Not entirely. Per my understanding, this is a fairly big shift:
"The fair use question is a mixed question of fact and law. Reviewing courts should appropriately defer to the jury’s findings of underlying facts, but the ultimate question whether those facts amount to a fair use is a legal question for judges to decide de novo. This approach does not violate the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on courts reexamining facts tried by a jury, because the ultimate question here is one of law, not fact. The “right of trial by jury” does not include
the right to have a jury resolve a fair use defense."
Or to put it another way, convincing a jury that something is or isn't fair use is very different than convincing precedent-bound judges, especially with this on the books as the controlling case.
In final impact, it seems like an incredibly good judgement for everyone: you can prove to a jury what was / wasn't copied, and then a judge will apply a standard fair use test over those facts, with a tendency towards allowing transformative use.
Legal protections against copying, room for progress, and (most importantly!) more certainty and standardization in how cases are decided.
That analysis is addressing an argument that the Supreme Court could not overturn the finding that it was not fair use. That argument was based on the Seventh Amendment's reexamination clause. The Supreme Court held that the reexamination clause did not prevent it from addressing this issue, because the question is a mixed question of law and fact, i.e., it's a legal conclusion based on evidentiary facts. The Supreme Court cannot re-examine the "underlying facts," but the Seventh Amendment does not preclude it from deciding, as a matter of law, whether those underlying facts constitute fair use.
That may be true, I remember there was quite a bit of surprise when the Court of Appeals overrode the fair use jury finding (not so much because they decided differently, but rather the fact that they set aside the jury's finding at all).
Well, it sounds like it's still the same test; it's just deciding that fair use cases must be decided by judges, not by juries. Which, as you say, seems like a good decision.
"The fair use question is a mixed question of fact and law. Reviewing courts should appropriately defer to the jury’s findings of underlying facts, but the ultimate question whether those facts amount to a fair use is a legal question for judges to decide de novo. This approach does not violate the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on courts reexamining facts tried by a jury, because the ultimate question here is one of law, not fact. The “right of trial by jury” does not include the right to have a jury resolve a fair use defense."
Or to put it another way, convincing a jury that something is or isn't fair use is very different than convincing precedent-bound judges, especially with this on the books as the controlling case.
In final impact, it seems like an incredibly good judgement for everyone: you can prove to a jury what was / wasn't copied, and then a judge will apply a standard fair use test over those facts, with a tendency towards allowing transformative use.
Legal protections against copying, room for progress, and (most importantly!) more certainty and standardization in how cases are decided.