> You're expecting the courts to write new laws from whole cloth here if you want IA to win.
They're arguing that it was fair use. Fair use is pretty clearly the law, it's 17 U.S. Code ยง 107.
But the law sets up a balancing test with a bunch of factors, which makes it open to interpretation and means you have to make the case for your preferred interpretation to the court.
Which you can only do after doing the thing and getting sued, because otherwise there is never a court opinion establishing the law one way or the other.
Maybe that's absurd -- maybe you should be able to find out if something is illegal or not before you do it -- but now you're arguing that the law is absurd, not that the absurd mechanism isn't actually the law.
They're arguing that it was fair use. Fair use is pretty clearly the law, it's 17 U.S. Code ยง 107.
But the law sets up a balancing test with a bunch of factors, which makes it open to interpretation and means you have to make the case for your preferred interpretation to the court.
Which you can only do after doing the thing and getting sued, because otherwise there is never a court opinion establishing the law one way or the other.
Maybe that's absurd -- maybe you should be able to find out if something is illegal or not before you do it -- but now you're arguing that the law is absurd, not that the absurd mechanism isn't actually the law.