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 --
Can we infer the following?
The 105th Congress spent a lot of time on copyright law.

Pick your answer from:
*Yes;
*It's impossible to say;
*No;
The answer is:
It's impossible to say