> And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed.
Yes, they considered and decided that they are big enough to violate and do what they want, since they aren't violating rights of other big entities, just of nobodies.
Feel free to cite what they violated. People are really quick to claim this but can't back it up or grab one of two sentences from one of the copyright statutes and claim it's a clear violation without any understanding of what they just copied.
Grabbing random sentences from statue is a way for non-lawyers to get horribly confused. Those old Dilbert strips, the pointy-haired boss saying "I removed all your semicolons" or "I think mauve has the most RAM"? Lawyers will see us as the PHB.
(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
(3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.
(4) Copying in relation to a film or broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film or broadcast.
…
(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.
"""
I'm not even remotely a lawyer, so I don't know if this is as relevant as it appears.
Yes, they considered and decided that they are big enough to violate and do what they want, since they aren't violating rights of other big entities, just of nobodies.