Editing Openai/6924739c-2300-800e-9743-65c152c213f1 (section)

===== b. CCH strongly emphasises user rights and research uses =====

Bad (or at least risky) for TR:
* CCH characterizes fair dealing as a “user’s right”, not merely a defence.
* It interprets “research” very broadly and analogizes fair dealing to a constitutional-style balancing of access and protection.
* It ultimately finds that the Law Society’s custom photocopy service for legal research was fair dealing, despite systematic copying.

That is a narrative ROSS would happily import:
* “Just as CCH treated the law library’s copying as user-oriented research, this AI system enables legal research; the real beneficiaries are lawyers and the public.”
* “CCH shows that even substantial copying of law-report material can be fair when it serves research and access-to-law purposes.”

Once CCH is on the table, the court will read the whole thing, not just the paragraph TR likes. TR may decide that the upside (more support for originality) is outweighed by the downside (comparative support for expansive research exceptions).