the unique circumstances of this case is that of a copyright owner and not a neutral  nonexclusive license they got that and they did not get an exclusive license then which of your theory survives under that scenario nine percent may not concede that but if that were the conclusion what do we have to do still to get through the rest of you both claims both be tort claims and the copyright claim survives the copyright claim is simple to explain the copyright claim does not claim infringement from eccentrics use of it's non exclusive license the copyright claim claim is based on infringement by authorizing google to publish copies snapshots taken visibility on the search engines the complaint on three copyright side and come back to the toward claims is google to display on its servers not sending the user who punches in my name back to the  but shows the copyrighted material of eccentric and has to be true it claims still published it acted as if it were a copyright owner so it should be the same  the possibility i think the nonexclusive license would be subsumed with the ownership of the copyright and a non exclusive license is is actually because i'm just deal with me copyright issue that is different but what eccentric does is essentially direct for its own purposes google to publish on its publishing and put putting on their site so someone comes to the site you can see it but they're actually telling google that google can publish on its site and that is that he's saying that both difference and that's oppose that and said that that is not an exception to the c t a and we reason is simple where google chooses to do as part of its business model which is in fact to crawl pages and make cash copies kasia pages and show the public the cached copies of pages it's what google does with every single website mr gordon would like this court to think is unique is the way it's done the only way that google ever crawls websites is by making its own cash copies there is an ability for my client to put it do not follow code in its website if it chose to not let google crawl its website and show its its results but ripped off is doing is saying this is mine now i have the exclusive copyright and google you can publish it and i can read the statute to say google is ok but the statute doesn't exonerate the provider because  it posted to rip off then claims now i actually own it and i'm providing it to google and when but whether or not eccentric claims he owned it is a completely different issue when eccentric allows and doesn't really provider so we've got the church here who guide information content provider which is then defined as the person who's responsible for creating the content which is christian dupont so he creates the content he's the provider he's the only information content provider he's the only person responsible for creating the very content that mr graham claims is defamatory then if eccentric allows google to be published that it makes absolutely no difference if we publish cannot make them the information content provider is mine is my point and when i want to make sure i'm not stepping on mr brewster who is on the copyright issue but because that's my time right that's not both of our times ok so mr no ownership at any point ventures had no plaintiffs who challenged its right to use the copyrights who had standing to do so under the copyright i essentially judgment and an involuntary transfer that he acquired through that with dutchman there is no basis for any of that and none of that gave many valid right under the copyright act as a result we have multiple grounds for affirming when you've got a case where there is no basis for bringing it on the merits this case should not go forward it should not have been brought and the court was correct and so finding  as the clarification about how the involuntary transfers are part that's critical and that's the primary holding here so those grounds it's a great thing that this case has happened because it lets everyone know that this is squarely outside of the realm eccentric under its own ownership of the copyright and it's basic law that if you own all the exclusive rights of copyright you decide whether or not to make the first publication but how to explain precisely how you're saying eccentric even created or developed the information is if it's limited to developing in terms of  provider doesn't do something in order to do what it tells because it would it's no longer acting as a neutral intermediary it's publishing its own speech it says i own this i am the copyright owner in this court's de novo review it should hold that small justice holds the exclusive rights of copyright this case was an assignment by the authors court appointed attorney in fact and the registration but that they pitch in to this core