&gt; <i>the MAI case didn&#x27;t address how RAM copies only exist for a &quot;transitory duration&quot;, and thus are not eligible for copyright.</i><p>You might want to read the <i>Cartoon Network</i> opinion itself [1] if you haven&#x27;t already, because it doesn&#x27;t provide nearly the support for your position that you seem to think. See especially pp. 128-29, where the Second Circuit noted that in <i>MAI Systems</i> the software in question had been loaded into RAM and used by an unlicensed individual for several minutes:<p>&lt;blockquote&gt;<p>... Accordingly, we construe MAI Systems and its progeny as holding that loading a program into a computer&#x27;s RAM <i>can</i> result in copying that program.<p>We do not read MAI Systems as holding that, as a matter of law, loading a program into a form of RAM <i>always</i> results in copying. Such a holding would read the &quot;transitory duration&quot; language out of the definition, and we do not believe our sister circuit would dismiss this statutory language without even discussing it.<p>It appears the parties in MAI Systems simply did not dispute that the duration requirement was satisfied.<p>&lt;&#x2F;blockquote&gt;<p>(Extra paragraphing added.)<p>&gt; <i>Using software normally is patently fair use.</i><p>That might well be true <i>in some circumstances.</i>  But if you&#x27;re using software in violation of the express terms of your license, good luck persuading a court to adopt your fair-use position.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar_case?case=13763893657469687275" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar_case?case=137638936574696...</a>