> This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here

Why do you think that? For-profit companies use fair use all the time. Its not unusual.

Yes, a usage being non-commercial can be a factor in favour of fair use, but its just one factor. Its definitely not a neccesary condition nor is it a sufficient condition.

> If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ?

Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods.

> Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ?

No. That's not the reason this is potentially fair use.

[Although as an aside it uses to be in Canada that only uploading was illegal].

> This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here.

I think you're conflating "fair use" with "non-profit", or at least nudging that direction. That's too simplistic. Fair use is a four-factor test, and profitability is not among the four.

> This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here

Fair use can be for profit.

> if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use

No, seeding is automatically not fair use. Leeching does not automatically mean its not fair use, just that it might be.

If you pirate a movie, watch it, and talk about it but don't distribute it then yes that's fair use. People literally do this all the time.