Actually, no, sale does not enter into it. One of the primary precedents for the expanded interpretation of the Commerce clause is Wickard vs. Filburn from 1942. SCOTUS determined that an Ohio man growing wheat as fodder for his animals and no other purpose was nevertheless subject to Federal limits on production and consequently liable for the statutory fine for his actions. The mere existence of Filburn's wheat was considered to have a *substantial economic effect,* according to the majority.

Yes!

For the first time, scholars and reviewers could quote briefly from copyrighted works without having to pay fees.

Prior to 1909 these arrangements were not unregulated. Often the fees were often nominal or wholly foregone. These fees did not significantly impair the ability of authors to react for and against, or academics to cite, previous work.

Better yet, in fuller response to the ostensible value of *fair use*, a term of 7 years might be more efficacious.

same old solution: vigilance.