I agree, and this Court has -- just talking about the judgment of the Congress the 105th Congress in 1998. This is the way the argument that somehow implicitly the initial 1790 copyright statute was saying to people, you get a copyright if you exchange whatever existing rights you have. That simply does not make any sense. There is no language, and it's a relatively late-discovered argument, because it sees its full --
The 105th Congress was responsible for the 1790 copyright statute
The 105th Congress was active in 1998. I think the system got it wrong because I stitched two correct concepts together.
( z0 responsible :ARG0 ( z1 government-organization :name ( z2 name ) ) :ARG1 ( z3 statute :time ( z4 date-entity :year 1790 ) :topic ( z5 copyright ) ) :rel ( z6 government-organization :name ( z7 name :op "108th" :op "Congress" :op 105 ) ) )
(z0 / responsible-01
    :ARG0 (z1 / government-organization
              :name (z2 / name))
    :ARG1 (z3 / statute
              :time (z4 / date-entity
                        :year 1790)
              :topic (z5 / copyright-01))
    :rel (z6 / government-organization
             :name (z7 / name
                       :op1 "108th"
                       :op2 "Congress"
                       :op3 105)))
The 105 th Congress was responsible for the 1790 copyright statute
z7 :op3 0
z7 :op1 1
z6 :name z7
z1 :name z2
z7 :op2 3
z0 :ARG0 z1
z4 :year 2
z3 :topic z5
z3 :time z4
z0 :ARG1 z3
z0 :rel z6