It would be a massive shock.

Catherine R. Gellis, “Brief of Amici Curiae Members of Congress in Support of Defendant-Appellant and For Reversal,” United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 09-25-2017, https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/regulations.gov.astm.appeal/1694498.pdf

Courts have repeatedly held that increasing public access to information constitutes a public benefit. In Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assocs., a district court held that reproducing stills from a historically important video was for the public benefit because there is a societal interest in the people having the “fullest information available.” 293 F. Supp. 130, 146 (S.D.N.Y. 1968); see also Online Policy Grp. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (publishing corporate emails about voting machines was in the public interest). Meanwhile in Sony, the Supreme Court found that the ability to record television programs benefitted the public because it extended access to television. 464 U.S. at 454. Similarly, because Public Resource’s activities expand the public’s access to the laws that govern them, it has also created a public benefit. That, combined with the fact that Public Resource is a non-profit organization and its activities are non-commercial, supports a finding that the first fair use factor weighs strongly in its favor.4