> transformativeness is not dispositive in and of itself in the context of a fair use defense

Could you dumb this sentence down for me?

I would guess it means that making a derived work, changing the original, makes no difference in whether reproducing the work (in altered form) is fair use.

But that sounds well-established, I can't imagine that movies would suddenly be legal to distribute if you just distribute the file backwards (people can then reverse it again to watch it), whether or not you claim that the distribution is fair use or not copyrighted to begin with or whatever. Probably that's not what this court had to decide and I'm misunderstanding something?