Yeah, I know. That's what I'm referring to. Peak was shut down for copyright infringement, despite being authorized to use MAI software by owners of the copy of

Yeah, I know. That's what I'm referring to. Peak was shut down for copyright infringement, despite being authorized to use MAI software by owners of the copy of that software, their clients, who would have granted "authorization", and despite the statute's statement that owners of a copy can authorize the making of additional copies insofar as it's an essential step in the use of the program. Why would this authorization of the copy's owner not cover Peak's use of the software?