Key here would be transformation rather than reproduction?
Youtube is mentioned in the 2013 brief:
>b. According to the YouTube “Terms of Service,” users who upload content
to YouTube retain all of their ownership rights in their content. By
uploading their content to YouTube, however, such users grant YouTube a
license to use, reproduce, and distribute such content.
>
>c. In general, the further reproduction and distribution of videos that are
taken from the Youtube.com platform violates the copyright of the
individual who uploaded that video to Youtube.com.
Solely making a copy isn't copyright infringement, otherwise your ISP, your browser cache, the CDNs providing data caching on the internet, your screen, your router, and about a million other components in the stream would need a license for each piece of data.
Infringing copyright requires far more than this.
And if the output is transformative, then they can read whatever public facing information they can find, just as you can.
If I steal loaf of bread from bakery to make bread statue what does the guy who delivered bread have to do with my act of thievery? Is he also a thief just because bread was transported in his van to the bakery?
What the heck are you going on about with isp, router, screen etc? Btw, have you heard about HTTPS and what it does, while we are at it?
Same as the cart in the store. If you take it out of the cart and save it in the home folder, well. If you put a web server on the home folder (or cache folder), well well well...
So how much of a book of poems can I assemble from other books of poems and spit out as an ebook on amazon before it is not "transformative and fair use"? Few words, sentence, chapter?
There's a difference between a fair-use reproduction of Mickey and reproducing an image of Mickey that you claim is your own original creation (or there was until the copyright ran out recently).
It’s called the open internet.