You mostly just restated what I said. The decision merely requires the copyright holder to consider fair use. It doesn't require them to accept that the alleged

You mostly just restated what I said. The decision merely requires the copyright holder to consider fair use. It doesn't require them to accept that the alleged violation is fair use or even to do a detailed analysis: In order to comply with the strictures of § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), a copyright holder's consideration of fair use need not be searching or intensive. We follow Rossi's guidance that formation of a subjective good faith belief does not require investigation of the allegedly infringing content As for the quote, Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law The court is referring to 17 USC 107. Fair use exists in the context of whether something is a violation of copyright, in the same sense that self-defense is authorized by the law but is still a defense to criminal charges. Notably, I didn't call it an affirmative defense because it is not one.