Yeah, a similar ruling established the "RAM Copy Doctrine". The judges ruled that an upstart computer repair company didn't have the right to use the software o

Yeah, a similar ruling established the "RAM Copy Doctrine". The judges ruled that an upstart computer repair company didn't have the right to use the software of their former employer, even though they possessed disks that had previously-legally-obtained copies of the software. This was effected by considering the copy from the hard media into the system memory an infringement. In context, that case is debatable but not patently ridiculous. However, for the last 30 years, BigCos and their $1000/hr lawyers have cited this "RAM Copy doctrine" that says copies of protected works into system memory are separate acts of infringement to bully anyone whose right to use some digital thing has come into question, claiming that they're owed money for each and every time the item in question has been loaded from disk into memory. They use this to double-dip on scrapers, too. You may or may not get nicked for CFAA violations and/or issues with the way that you obtain data, but regardless of how you obtain it, they will try to count every time you've loaded the data into memory as a separate act of infringement. Your conclusion seems right to me. The way that we extrapolate these rulings just doesn't jive with the pace of technological advancement.