He misinterprets my first line as claiming this is setting a precedent. No, I'm talking about how they would want this to turn into something that sets this up as a precedent, because simply a random fight is pointless expense.
Secondly... unless you can bring a lawyer in to disprove my points, I, like I said, have actually been studying this stuff for a while and am reasonably confident on this point. This is, Constitutionally, a bad case for Warner, and precisely because I don't think they are stupid, give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this was an at-least semi-automated process gone wrong. That certainly happens often enough, after all.
Other explanations exist; simple intimidation, some "larger" plan, the belief they can ram it through with enough money, an order from a non-lawyer on top going against lawyerly advice.
Frankly, assuming that companies always act rationally, even given the information available from their point of view, is naive and not supported by the facts, a point I've seen from the inside of plenty of tech and non-tech companies. Going off on people for failing to assume this is not justified.
And this is political free speech, debating how the law works. This is "copyright infringement"/Fair Use at the highest standard of education and political debate, where the courts should most fear to tread. Obviously he could take it too far, but given the fuzziness of Fair Use and how it tends to be ruled this is nowhere near egregious violation.
I favor the automated failure theory. If they were out to make a point I'm sure they could find something more clear, and a target less well defended (and funded) than a famous law professor. There's little upside for them here (even if they win, they only create a martyr) and some downside.