With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 267. There is a well-established presumption that damages incurred by copyright infringement are, by their very nature, irreparable and not susceptible of monetary measurement, thus rendering any remedy at law inadequate. See Atari, 672 F.2d at 620; ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp. v. Altech, Inc., 765 F.Supp. 1310, 1329 (N.D.Ill.1990). 99. In copyright infringement cases, there simply is no need to prove irreparable harm. See Concrete Mach., 843 F.2d at 612 (discussing the presumption of irreparable harm and stating that “[t]here is ... no need actually to prove irreparable harm when seeking an injunction against copyright infringement.”). In fact, some courts have held that a failure to consider the presumption of irreparable harm is reversible error. See Franklin Computer, 714 F.2d at 1254 (<HOLDING>); Atari, 672 F.2d at 620-21 (reversing the

A: holding that a movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm
B: holding that district court erred in failing to consider evidence of secondary considerations
C: holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm
D: holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative
C.