Looks like a fine line - it seems elsewhere sandworm is pointing out that Warner would have to engage in fraud, or willful deception, in order to validate the c

Looks like a fine line - it seems elsewhere sandworm is pointing out that Warner would have to engage in fraud, or willful deception, in order to validate the contract. The wrinkle I'd like to consider is that if Warner provided the evidence during discovery that was material to the copyright being ruled abandoned, meaning it was in their possession all along, then does willful ignorance manifested in strong-arming payment for the rights to lyrics un-owned matter? Hmmm.