Whether the lower court erred in its application of the 'substantial similarity' test in a copyright infringement case

No question identified. : | \ : : QUESTIONS PLESENTED , \, Whethec Were Was gcobable cause to acres : : . re, becker Loe Me Cloada loucghars \sol criwe © ; 2. Did \e €6E aseny’ implica Weeak \o Mr. Kecker . Coowin Me t \icanda \ War mnas \ek he would . cecave, \vacshec decabmeny Crom Me cCamin a\ yeokce sypter if \e ud ack cooparcite ond Qrsvi de A se\F inceiminating s\atement \s We asent . ducing custo dad inderroaation \ cendec \is Vi canda : Wavuer o¢ ensvinay confession pecs nvoluntary! : 3, iby a CR asents vmapropery coerce r,. Recker 4 nko waiving his Miranda cats oc contessing te We agents! 4, Dees an adin 2 and abelhin Webbs AL robbery " convickion nak ASH "ae ty Nence, as de Lined , under BUS S424 QA)? . ' Miranda uv. Ndzona \ 3$4 US YRS (ace) ‘ | PALTIES To THE PLOCEEDING Pelilioner, Tedd E, Becker WaAS ne appellant in We United Shakes Cour} o£ Ropeals Cs, \he Eleventh Creeuit ’ Respondent, Vhe United Shabes , Was the appellee Vn Me Eleventh Corcur . ¥ | ii :