> The server has no access restrictions for the Javascript URL, presumably. So, if you trust the server's configuration to match the owner's intent, then the ow

> The server has no access restrictions for the Javascript URL, presumably. So, if you trust the server's configuration to match the owner's intent, then the owner was saying "this page is intended for public consumption." That argument did not help weev with AT&T. If they are distributing the code, they are allowed to do that as the copyright owner. That's why it's called copyright. But that doesn't grant anyone else the right to distribute the content. By your argument, any content posted anywhere publicly on the Internet is not subject to copyright restrictions. Which is clearly not the case. > The owner never put a copyright claim against anyone else making copies of this work. It's unlikely they are aware of anyone else distributing their work. This may be the only unauthorized distribution of this work so far. > transformative use (it's visible source code, not an executing program!), There is nothing transformative about this. > of a small part of their copyrighted work (it's just the Javascript!), It must be very small; an excerpt. This is not an excerpt of the program. > There's probably even more arguments than these. If they're of the same quality they're unlikely to make a difference. These are poor arguments. Fair use never* applies to copying a complete work. * It's perhaps possible; but this case certainly doesn't qualify.