eighty it had an additional twenty years of copyright protection that no one expected how decided that those twenty years should go to the authors children and grandchildren to make sure that they  eight that promise and i'm not finding that it really helps me and target the language agreement to the contrary in terms of focusing on that precise language of of congress your honor the only thing the supreme court said leitch in a moment that is of greater assistance but nonetheless security of it is relevant in determining how our highest court characterized the rights that congress rented to recapture in the one nine hundred seventy six properties trust that is a completely separate entity from christopher milne that is why the properties trust was the party that purported to receive and we grant the rights and that is also like christopher mills participation in the one nine hundred eighty saying he this and he that what he did was in the contract what you're saying is he had no authority to do it absolutely not your honor what i'm saying is the only purported to do one thing in the contract he purported to state i do not intend to terminate he did i take it that he did quite a good deal but you're saying he didn't have authority to do anything no your honor not at all what i'm saying is he only did one thing in the contract he only stood up and said i did not only rights in the past and i do not intend on them in the i do not intend to recapture the copyright and then he sat down the properties trust only copyright was the testamentary successor to invent the properties trust in that capacity purported to rescind the contract and then copyright now whether he did it in order that it would be unassailable is something that does not appear on the face of the contract so it would be speculation to attribute a motive to him but just once was asked about whether christopher milne did very well by the contract if you house waiting and waiting ethical conflict and three or four c is a statute that might only regulates form has there been a true statutory terminations then numerous safeguards would have applied first of all it would have to be  actually happened after the so called decision and the right christopher hill himself received zero percent of the royalties from the properties trust because the record in this case is under speeded electricity record on page three percent i think what you're suggesting as they should have been represented better by council who would understand the circumstance and would have let it allowed him to sign a contract but now i signed the contract whether it's good or bad he got some good he christopher mill had no authority and we do not subscribe to the proposition that he should have had better counsel he accomplished exactly what he wanted to accomplish he wanted to make the statement gentle and do not terminate their fathers and so he  was not expected when the one thousand nine hundred three grant was side and then additional twenty years which belongs to the author's granddaughter can be exercised as long as terminations has not previously i'd like to talk about the others granddaughter for a moment because your honor i have the impression that christopher milne benefited from the exercise of the of the piece of paper i've already mentioned that christopher milne according to the record was not a beneficiary it's important to add t the granddaughter may terminate a quote where the owner of the terminations right has not previously exercised such terminations right congress did not say you have no right to terminate it if you benefited from it or if your father did something that question of statutory interpretation is whether claire milne ever had a right of terminating in the first place and the answer is proof i provided if there's any cleaning involved it since the first paragraph in order for there to be a right to terminations in the first place there has to be a still existing grant that was made before january one seventy eight if there is no still existing grant eighty three among many other chris something in the briefs that the modification dealing with the moment of time has been modified and i was that part of the contract modified subsequent to the time of the experts so i think basis for that and if you read the treatise today it's still saying the same thing and there's no basis for it we have other arguments i'd like to just come back to three or four see what i call the first question there's another reason why this  in order for you to have a right of terminating the grant that your terminating must be otherwise than by will and this is a absolutely another basis that's emerged after affirming its here and the there's nothing nothing in the eighty three language that says there to be completely not consider that to be done away with that this is a replacement what's your understanding of how we treat the eighty three agreement in relationship to the greenness of the ninety's as far as what is provided in the ninety's what is the basis you're going to change a little bit of what's the basis of your contention that this is a completely new agreement force and then and then there's a regret but it's revoked and that's really yes there are many other provisions and they if you look at those provisions they reorder the compensation they have all kinds of provisions  of copyright rights is subject to terminations if you have an agreement today if you don't have it mean of the subject determination that's the end of the story you never reach agreement for the kind of hurry well it's not terrible we've heard of hearts and flowers story about how it is enough that is the holding of the sister circuit the second circuit i like to talk about the marble case we think this resistor was looking at this case through the lens of contract law so this was a new agreement with new economic relationships that may well grandchildren but the user industry has figured out we could use contract law to get around it will simply have the individuals sign a contract congress wanted to make sure that would not happen again congress did not limit itself to say well we want to make sure it doesn't happen and then congress said we want to make sure this does not happen at any time which is why congress used the language in the statute terminations needed factually did not withstand any agreement to the contrary the rest of three or four c is rep will be subject to a new germination window congress could not have been talking about section three or four because there is only one termination window under section three of foresee when congress said we're not affecting state law if that's given the broade eighty three contract which is an attempt to reach the one nine hundred thirty contract to nine hundred eighty three in order to put the on germany what that professor marable applied about that contract he did not a pine about anything about that contract he was not provided with that contract he