<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;dancing&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:59:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Washington State Apparently Taxes Clubs For People Saying On Yelp That They Danced</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/08264122688/washington-state-apparently-taxes-clubs-people-saying-yelp-that-they-danced.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/08264122688/washington-state-apparently-taxes-clubs-people-saying-yelp-that-they-danced.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Dancing, what could be more controversial? Whether it's arresting NYC subway travelers for doing the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml">charleston</a>, or body slamming anyone dancing silently at a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml">memorial</a> to freedom, there appears to be something our government dislikes about musically-induced gyrations. With that in mind, it's with a total lack of surprise that I report that the state of Washington is attempting to make up the tax revenue they forgave Microsoft by <a href="http://jeffreifman.com/2013/04/12/seattle-dance-clubs-fundraise-to-pay-microsofts-tax-bill/">finding any clubs in Seattle that offer patrons an "opportunity to dance"</a> and taxing the testicles off of them. It all began, apparently, when state lawmakers revised their software royalty tax because of Microsoft.
<blockquote>
<i>In April 2010, Washington State&rsquo;s Legislature changed the definition of its software royalty tax and effectively granted amnesty to Microsoft, <a href="http://jeffreifman.com/2013/04/09/the-third-anniversary-of-washington-states-big-tax-gift-to-microsoft/">helping the company lock up $1.51 billion in savings from its thirteen-year Nevada tax dodge</a> - and more than $100 million annually each year into the future.</i>
</blockquote>
Well, it wouldn't do for the state to simply have less tax revenue, so to make that amount up they decided to shake down Seattle clubs with a relatively ancient tax on "opportunities to dance" and demanding back taxes from tons of clubs. Just to throw out some numbers, we're talking about tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars owed <i>per club</i>. Moreover, this tax was actually never intended to be applied to night clubs, ballrooms, or bars. It was <a href="http://www.centuryballroom.com/home/events/opportunity-dance">originally meant for clubs that partook</a> in some ancient ritual called "jazzercise". Now it's being selectively reinterpreted to tax these clubs, even if their patrons don't dance at all.
<blockquote>
<i>It works like this: If the state believes that you give your patrons the opportunity to dance, then you pay the tax even when people don&rsquo;t dance. That&rsquo;s according to Mike Gowrylow, with the Department of Revenue. Gowrylow: &ldquo;You could have somebody go into a nightclub, or a bar, or tavern, and they pay cover charges. Unless you followed every person around, you wouldn&rsquo;t know if they actually danced or not, so the only simple way we could have of defining this is if you give them the opportunity to dance, then the tax applies.&rdquo;</i>
</blockquote>
This has led to a sadly hysterical practice by club owners that involves strategically placing club furniture throughout their floors as a sort of obstacle course to prevent dancing. No, <i>seriously</i>, that is actually happening.
<br /><br />
That said, while government could win championships in evil, they're not real big on doing actual work, so you'd imagine it would be quite difficult for Department of Revenue employees to go to different clubs and bars to see if the obstacle courses are obstacle-y enough to warrant no taxation. As it turns out, they don't even bother. Instead, they just troll the internet to see if anyone mentions any dancing at these places. Seriously.
<blockquote>
<i>Gowrylow says auditors search the Internet to find out whether people dance at specific clubs. One clubowner reports an auditor told him: &ldquo;You have the opportunity to dance, and we verified it by 8 or 10 different references on Yelp.&rdquo;</i>
</blockquote>
Think it can't get any stupider? Wrong. One club offers this.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;My auditor&hellip; came in with an obituary of a girl who committed suicide,&rdquo; says another club owner. &ldquo;When I argued that we aren&rsquo;t primarily a dance club&mdash;we have &lsquo;No Dancing&rsquo; signs up everywhere&mdash;she flashed this obit that said the girl liked to dance at [our club]. The auditor said, &lsquo;I know this is ridiculous, but I have to do this.&rsquo;&rdquo;</i>
</blockquote>
Yay, bureaucracy. To pay these thousands-of-dollars fines, many of the clubs in Seattle are asking for donations, noting that, if something in the assessments doesn't change, their businesses may not survive. I know a decent-sized software company that should probably be donating right about now.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/08264122688/washington-state-apparently-taxes-clubs-people-saying-yelp-that-they-danced.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/08264122688/washington-state-apparently-taxes-clubs-people-saying-yelp-that-they-danced.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/08264122688/washington-state-apparently-taxes-clubs-people-saying-yelp-that-they-danced.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tax-tax-revolution</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130412/08264122688</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:26:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Couple Arrested For Dancing On NYC Subway Platform</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Perhaps some day, if I manage to live long enough, somebody somewhere will be able to explain to me why the seemingly benign combination of dancing, cameras, and police tends to result in threats, beatdowns, and arrests. Recall a year ago when I had the privilege to write about protestors getting bodyslammed at the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml">Jefferson Memorial</a> for the horrific crime of silently dancing on the premises? <br /><br />
Well, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=yakkowarner">Yakko Warner</a> writes in with the story of two nefarious characters, code named George Hess and Caroline Stern, who had the gall to dance on a New York City subway platform and <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/waltz_the_charge_officer_8jQ7kbvZwVhaU4PxNi917K#ixzz20DitOgl0">were taken to the ground and arrested for their trouble</a>. As that New York Post piece explains, the couple found themselves near a musician playing on steel drums: <blockquote><p><i>&ldquo;We were doing the Charleston,&rdquo; Stern said. That&rsquo;s when two police officers approached and pulled a &ldquo;Footloose.&rdquo;<br />&ldquo;They said, &lsquo;What are you doing?&rsquo; and we said, &lsquo;We&rsquo;re dancing,&rsquo; &rdquo; she recalled. &ldquo;And they said, &lsquo;You can&rsquo;t do that on the platform.&rsquo; &rdquo; <br /></i>
</p></blockquote><p>And so, as their training manuals surely instructed them to do, the officers demanded to see their IDs. Because they were dancing. Where someone was playing the drums. In the most cosmopolitan and culturally-rich city in America. In any case, when Hess could only produce a credit card (which had his name and photo on it), this happened:
<blockquote><p><i>"The officers ordered the couple to go with them &mdash; even though the credit card had the dentist&rsquo;s picture and signature. When Hess began trying to film the encounter, things got ugly, Stern said.&ldquo;We brought out the camera, and that&rsquo;s when they called backup,&rdquo; she said. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s when eight ninja cops came from out of nowhere.&rdquo;<br /></i>
</p></blockquote></p><p>The ninja cops then alledgedly tackled Hess to the floor, cuffed both of them, and detained the pair for twenty-three hours. The initial charge was apparently impeding the flow of traffic of what is reported to have been three other people on the platform. The police then added other charges, such as resisting arrest. </p><p>All charges were subsequently dropped when the paperwork was finally reviewed by the NYPD's Not Crazy Department. The couple are now suing in Manhattan courts, but maybe it's time a national memo went out to law enforcement agencies reminding them that dancing people with cameras don't necessarily need to be tackled?</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>waltz-the-problem-with-dancing?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120710/08455719645</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:41:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Flash mobs are an odd sort of creature in the internet age. They've resulted in some really cool public &quot;<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100218/0236398221.shtml">performances</a>&quot;, fun little <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/2105504516.shtml">comedic bits</a>, and are now being used to raise protests quickly organized through social networks like Twitter and Facebook. We saw what happened with the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/16452112861/egypt-trying-to-shut-off-all-internet-access-sms.shtml">assistance of social media</a> in the so-called Arab Spring, and the way some nations in the Middle East responded harshly to the protesters. But what about in America?
<br /><br />
Warning: be prepared to be thoroughly pissed off.
<br /><br />
It all started in 2008, when a flash mob was organized to dance silently (to music listened to by each individual with his or her own private headphones/music player) at the Jefferson Memorial to commemorate the 3rd American President's 265th birthday. Apparently, this flash mob of clearly dangerous and possibly terror-plot developing waltzers was asked to leave the memorial because...well...you know what? I can't think of a single good reason why a bunch of people silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial on his birthday to celebrate his life should have to leave. Jefferson, a musician himself, once wrote that dancing &quot;is a healthy exercise, elegant and very attractive for young people.&quot;
<br /><br />
But one of the flash mob dancers was cuffed anyway. And when she <a href="http://dcist.com/2009/03/jefferson_memorial_dancer_files_sui.php">sued</a> on First Amendment grounds, she was twice told to go boogie because dancing at the memorial, even silently and respectfully, apparently was a "distraction" from the somberness of the memorial. 
<br><br>
Upon <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/no-you-still-cant-dance-in-the-jefferson-memorial-video/2011/05/17/AFtQJ15G_blog.html">this appeals court loss, a couple weeks ago</a>, a group was started on Facebook to organize a protest of the ruling over Memorial Day weekend where members would waltz on over to the Jefferson Memorial and dance again, silently and respectfully, without music, so as not to disturb other tourists. It didn't take long for the police to two-step over and ask them to stop again. In one of the finest examples of why we need to be allowed to videotape law enforcement, police <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-interpreting-freedom-reason-sometimes-takes-a-back-seat/2011/05/30/AGbgN1EH_story.html">cuffed a couple basically slow dancing in silence, and then lindy hopped</a> on a couple of gentlemen's heads, while horrified tourists looked on slack-jawed.
<br /><br />
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cz7ynkairDM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br /><br />
Look, I'm Irish, so I come from a lineage whose dance tradition basically consists of playing hacky sack without the sack, but perhaps bodyslamming silently dancing men and women onto the marble floor of a memorial for a patriot dedicated to preserving freedom and battling against needless government tyranny, not a hundred feet from the stenciled words &quot;Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free&quot; might not be the best use of law enforcement, the courts, or much of anything else. Let's not mince words -- this was a peaceful assembly in protest over a court ruling, <i>and</i> in celebration of a Founding Father of the United States. Their treatment by law enforcement was abhorrent.
<br /><br />
I'm trying to inject some humor into this because, frankly, I find this whole thing really upsetting. And to be honest, my words alone can't really describe the level of what occurred here. That's why, again, I'm thankful that people have cameras on their phones and a platform like YouTube to share the videos, even if it's stomach-turning to watch the results.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sweet,-we're-puritans-again!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110602/04271714524</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:19:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>Film Your Kid Dancing To A McDonald's Happy Meal CD... Get A Takedown Notice From Google</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the more famous examples of abuses of the YouTube video takedown process was the case of Lenz vs. Universal Music, which involved Universal Music issuing a YouTube DMCA takedown to a woman who posted a very short clip of her baby dancing to a Prince song that was playing in the background.  It was a clear case of fair use, and while after the woman filed a counternotice Universal chose not to sue, the EFF <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070725/224422">filed a lawsuit</a> against Universal Music, saying that the DMCA notice was fraudulent, since it was such an obvious case of fair use.  While Universal Music argued that since fair use is just a "defense" and not a "right" it need not consider fair use in sending a takedown, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080821/0251282050.shtml">the court disagreed</a>.
<br /><br />
You would think, then, that any takedown notices on similar short videos of kids dancing to music would avoid a similar scenario.  <a href="http://twitter.com/copycense/statuses/7189321369" target="_blank">Copycense</a> points us to the news that a guy has <a href="http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=6433" target="_blank">received a notice from Google of potential infringement for his short clip of his kid dancing along</a> to what appears to be a version (not the original) of the Kool &#038; The Gang song "Celebration."  As in the Lenz case, this video is a kid dancing to somewhere around 30 seconds of a song:
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MmqZQqdpxFE&#038;rel=0&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en_US&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MmqZQqdpxFE&#038;rel=0&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en_US&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
The <a href="http://www.tribbleagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Screenshot-22.png" target="_blank">notice</a> claims that the video contains content for which the copyright is held by record label Razor &#038; Tie.  The guy who got the takedown seems a bit confused, in that he appears to be blaming McDonald's for the mess, when it appears McDonald's had nothing at all to do with the takedown.  In fact, the record label Razor &#038; Tie may not have anything to do with it either... as I'll explain below.  The song used in the video was from a CD that came with a McDonald's Happy Meal.  Looking around, it appears that in April, McDonald's announced a promotion with record label Kidz Bop to issue <a href="http://www.moresay.com/2009/04/15/mcdonalds-happy-meal-kidz-bop-muisc-cd-may-2009/" target="_blank">music CDs</a>.  Razor &#038; Tie is the parent company of Kidz Bop.  The problem here is clearly not McDonald's.  All it did was include the CD in Happy Meals.  It's got nothing to do with the takedown, and the guy's anger at McDonald's is misplaced (though, you could make the argument -- and it's a stretch -- that McDonald's should tell its partners to avoid these sorts of ridiculous copyright claims that scare people away from buying Happy Meals).
<br /><br />
The next assumption, then, would be that Razor &#038; Tie is guilty of sending the takedown, but I don't think that's true.  If Razor &#038; Tie had sent a DMCA takedown, the video would be down.  When Google receives a DMCA takedown, it almost always (or perhaps always) pulls down the content immediately in order to retain its DMCA safe harbors.  The user would then need to file a counternotice to start the process of potentially getting the video back up.  The fact that the video is up and the notice the guy received simply tells him to review the videos suggests that no DMCA takedown was sent.
<br /><br />
Instead, the blame almost certainly lies with Google's content recognition engine/filters that the record labels pushed them to use to try to catch copyright infringement ahead of time.  Now, Razor &#038; Tie is somewhat complicit here, in that it appears to have uploaded its catalog to train Google's filters (if I remember correctly -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Google needs the copyright holder to submit copies for its filter to work).  So, Google had this particular song on file, and noticed the similarity.  Google's filter algorithms don't appear to consider fair use (or, perhaps more likely, they do a bad job of it in many cases) and the guy then is sent the automated notification, even though it makes everyone -- McDonald's, Razor &#038; Tie <i>and</i> Google -- look bad, though the blame from the recipient appears to be in almost reverse order of culpability.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, the guy who received the notice also appears to be confused concerning his own rights.  He says he is going to take down the video, though he clearly has a strong fair use case in asking for the video to be left alone.  It seems likely that Google would allow the video to stay up, and I highly doubt that Razor &#038; Tie would do anything else (it would be ridiculous to try to claim that this was not fair use).
<br /><br />
Either way, this highlights a variety of interesting things.  First, despite all the publicity of the Lenz case, these types of "takedowns" (even if it's not a DMCA takedown) still happen.  Second, people on the receiving end of these notices assume that there is no recourse that would allow the video to stay up.  People get official sounding notices and they assume they need to jump.  Third, Google's content match filter isn't particularly good on fair use issues.  Fourth, when these sorts of bogus notices are sent, it reflects very poorly on a variety of companies.  In this case, McDonald's is getting most of the blame, despite being almost entirely blameless (well, it did decide to put out these silly music CDs, but that's a separate issue).  Even Razor &#038; Tie may be getting misplaced blame (though it may depend on the "rules" it set for Google's filter).  Amusingly, it may be Google that deserves the most blame, and it appears to be getting the least.
<br /><br />
Still, no matter what the situation, it's simply ridiculous that a guy filming 30 seconds of his kid dancing should have to worry about <i>any</i> of this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0252517545.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>prince-redux</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091230/0252517545</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>