use” — -not fair use — of the work. Nothing in Universal’s methodology considered the purpose and character of the use, the commercial or noncommercial nature of the use, or whether the use would have a significant impact on the market for the copyrighted work. See § 107. There is therefore no disputed issue of fact: Universal did not consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice. Moreover, Universal knew it had not considered fair use, because § 107 explicitly supplies the factors that “shall” be considered in determining whether a use is fair. Id. I see no reason in law or logic to excuse copyright holders from the general principle that knowledge of the law is presumed. See United States v. Int’l Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 562-63, 91 S.Ct. 1697, 29 L.Ed.2d 178 (1971) (<HOLDING>). As explained above, that is sufficient in my
holding as a general proposition that ignorance of the law is not a defense to a statutes violation the term knowingly in the election code refers only to a persons knowledge of the act of making or accepting a contribution and not to whether the contribution violated the election code recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law holding that the use of the word knowingly did not evince a legislative intent to earve out an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons