Copyright § 4.4.1. Therefore, the bankruptcy order could not have given both Southern Pacific and Amerifreight the same exclusive rights. Thus, whatever was transferred had to be a nonexclusive license. A nonexclusive license “does not transfer ownership of the copyright to the licensee. The copyright owner simply permits the use of a copyrighted work in a particular manner.” I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir.1996); see also id. at 775 n. 7 (“ ‘In its simplest form, a license means only leave to do a thing which the licensor would otherwise have a right to prevent.’ ” (quoting W. Elec. Co. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118 (2d Cir.1930))). A nonexclusive license therefore gives a licensee permission to do whatever is within t 242-43 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>); Nimmer & Nimmer, 3 Nimmer on Copyright §
holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply holding that nonexclusive license is not transferable without copyright owner authorization holding that mere authorization and approval of copyright infringements taking place outside the united states is not a copyright violation and does not create jurisdiction over those extraterritorial acts holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession recognizing that copyright offices interpretation of copyright act should ordinarily receive deference