What+she+was+doing+was+perfectly+fine

What she was doing was perfectly fine
Here are some links to background research: [|Copyright and Fair Use] [|Courts: You must consider fair use] [|Electronic Frontier Foundation: Data Privacy]

Here are my five best arguments to make my claim Here are 3 arguments that might come from the other side and what I will say to argue against it Here are some broader situations which apply to this case:
 * 1 || She only took two minutes out of the hour episode. She summarized the main parts of the episode into a quick action packed informational video for someone who missed it (Copyright and Fair Use- the less substance you take, the more likely it will be excused as fair use). ||
 * 2 || Everything in the video actually happened, she didn't edit the content. (Copyright and Fair Use-No new info or insight was added to change the meaning) ||
 * 3 || The music she put in the background was hers. She composed it and produced it herself. ||
 * 4 || She didn't change the tone of the show because it already consists of lots of violence.(Copyright and Fair Use-No new info or insight was added to change the meaning) ||
 * 5 || Lots of people make videos like that online and they don't get in trouble so why should she? It's socially accepted because it's a form of art.(According to Royal Academy of Arts, Wright, Michael) ||
 * || Counter-Argument || What I will Say to respond: ||
 * 1 || She changed the meaning of the scene. || The scene of fighting doesn't change by music in the background. In the end people still see fighting, and do not interpret it differently. ||
 * 2 || The music that was used in the background, she downloaded and came from an illegal source. || She did not use all of the song, and did not edit the song at all. ||
 * 3 || She didn't get permission from Viacom/The Jerry Springer show. || She doesn't need permission because she got it from the internet and only shows two minutes of the hour long show. It is not a substantial amount of the show to need permission. ||