I very much agree that fair use should be expanded, but I don't think it's the job of the court to do that. They are supposed to interpret the law, not write it.

Fair enough. But the way the ruling danced around free speech and instead ruled that fair use was really about ‘conduct’ is not something I agree with. That distinct category seems invented to curtail speech and the distinction between the two seems intentionally vague. Where is the line between process and speech? It seems to me that it is ‘conduct’ in this case because it involves technology, which seems like a terrible precedent to set.

‘Can’t say ____ online, as online speech is mediated via computer and is therefore conduct.’