JUDGE:  SO THE ARGUMENT IS, THAT, LET'S SAY THAT EVEN IF SOME COPYING TOOK PLACE, YOUR ADVERSARY DID NOT SHOW UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATION

CYNTHIA ARATO'S RESPONSE:  THAT'S CORRECT.... (CORRECT INADVERTENTLY CUT OFF)

UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATION WOULD MEAN THAT THE AMOUNT TAKEN WAS "DE MINIMIS" OR ABOUT MINIMAL THINGS. YET EXPERTS, BOTH EXPERTS, CLEARLY STATED THAT SUCH COPYING WAS NOT DE MINIMIS. 

JUDITH FINELL CLEARLY STIPULATED THAT SIMILARITIES OCCUR IN OVER 50% OF RECORDING AND DR. RAMSEY STATED THAT THE SIMILARITIES WERE "STRIKINGLY SIMILAR;" AND INCLUDED THE HOOK, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE SONG, AS BEING SIMILAR.

WE ALLEGE THAT BOTH EXPERT REPORTS WERE, ESSENTIALLY, IGNORED AND REPLACED WITH SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS OF JUDGES.