the early nineteen eighty four musicians got to gather and recorded these albums which are now to the extent anyone's interested really part of music history or big albums they're important they're well known that's relevant  and i think there are variety of reasons why they didn't do that i don't think they are directly germane to the issue of whether the account remains open if the court is in court if you consider that the account was open refusal to open an account to create the book well remember when the statement occurs the statement occurs in the late eighty's early ninety's quite a number of years after the work has been performed after the sales have been occurring as point one but they don't get any money after i understand the question i believe our position is that the account remains open to this date and that the simple statement of sharon osborne who is not a party to the accounting or to the relationship which gave rise to the account cannot act to close the account in order to close an account you need to look to the nature of the commercial relationship you've got closing the account you haven't convinced me that one was ever that's the problem i'm well let me go back and see if i can address that if you first was an account ever open we know that we don't need to have a written book per se we know that the question of whether an parties to determine whether or not an account is over in this case we don't even need to do that because we can go to the stricter requirements of the book out and we can see that there is evidence the account was opened we have leisure which we have produced in they this document does make reference to that and we're not saying are party to the contract drafted between them and that our clients acted with the understanding that they were going to receive royalties there's also no question that they never signed their rights to the wife and that they were never pa a footnote to that issue i would add remember these are intense factual issues we are have a lot of questions about what was the nature of the relationship what contract happened here what was the course of the what payments we don't see you can't give us a contract with your client signatures on that we haven't seen anything that purports to be an account well i would i would direct the court's attention to the ledger sheets which we have submitted which were  plaintiffs while they're spending eighteen months negotiating our client's recording agreement and this is in the record that here is your recording agreement in final execution when the only thing you have to insert is the percentage for your record wealth which we've already discussed and which we have agreed was of course is the nine hundred eighty contract which you've already seen which carved out a four and a half or so the idea that our clients simply were completely naive which they weren't they were experienced musicians and they had the idea that they went and performed on these records and did this work with the expectation they were going to get nothing it's difficult for me to with sat and i think that the there are some number of problems which arise when a justice scalia he's afraid that if the producers of goods are identified in this case it would have to be the performers on records are identified specifically it would cause a conflict with copyright law that's the first problem but second problem he is that it would cost an extension chronologically of the copyright act beyond the period of time in which congress is authorized to do so let's look at the first issue conflict with copyright law it's basically a preemption argument there is no conflict with copyright law because the rights of attribute in music is not covered in our party right that certainly is representations of facts which are likely to cause confusion or to deceive or to filiation connection or association with another person what they asked or is not saying you know what would not be agreement to our attention that there was no way for a future claims clause included as we frequently see and settlement i think the evidence indicated that the some of the records from the british court were no longer available which is why the record was  ninety one and the last does not permit appointed to let you know both count and then argue that once open it remains open indefinitely in the face of this kind of books accounts are a business record substitute for contract and i do not remain open indefinitely at the whim of one party haven't produced a shred of evidence of any such improper credits and if you look at the police on appeal still on it still this very late date it's a complete mystery and as to what it i  truly district court bend over backwards to give both sides every opportunity to complete the record and to and to provide evidence in support of their respective position stress in my thirty six seconds well i want to raise just a few points i'm going to move quickly with respect to the genesis of the open book account claimed he had been in the pleadings for years before the summary judgment motion i believe even before mr it's a contract and there were a few useful to pay set the clock ticking if he can't still open if the transactions are still continuing if i'm still taking your credit i can simply say i'm not going to pay you and therefore the account