the conflict created by the Pennsylvania Act. It is evident that the Pennsylvania Act regulates the essence of the federally protected copyright. That a copyright encompasses the right to refuse to license was reiterated by the Supreme Court in a decision postdating AFD I and AFD II which stated that the Copyright Act grants a copyright owner “the capacity arbitrarily to refuse to license one who seeks to exploit the work.” Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 228-29, 110 S.Ct. 1750, 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990) (citing Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 52 S.Ct. 546, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932)); see also Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102, 114 (D.C.Cir.1981) (vesting “the liberty not to license rights in his work”); Lawlor v. National Screen Serv. Corp., 270 F.2d 146, 154 (3d Cir.195.9) (<HOLDING>). In Storer Cable, 806 F.Supp. 1518, the court
holding right to testify was federal constitutional right recognizing corollary right under copyright law to exclude others under licensing right recognizing right to cause of action as property right under navajo due process recognizing a right to contribution recognizing the right to counsel on appeal