Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
direct financial benefit from the infringing activity and ‘has the right and ability to supervise’ the infringing activity.” Id. (quoting Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir.2004)). Bridgeport argues that Universal is liable for both vicarious and contributory infringement of Change Gone Come. The vicarious liability, it argues, arose because Universal “has the right to police the infringements” of T-Funk. It, however, has not supported this assertion with evidence. While Universal entered into an exclusive publishing agreement with Hutton, the agreement merely provides Universal with the right to own and exploit his works, not to control his song writing activities. Cf. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 750-51, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) . There is no vicarious liability because
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement
B. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply
C. recognizing that copyright offices interpretation of copyright act should ordinarily receive deference
D. holding that a plaintiff may recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act provided the copyright damages serve a purpose other than compensation
E. holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.