Maybe but to me this seems like an ad hominem argument - just because he did it for money doesn't mean there isn't some value in his argument. As I mentioned i

Maybe but to me this seems like an ad hominem argument - just because he did it for money doesn't mean there isn't some value in his argument. As I mentioned in another comment, if we substitute student work for music tracks then this wouldn't even be an argument. This ruling is saying it is within my fair use rights to profit from dealing with copyrighted media abstractly, so long as I don't distribute the media itself. What I haven't seen mentioned is that when there is a match on plagiarism then the teachers do get access to the plagiarised document - so they are profiting from using and distributing copyrighted material they have no rights to.