Providing unauthorized edited copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to be a fair use. Well, it's definitely been argued, although you are right that even

Providing unauthorized edited copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to be a fair use. Well, it's definitely been argued, although you are right that eventually the court decided that it was not fair use to distribute "family friendly" version of movies. Perhaps counterintuitively, despite ruling strongly against CleanFlicks, the judge ruled that the because the changes were based only on redaction, the edited version was not to be considered a derivative work! https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-ruled-infringer/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-ruled-i... The Family Movie Act of 2005 further codified this right to redact, using the argument that if the edited version was only used for a "private home viewing", it did not violate the right of distribution: https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html. None of this, however, is relevant to Comcast making new derivative works based other people's HTML files without a license and providing a copy of those derivative works to their customers. Would a similar argument as to single viewer experience work in Comcast's case? I don't know, but in the absence of settled case law, I wouldn't bet against Comcast's lawyers getting a court to give the answer they want. But maybe I can make it an easier question: Based on what they've done so far, what are the chances that Comcast will be sued for copyright infringement and lose? I don't have a lot of money to bet, but I think the chances are low that successful lawsuit against Comcast will be brought for what they've done. Do you think otherwise?