Why -- I mean, I think you have a point on this equity principle. I wonder, is there any review there? That is, suppose you have a statute, as this one arguably is, where 99.9 percent, many billions of dollars of benefits, are going to the existing holders of copyright on grounds of equity, and the effect of the statute in eliciting new works is near zero. I mean, that would seem -- where this equity idea is the camel and the production idea is the gnat, and is there any -- can we say something like that, or does Congress have total leeway in respect to --
The speaker did not use the gnat to represent equity because they needed an animal that stores fat.
The speaker could have used the camel to represent equity because a camel stores fat like equity stores value, but the speaker did not explain themselves so we don't know for sure what they were thinking.
( z1 use :polarity - :ARG0 ( z2 person :ARG0-of ( z3 speak ) ) :ARG1 ( z4 gnat ) :ARG2 ( z5 represent :ARG0 z4 :ARG1 ( z6 equity ) ) :ARG1-of ( z7 cause :ARG0 ( z8 need :ARG0 ( z9 they ) :ARG1 ( z10 animal :ARG0-of ( z11 store :ARG1 ( z12 fat ) ) ) ) ) )