Then talk to MDY's counsel.
To me, this is the smoking gun.
If A grants a software license to B on the express
condition that the license will remain in effect only so long as B makes monthly payments
to A, and B then stops making payments to A, any subsequent copying of the software to
RAM by B would constitute copyright infringement â" a conclusion with which MDYâ(TM)s
counsel agreed during oral argument.
Here, MDY's counsel is agreeing that "Copying to RAM" is copying, an act that it reserved and controlled by the copyright holder. They agree that if you are no longer in compliance with whatever license you agreed to in order to access the content, then you are no longer entitled to the content -- since the license controls that access on behalf of the copyright holder.
Regardless of how you may feel, this is what MDY's counsel agreed to. He basically said "Yes, this it true".
The case then proceeded to prove that Glider is, in fact, a breach of the license.
The judge made no law here, nothing new here. It's all been done before in other cases. He's simply applying it.