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

===== a. CCH builds a structured, user-friendly fair-dealing test =====

CCH sets out:
* Enumerated purposes (research, private study, etc.) interpreted broadly;
* A multi-factor fairness analysis with strong pro-user framing.

ROSS would argue:
* “Look—another common-law high court has adopted a structured, liberal, research-protective framework for analyzing informational uses. The U.S. should interpret fair use in a similar, research-friendly way, especially for legal information.”

TR does not want to invite that comparison. Their ideal framing:
* Treat fair use as a narrow, fact-bound exception, not a user-right.
* Focus on commerciality, market substitution, and the scale of copying.
* Keep the debate centered on U.S. four-factor case law that can be argued to cut against large-scale, commercial training on valuable proprietary databases.

Bringing in CCH risks encouraging the court to import user-rights rhetoric into U.S. fair-use analysis.