hand, looks like a cartoon character.  He has been a public figure long enough to have many televised gaffes that have since been turned into .gifs many times over.  Additionally, crack is embarrassing. When Whitney Houston was accused of crack cocaine use, she explicitly stated that she made too much money to ever smoke crack cocaine.  The Chapelle Show’s Tyrone Biggums character was a hilariously accurate rendering of how most people imagine users of crack cocaine. To imagine the mayor of Toronto smoking crack, then, is particularly jarring.

Rob Ford, courtesy of Shaun Merritt via Flickr.

Their Reactions

Almost a month after his arrest, Radel’s office released statements that seemed to follow the tried and true “politician in trouble” response.  He acknowledged that he had a problem and wanted to take a leave of absence from the House of Representatives.  He mentioned that he’d let himself, his family, and his constituents down. His actions immediately after the arrest made it seem like he thought that the incident would remain under the radar.  This hypothesis is bolstered by the fact that, according to reports, he did not tell senior Congressional officials until recently. In the days since the widespread dissemination of his arrest details, Radel has vowed to seek treatment for his addictions.

Rob Ford’s reaction was atypical, to say the least.  He took Bill Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’ is” and ran it sixty yards to a touchdown in the game of “most ridiculous political excuses”.  You’ll recall that the Mayor said that he never lied, but instead was asked the incorrect question, which subsequently elicited an improper response.  Had the obviously inept reporter simply asked if he’d ever smoked crack, well then the answer would have been a resounding yes.  Duh.  Why? Because it’s the truth.  THE TRUTH.  Not habitually, and not voluntarily- he was just blackout drunk.  This nonsensical response is what one would expect from a crackhead.  With Ford, the jokes right themselves.

The Aftermath

What it comes down to is the potential for redemption. In America, we love a good comeback.  This is Radel’s first public slip up, and if he is smart it will be the last.  In addition, he is not the first member of Congress to be in this position. He can make a successful political comeback, and if he plays his cards right could even run for higher office.  Oh America, you truly are the land of dreams!

Ford, on the other hand, is in uncharted territory.  His behavior since the admission of smoking crack has gotten worse, believe it or not.  I mean, the man tried to tackle someone during a vote of no confidence of the Toronto legislature. He has taken the ultimate step towards irreverence and signed on for a reality television show. There is really nowhere for him to go but down- let’s just hope he puts the pipe down.

[Washington Post] [Post] [CNN]

—

Featured image courtesy of [F l a n k e r via Wikipedia]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two Politicians appeared first on Law Street.

Mass media essentially dropped it, yet it still affects millions of people around the word. The issue? You guessed it! Immigration.

President Barack Obama’s days are numbered. In a little less than two years, he will be irrelevant, a lame duck. Anything our president has to say about domestic policy will fall on deaf ears.

Obama told a Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network, Univision that after the government shutdown ends, “the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform.”

It is great to see that immigration is back on the table, after the immigration legislation was derailed because of rampant gun violence pulsating throughout the nation.

What is important to note about immigration is not so much the changing regulations, but the legislation and politics behind it all.

The demographics in the United States are changing. The new wave of immigrants yields immense amounts of power.

Although this power is not immediately evident, in years to come, immigrants will have a huge impact on voting outcomes. The electorate will encounter new voters of different background, consequently pandering to the emerging majority

Like wise, public policy will have to account for demographic shift. As a result, policy decisions will evolve drastically.

In the most recent elections, immigrant votes were a major deciding factor in deterring which candidate would win a position, whether that be between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney running for presidency or Cory Booker and Steve Lonegan for a senate position.

And President Obama is thinking for his party as well. Immigrants have a significant impact on voter demographics. Immigration is affecting EVERYTHING around us including significant changes in demographics and cultures.

Most importantly, it is changing legislation as well as politics. Demographics are constantly changing.

[Reuters] [InternationalBusinessTimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Icars via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Immigration: The Journey is Just Beginning… appeared first on Law Street.