There's no such thing. It's a meaningless phrase, in a legal sense. Claiming that infringement was accidental or unintentional is not a defense. It has no effect on a determination of guilt or innocence. All it affects is the penalty.
Fair use is a defense, but a more limited one than you seem to believe. The usual formulation is "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" but none of those apply to Copilot. Fair-use claims are also not accepted by default, but only by demonstration that the four factors defining it are all applicable.
Also, since you've brought it up recently, you as the defendant in a copyright case don't get to choose jurisdiction. Usually the plaintiff does, either because it's explicitly defined in the same license that grants anyone rights at all or because it's a place where they do business. If you live in a different jurisdiction that might affect whether the plaintiff or court can collect any penalties, but not whether any are assessed. Having yourself declared persona non grata in multiple jurisdictions doesn't seem like a good long-term choice.
Instead of "flooding the zone" with dozens of comments offering nothing but the same few (false) claims - strong echoes of a recently banned user BTW - I strongly suggest you actually read up on copyright and fair use. They're not whatever you want them to be. Courts are unimpressed by your towering intellect.
Statutory damages still apply.
> I have an innocent infringer defense
There's no such thing. It's a meaningless phrase, in a legal sense. Claiming that infringement was accidental or unintentional is not a defense. It has no effect on a determination of guilt or innocence. All it affects is the penalty.
Fair use is a defense, but a more limited one than you seem to believe. The usual formulation is "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" but none of those apply to Copilot. Fair-use claims are also not accepted by default, but only by demonstration that the four factors defining it are all applicable.
Also, since you've brought it up recently, you as the defendant in a copyright case don't get to choose jurisdiction. Usually the plaintiff does, either because it's explicitly defined in the same license that grants anyone rights at all or because it's a place where they do business. If you live in a different jurisdiction that might affect whether the plaintiff or court can collect any penalties, but not whether any are assessed. Having yourself declared persona non grata in multiple jurisdictions doesn't seem like a good long-term choice.
https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html
Instead of "flooding the zone" with dozens of comments offering nothing but the same few (false) claims - strong echoes of a recently banned user BTW - I strongly suggest you actually read up on copyright and fair use. They're not whatever you want them to be. Courts are unimpressed by your towering intellect.