the court i'm dennis martin i'm with will more hold brow my colleague and we represent the county of los angeles and the los angeles sheriff's department what i'd like to do here is focus on the primarily on the ferry use defense because that is the defense that if we prevail on we're unlikely to have to go through another trial and i think that if you what did you buy virtual copies virtual copies don't get delivered because there's no reason to do that i mean physical copies don't get why one copy cost how much if i had one little dinky computer and i wanted advice i wanted to equi from buying one of these for a couple hundred dollars and then replicating it six hundred thousand times for all of its computers throughout the entire country and i think anybody can do that it would be serious and you'd argue there's nothing wrong with that i would argue that this is a serious copyright infringement involved and that was not what you did you bought a few and then you figured out a very clever way and i don't mean that to be critical of installing these on all kinds of computers without paying the fetus required for each don't stall i suppose in two thousand individual computers and somebody thought on a this is taking a whole lot of time effort and energy so they came up with a very clever way to jump all that individual installation and and install it all at once on a whole bunch of that's it's very used to run off on six thousand are absolutely absolutely not if you're talking about copies were distinct you can distinguish in between copies that cannot be used in any way shape or form for the terminal emulation purpose because if you don't have the ticket of an individual computer to get to a host there's no use for the software we told them about that we told them that we were doing  what that does is wind up with us having a more efficient way of installing the software and a failsafe failsafe way of preventing overuse of the software extremely efficient way of making sure that we did not overuse the software it's almost unique to terminal in the asian because the only use is when you're connecting up to a host  is i think that i don't think i have to go through the four factors individual but i think with the come down to those you know the use the copier is using the product wherever  in a way that doesn't or the ox of the copyright holder doesn't damage occupy the copyright holders market doesn't impinge on its pocketbook in any way doesn't actually mere making of a copy here we made the copies no question technically just tried i would agree it's a copyright infringement but that's what you have for you because very use is there to prevent over and it was used to reverse engineer to design a competing product in the i'm running a college and i've got a thousand students taking a course and i buy one copyrighted book that i intend for once i make nine hundred ninety no position there's nothing to support that position in fact much of the evidence that was excluded was evidence for the fact that in other situations where this company came up with i think that's a fair use there's not much public benefit or not but you're not using the copyrighted work and by that i mean the copyright and the copyrighted work the value that with the copyright law can't even get to a host computer with that software it's just lying there they could have been taken off the excess ones that have been taken off when they were install you know real reason to do it i'm not sure i've seen the difference between the analogy of having the extra books in case you if you have a different sized clattered next year there's a big difference between a book that you can take and read and a piece of software the flying dad on a computer that can't be used for any i don't know a lot of our computers are right and that you have the same information loaded with with other information because you want whatever's in each computer to be the same  out and physically feel a little bit because if you do if you do exceed the number and then what happens if you buy more licenses which is what we did we thought we didn't exceed it but we saw that we were coming up close to our you didn't exceed the number that you bought why wouldn't it be to say if i can explain it to fast about this electronic system or not the council said this is not an electronic system that automatically says no more than two thousand once you get to two thousand one you shut off all the electronic systems if it's a password system it will recognise the password from that workstation so they put it on six thousand workstations they are still capable of you just prove they're there their theory that they had it limited to only the number of licenses they have purchased if i can a path if i can advice and address that point but i think we have to of but i wanted to get to the point of this issue where they could not be configured the hardware configure the workstation configuration is a standard process used any computer if you want to communicate with your printer on your computer you have to configure your printer i just did that you tell basically what you do is you tell the computer thirty six witnesses for the l a city they were asked why did you put it on all of the machines like for all the our stations and the reason was for convenience because we don't know which work station we're going to need to access the host to do work he comes into the workstation types and if he takes five or ten minutes that same person could load the rumble software through the cd imaging process and in fact  never had a set up that would use more than the number of licenses at the same time seems to me that when i disagree or the fact is they have the power to use it was totally within their power let me give it a go i'm not talking about power i'm talking they come in and they you know fourteen thousand boxes of documents the way these cases look and they prove everybody agrees geez we never used more than the number of whenever the number of workstations working more than the licenses we have it seems to me you'd have to prove that they were use it's not an infringement of commercial or commercial companies reconsider commercial purpose it's not in the ring understand that but is it a commercial purpose it is a commercial purpose in the sense that they are not having the vice something they otherwise would have to buy drug that's correct software companies shouldn't have to be in the situation of having to rely on trusting them to do it that's why you have a license that's just don't copy that they shouldn't have to be sitting there monitor push which has a one copy license and then just take and copy on the many as many machines they want to be very interesting and i think we can stop them but if they do it's an infringement so that's the problem the software industry faces terms of creative products as opposed to informational materials such as the phone book multiple listing sector number three the amount copied there's no question that if the evidence before the district court was a copy everything