> the argument is they get you out of the copyright infringement caused by copying the software from disk to memory

This is not copyright infringement in the USA:

> …it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided… that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

— https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

▲

iamthad 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Wasn't copying from disk to memory found to be infringing in the Glider lawsuit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar....

> Citing the prior Ninth Circuit case of MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1993), the district court held that RAM copying constituted "copying" under 17 U.S.C. § 106.

	▲	otterley 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, it was not. It was found to be a copy, but not an infringing one in and of itself. Step N in the analysis is "is it a copy?" Step N+1 is "does the copy infringe upon the rights of the owner"?