Copyright

One of the most pervasive, and silliest, myths that continues to get passed around the internet is that somehow copyright is this huge drag on free speech. It's simply not the case. The basic reasons are:

• The myth ignores the doctrine of independent creation; namely, if you didn't copy it from someone else, it's yours to do with as you wish.
• The myth ignores a main tenet of copyright law that facts, scientific principles, history, methods, systems, individual words and short phrases all do not qualify for copyright protection.
• Any author can choose the level of protection they desire, from complete restriction of rights to none at all, essentially dedicating the work to the public domain.

Which brings us to the Creative Commons license. This is often pushed by anti-copyright forces, namely the "copyright deniers" at organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge. The strange thing is that no one that I talk to on the pro-copyright side of things has any problem with this. All we want is for the author to be able to protect their work in any manner that the author sees fit, as long as that level of protection the author claims is respected and honored by others. A while back, a librarian at NSU forwarded to me this article by Richard Poynder titled "Copyright: The immovable barrier that open access advocates underestimated."[ref]Copyright: the immovable barrier that open access advocates underestimated[/ref] Amongst its bold pronouncements: "[Open Access] advocates underestimated the extent to which copyright would subvert their cause… [I]n underestimating the extent to which copyright would be a barrier to their objectives, OA advocates have enabled legacy publishers to appropriate the movement for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of the research community, and to pervert both the practice and the concept of open access."[ref]Id.[/ref] You don't have to go far to see where this is going. Especially when the author is throwing around the words "legacy publishers" as a pejorative, meaning "long standing business models which are getting in the way of whatever it is that we want." Except that, as I trudged through the 36 pages of this polemic, one thing became abundantly clear: it wasn't that copyright was getting in the way. The problem was that the academics and researchers who thought they were at the vanguard of some sort of Open Access utopia didn't understand the terms of the Creative Commons license that they were connecting to their work. They also didn't understand that by handing over their work to a publisher, that they just might lose some rights to control it. The Creative Commons licensing scheme has multiple levels to it.[ref]Creative Commons: About the Licenses[/ref] Other than releasing your work to the public domain (abandoning your claim to copyright), the least restrictive license is the "CC-BY" license. This was the type of license recommended by this particular Open Access group. "OA purists now also insist that only content that has been made available with a CC BY license attached can claim to be libre, and so classifiable as open access."[ref]Copyright: the immovable barrier that open access advocates underestimated at 4[/ref] The Creative Commons website describes it like this: "This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials." (emphasis added). So, imagine the utter shock when the academics discovered that people were making copies of their work and charging for them. This is what happens when Pollyanna idealism meets cold hard reality. Or when you simply don't bother to read through and consider the implications of the license selected. (N.B. This is why we have lawyers.) So what if this activity violated the license? What would the remedy have been for the aggrieved academic? The answer, quite surprisingly for most people, is sue for copyright infringement. The Creative Commons license does not get rid of copyright, unless of course you dedicate your work to the public domain. A Creative Commons license of "CC-BY" or greater simply waives some of your rights under the Copyright Act. It does not waive all of them, especially the right to sue for infringement. Consider the case of photographer Larry Philpot.[ref]Philpot v. Music Times LLC, 2017 WL 1906902 District Court for the Southern District of New York 2017[/ref] He made available numerous photographs under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. According to Creative Commons: "This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to ‘copyleft' free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects."[ref]Creative Commons: About the Licenses[/ref] The Defendant, Music Times, LLC, reproduced and distributed two photographs in a manner which did not comply with the license terms. Though the opinion does not detail precisely what those items of non-compliance were, the fact that the Plaintiff pled but later abandoned DMCA claims, we can guess that the photos were distributed without the required attribution. The defendant failed to respond and was defaulted. But here's the pickle the Plaintiff finds himself in: he has no damages. His license essentially gave his work away for free. There is no monetary loss to the photographer. He could proceed along the lines of some sort of loss of reputation by the failure to attribute, but those would be mighty speculative and hard to prove. But wait, this is copyright infringement. There is the availability of statutory damages.[ref]17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)[/ref] Yes, that great bete noir of the EFF rides in to rescue the case of this Creative Commons user who is willing to give his work away for free. The Plaintiff need not prove any economic loss at all. He simply asks the Court to award him a sum between $750 and $30,000 per work infringed. In fact, the Plaintiff provided to the Court no evidence of "any loss of licensing fees."[ref]Philpot v. Music Times, LLC[/ref] However, the Court finds that "Defendant's violation of Plaintiff's rights must be accepted as deliberate and purposeful." It awards $5,000 in damages and $400 for the filing fees.[ref]Id.[/ref] So let's step back and take stock. Under the Creative Commons license, you are licensing your work for free. Yes, there are restrictions, but you are licensing your work for free. In a normal breach of contract situation, you have to prove that you have been damaged by the breach. If your monetary damages are $0, try finding an attorney willing to take on this case. Or perhaps you are the brave soul willing to pay an attorney several hundred dollars per hour to recover no money. Every attorney I know that has heard a client say "it's not about the money, it's about the principle" knows better than to accept this as true. In the end, it's always the about money. Just wait until the legal bills start piling up. In the opinion, the Court never takes up the issue of whether a contract has been actually formed. If one has been formed, then the remedy is for breach of contract, not copyright infringement and "poof" goes the claim for statutory damages. So what is the "tipping point" here? Suppose someone claiming a license by Creative Commons complies with some, but not all of the conditions. Infringement or breach of contract? Suppose the person claiming a Creative Commons license complies with the terms, but then stops doing so. Infringement or breach of contract? Here, assuming that the terms we never complied with, the Court seems comfortable with treating this not as garden variety breach of contract, but copyright infringement. This extra factor carries with is a whole list of presumptions and remedies favorable to the author, including, as we have seen, statutory damages. Because without the copyright laws, the whole concept of the Creative Commons is a toothless tiger. There is no viable method for enforcing it, except for pleading copyright infringement. So there we have it. The Creative Commons…brought to you by the Copyright Act.

If someone has infringed your copyright, you'd certainly like to be able to find out who they are and where they are. But since online pirates would rather not have you find out this information, various companies have sprung up that make quite a nice living in hiding people. The biggest is Cloudflare. Cloudflare's business is that of a Content Delivery Network or CDN. Normally, if you type in a web address, it goes directly to the website. With a CDN, it goes through the CDN network first. Blogger Franklin Veaux describes it thusly: "The CDN…has a large number of servers, often spread all over the country (or the globe). These servers make a copy of the information on the Web server. When you visit a website served by a CDN, you do not connect to the Web server. You connect to one of the content delivery network servers, which sends you the copy of the information it made from the Web server. There are several advantages to doing this:

1. The Web server can handle more traffic. With a conventional Web server, if too many people visit the Web site at the same time, the Web server can't handle the traffic, and it goes down.
2. The site is protected from hacking and denial-of-service attacks. If someone tries to hack the site or knock it offline, at most they can affect one of the CDN servers. The others keep going.
3. It's faster. If you are in Los Angeles and the Web server is in New York, the information has to travel many "hops" through the Internet to reach you. If you're in Los Angeles and the content delivery network has a server in Los Angeles, you'll connect to it. There are fewer hops for the information to pass through, so it's delivered more quickly."[ref]Cloudflare: The New Face of Bulletproof Spam Hosting[/ref]

The by-product of this is that the IP address is attributed to Cloudflare, not to the real address of the web site. "Cloudflare is not a hosting provider…. One of the functions of the network that we provide is to add security to the content providers that use us. Part of doing that inherently involves hiding the location of the actual hosting provider. If we didn't do this, a malicious attacker could simply bypass Cloudflare by attacking the host directly."[ref]Cloudflare Anonymity and Abuse Reports[/ref] This handy by-product makes Cloudflare very attractive to copyright pirates,[ref]Elsevier wants CloudFlare to give up Digital Textbook Pirates[/ref] neo-Nazi white supremacists,[ref]How One Major Internet Company Helps Serve Up Hate on the Web[/ref] ISIS,[ref]Anonymous hacktivists target American tech firm accused of 'protecting Islamic State' extremist websites[/ref] and spammers.[ref]Cloudflare: The New Face of Bulletproof Spam Hosting[/ref] Consider the plight of this writer: "Why the hard-on for CloudFlare in particular? Because every time my book is pirated, their name comes up. Even after being reprimanded by the courts for aiding and abetting piracy sites they continue to facilitate the f*cks."[ref]CloudFlare And Associate-holes have earned their own category![/ref] Or consider this typical entry from the RIAA 2016 "Notorious Market Report:"[ref]RIAA Representing Music Docket No. USTR-2016-2013[/ref] Domain: Albumkings.com (formerly albumkings.net and albumkings.co) Registrant: Whois Privacy Corp., Nassau, Bahamas Registrar: TLD REGISTRAR SOLUTIONS LTD Hosting Provider: Obfuscated by Cloudflare, U.S. Traffic: Global Alexa ranking of 37,978 and the new .com domain is averaging nearly 900,000 monthly visits Revenue Sources: Advertising If you're a pirate site that gets 900,000 hits a month, it's certainly nice to be able to hide who you are and where you are located. Needless to say, Cloudflare was very unhappy with this report and immediately fired back: "As both RIAA and MPAA are aware, Cloudflare has created a ‘Trusted Reporter' program to permit identification of the website host in response to complaints of abuse or infringement…[b]oth the RIAA and MPAA participate in our trusted reporter program and are frequent users of the system."[ref]Cloudflare Rebuttal comments regarding the Request for public comment on the 2016 Special 301 Out of Cycle Review of Notorious Markets Docket. No. USTR-2016-2013[/ref] But what about our poor writer? Or what if I'm not the RIAA? What if I'm a small indie record label? How do I get in on this "Trusted Reporter" thing? No clue. Because after searching the entire Cloudflare website, I could find no mention of anything resembling a "trusted reporter" program. But, in the end, it doesn't matter. Because the "trusted reporter" program really doesn't work. Because all that Cloudflare will give up is the IP address, not the identity of the client.[ref]Cloudflare Anonymity and Abuse Reports[/ref] You have to go find them yourself. And, in the meantime, Cloudflare will report back to their client that you have inquired about them.[ref]Cloudflare Anonymity and Abuse Reports[/ref] This "heads up" to the infringer will give them ample time to move their site to a new host and new IP address. And the process starts all over again. And Cloudflare is more than happy to continue to service well known pirate sites, like The Pirate Bay.[ref]RIAA Representing Music Docket No. USTR-2016-2013[/ref] Even after the sites have been ordered shut down by the Courts. Take the case of Grooveshark, which this blog has reported on before. Cloudflare continued to service various clients using the "Grooveshark" name, which had been ordered transferred to the Plaintiffs in the case.[ref]Courts in Canada, Germany and U.S. Order Website Blocking, Internet Fails to Spontaneously Self-Destruct[/ref] So, once the registration for "grooveshark.io" (British Indian Ocean) was disabled, it moved to "grooveshark.pw" (Republic of Palau). And then to "grooveshark.vc" (St, Vincent and Grenadines). And then to "grooveshark.li" (Lichtenstein), using a Swiss based domain registrar. The domains grooveshark.pw, grooveshark.io and grooveshark.vc were all registered with Cloudflare by anonymous users using different email and IP addresses. Cloudflare received a copy of the restraining order on May 15, 2015, and despite actual notice of the TRO, nevertheless processed another anonymous request to redirect grooveshark.li using Cloudflare services. The Court was not amused: "There is no real dispute that CloudFlare had knowledge of the TRO at least as of May 14, 2015 and that it subsequently permitted an anonymous user to establish a free account that configured the domain name grooveshark.li to use CloudFlare's services. CloudFlare's authoritative domain name server translates grooveshark.li as entered in a search browser into the correct IP address associated with that site, thus allowing the user to connect to the site. Connecting internet users to grooveshark.li in this manner benefits Defendants and quite fundamentally assists them in violating the injunction because, without it, users would not be able to connect to Defendants' site unless they knew the specific IP address for the site. Beyond the authoritative domain name server, CloudFlare also provides additional services that it describes as improving the performance of the grooveshark.li site… Going forward, however, CloudFlare is now aware that it is bound by the injunction so any future failure to comply might expose it to a contempt finding that could result in the award of attorney's fees or other consequences."[ref]Arista Records v. Tkatch et al Case 15-CV-3701 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2015 Artista Records, LLC, et al. v. Vita Tkach, et al.[/ref] Despite this, in March of this year, Cloudflare was back to its old tricks, this time with the website MP3Skull. Here, Cloudflare argued that despite its continued statements that it was "not a hosting provider" and "simply an intermediary," that it was nonetheless protected by the DMCA safe harbor rules in continuing to provide services to various MP3Skull entities. The Judge wasn't buying it. "…Section 512 concerns service providers that may otherwise be directly liable for copyright infringement due to the actions of others without their knowledge. (citation omitted). It does not blunt a court's power to enforce a permanent injunction involving non-parties such as Cloudflare that may be ‘in active concert or participation' with Defendants."[ref]Arista Records v. Vasilenko, Case no. 15-21450-Civ-COOKE/TORRES, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Order dated March 23, 2017 at page 3.[/ref] Despite all of the above, Cloudflare risibly claims that "Cloudflare does not make the process of enforcing intellectual property laws and harder—or any easier."[ref]Cloudflare Rebuttal comments regarding the Request for public comment on the 2016 Special 301 Out of Cycle Review of Notorious Markets Docket. No. USTR-2016-2013[/ref] Hmmm. Only obeying court orders after being threatened with contempt of court and monetary sanctions does not exactly paint the picture of a good corporate citizen. Further, just a few weeks ago, the website Pro Publica detailed how Cloudflare casually turned over identifying information about people who lodged complaints to one of their clients, the neo-Nazi website "The Daily Stormer."[ref]How One Major Internet Company Helps Serve Up Hate on the Web[/ref] Predictably, the people who complained received abusive and threatening messages in return. So intimidated were these people that all but three refused to talk to Pro Publica for "fear of further harassment or a desire not to relive it."[ref]How One Major Internet Company Helps Serve Up Hate on the Web[/ref] "ProPublica asked Cloudflare's top lawyer about its policy of sharing information on those who complain about racist sites. The lawyer, Doug Kramer, Cloudflare's general counsel, defended the company's policies by saying it is ‘base constitutional law that people can face their accusers.' Kramer suggested that some of the people attacking Cloudflare's customers had their own questionable motives."[ref]Id.[/ref] "Face their accusers?" This is from a company whose business model revolves around hiding people's true identities. But that's not all. "And, by The Daily Stormer's account, advice and assurances. In a post, the site's architect, Andrew Auernheimer, said he had personal relationships with people at Cloudflare, and they had assured him the company would work to protect the site in a variety of ways — including by not turning over data to European courts. Cloudflare has data centers in European countries such as Germany, which have strict hate speech and privacy laws."[ref]Id.[/ref] And then there's the ISIS problem. According to The Mirror, Cloudflare has accounts for 50 ISIS related propaganda websites.[ref]Anonymous hacktivists target American tech firm accused of 'protecting Islamic State' extremist websites[/ref] Aiding foreign terrorist groups is against Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, to be precise. "Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization . . . , that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity . . ., or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism. . ." Cloudflare dismisses this point due to the fact that "it was not actually accepting money from terrorists, because the ISIS sites listed by Anonymous relied on its free service."[ref]Id.[/ref] Cloudflare would like to wrap itself in the cloak of "freedom of speech," and in all fairness, did amend their reporting procedures after the Pro Publica post caused lots of unfavorable publicity.[ref]Internet Company That Does Business With Hate Sites Alters Complaint Policies[/ref] But "free speech" is not limitless. Laws against libel and slander are proof enough of this principle. Remember that in certain European countries, particularly Germany, there are tough laws against the use of Nazi symbols, denying or trivializing the Holocaust and engaging in hate speech.[ref]Censorship: Is Germany right to censor pro-Nazi speech?[/ref] Yet, as reported by Pro Publica, Cloudflare is apparently assisting websites like The Daily Stormer in avoiding the effects of those laws.[ref]How One Major Internet Company Helps Serve Up Hate on the Web[/ref] And what about copyright infringement? Copyright infringement is not a case of "free speech." Copyright infringement is a crime. Especially the type of infringement carried out by the likes of MP3Skull.[ref]18 U.S. Code § 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright[/ref] Yet, Cloudflare is happy to continue servicing these sites until they get hauled into court and threatened with contempt proceedings. And what of Cloudflare's own copyrights? "SECTION 2: COPYRIGHTS All content included on Cloudflare.com, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, as well as the compilation of that content into one, coherent website, is the property of Cloudflare and protected by United States and international copyright laws. Reproduction of the content of Cloudflare.com without the written permission of Cloudflare is prohibited."[ref]Cloudflare Terms of Use[/ref] (emphasis added) That just about says it all, doesn't it?

The latest twist in the never ending saga of the "Dancing Baby" case hit the dance floor on May 5, 2017. On that date, the U.S. Solicitor General responded to the Supreme Court of the United States' request last October for guidance on whether it should take up the case of Lenz v. Universal Music Group.[ref]U.S. Supreme Court Wants Government's Take on Copyright Takedown Case[/ref] The case was subject of two Petitions for Certiorari, one from each side. Universal's had already been denied.[ref]Id.[/ref] In case you are unfamiliar with the case, this blog has written about it before, and you can read up on it.[ref]Let's Not Go Crazy Here: The Dancing Baby and Fair Use[/ref] The brief itself is a bit of a shock.[ref]Stephanie Lenz, Petitioner v. Universal Music Corp., et al.[/ref] It contends that not only did the 9^th Circuit get it wrong, but everybody got it wrong. On top of that, not only did everyone get it spectacularly wrong, but the SCOTUS should not fix it by taking up the case. It's broke, but don't fix it? How did we get there? Here is the question presented by the SCOTUS: "A separate provision [of the Copyright Act] allows a user to recover damages from a copyright owner that ‘knowingly materially misrepresents' in such a notification that material ‘is infringing.' 17 U.S.C. 512(f). The question presented is as follows: Whether a copyright owner may be held liable un-der Section 512(f) for sending a notification of claimed infringement based on a sincere but unreasonable belief that the challenged material is infringing."[ref]Id. at (I)[/ref] In the lower court and on appeal, the arguments surrounded what and how much a person sending a DMCA takedown should consider whether the defense of fair use is present. The 9^th Circuit held that: "We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is ‘authorized by the law' and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)."[ref]Lenz v. Universal Music Group 815 F.3d 1145 (9^th Cir.) 2015 at 1153[/ref] This was tempered by the following language which rolled back how searching or intensive the consideration should be: "If, however, a copyright holder forms a subjective good faith belief the allegedly infringing material does not constitute fair use, we are in no position to dispute the copyright holder's belief even if we would have reached the opposite conclusion."[ref]Id. at 1154[/ref] That's not correct, says the Solicitor General. According to the SG, there is no "good faith" requirement in 512(f), and you can't "read it in" or "imply it in" as the Electronic Frontier Foundation contended throughout the case. "This case has been litigated as a dispute about the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)(v), which provides that a takedown notice must include a statement that the copyright owner has a ‘good faith belief' that the challenged conduct is unauthorized. But Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v) does not define the mental state required for liability under Section 512(f ). That requirement appears in Section 512(f) itself, which states that a copyright owner is liable only if it ‘knowingly materially misrepresents under this section * * * that material or activity is infringing.' Neither the parties nor the court below have focused on that controlling statutory text."[ref]Id. at 10[/ref] So, in the mind of the SG's office, the "good faith belief" test goes completely out the window. You can only get tagged under 512 (f) if you actually knew the material was fair use, and not infringing, or if you were willfully blind to facts that would have demonstrated the use to be a fair use.[ref]Id. at 11[/ref] And here's the kicker that is sure to give the EFF heartburn: "A negligent or unreasonable misrepresentation of infringement is not sufficient."[ref]Id.[/ref] The SG's opinion tracks through the other portions of the Copyright Act, where the standard is less than actual knowledge:

• Knowing or having reasonable grounds to know: Section 1202(b)(3)
• Was not aware and had no reasonable grounds to know: Section 1203(c)(5)(A)

Contrasting with 512(f)'s language which is "knowingly materially misrepresents." It gets even worse for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "[The EFF] identifies no basis for construing ‘knowingly' in Section 512(f) to mean ‘unreasonably'—a standard akin to negligence."[ref]Id. at 14[/ref] And "[N]either the dissenting judge nor [The EFF] has identified any authority holding that a person acts ‘knowingly,' within the meaning of a statute that uses that term, simply by engaging in reckless or negligent conduct."[ref]Id. at 15[/ref] And, wait for it, because here comes the kill shot. If the standard set forth in 512(f) is that of actual knowledge, or willful blindness, then it follows that the use which is the subject of a takedown notice must first be adjudged to be a fair use. If the use is in fact not a fair use, then there can be no actual knowledge that it is fair use. Nor can one be "willfully blind" to facts demonstrating a fair use, if the use is ultimately ruled not to be a fair use. To hold otherwise, the SG reasons, a copyright owner that fails to consider fair use before sending a takedown notice would be liable for damages, even if the use was infringing.[ref]Id. at 17[/ref] So, under the facts of this case, the reasoning of the SG is that the EFF must first prove that the "Dancing Baby" video is a fair use. If it does not provide that proof, then it does not matter what Universal's reasoning or thought process was in issuing the takedown notice. "The [9^th Circuit's] analysis logically suggests that a copyright owner could be held liable under Section 512(f) for deliberately misrepresenting its subjective belief concerning the challenged material's infringing character, even if the court determines that the material actually was infringing. Such a result would be inconsistent with the text of Section 512(f), because the copyright owner in that scenario could not reasonably be said to have ‘misrepresent[ed] * * * that [the] material or activity is infringing.'"[ref]Id. at 19[/ref] "The [9^th Circuit's] analysis thus contains a significant legal error, and one that could give rise to un-warranted Section 512(f) liability in a case where the challenged material actually was infringing."[ref]Id. at 21[/ref] So, should the SCOTUS correct this "significant legal error"? Nope. Why?[ref]Id. at 22[/ref]

• Decision does not conflict with that of any other Circuit.
• Decision is interlocutory in nature. The trail Court denied both motion for summary judgement and the case never went to trial, thus no final judgement to appeal from.
• The case has been litigated by all sides under a mistaken belief of law, namely that 512(f) required a "good faith belief" rather than "knowing material misrepresentation."
• Neither party addresses the "controlling statutory language" in their filings before the SCOTUS.

In sum, "everybody got it wrong, so go back and start over again." I guess this proves the old adage that "If everybody's thinking the same thing, then nobody's thinking." This must be a fairly bitter pill for a "copyright denier" like the EFF to swallow. It appears that they have spent over 10 years litigating a completely erroneous view of the law, blinded by their primary goal of making things as difficult as possible for copyright owners everywhere. But, what happens next? The SG's opinion, as startling as it is, is just that, an opinion. It is not a final decision of a Court, nor does it have any binding force on anyone involved. But, if the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, there's no doubt that it goes back to the District Court in California, and everyone starts all over again. Except for the "dancing baby" portrayed in the video. He starts middle school. It is rather sobering to consider the possibility with all the legal brainpower on display, considering not only on the attorney's side of both parties but on the judge's side as well, that it appears that everyone got the law completely wrong. And now, Universal has been gift wrapped an entirely new defense that no one saw coming, a truly unforeseen "twist" in this long running case. But can the "dancing baby" learn how to do "the twist"? It will be a lot of fun to watch. And if you're of a certain age, you're singing it in your head right now.