Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan...

Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.

You keep implying the fair use factors are evaluated separately. They're balanced together. And the other 3 factors are against the officer.

You're wrong. I assure you, I know this stuff. If the owner can't demonstrate harm, they have no case. "The other three factors" don't cause harm to the owner, so they have no case.

You can't successfully bring a tort case (which copyright infringement is) if you can't demonstrate harm.

> I assure you, I know this stuff

Where did you go to law school, exactly?

Copyright infringement is not tort. Copyright infringement is a creature of federal law, not common law like tort is. And copyright owners can claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work in lieu of actual damages at their election. See 17 U.S. 504(c).

And fair use is a defense to a prima facie copyright infringement claim.

Copyright infringement is a statutory tort. But you're right the law makes the infringement itself a violation. And fair use is just a defense.