No, that part of the ruling was in the background facts section of the case. (see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217/gov.uscourts.

No, that part of the ruling was in the background facts section of the case. (see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217.322.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.52...) The crux of the matter was this, quoted from discussion portion of the ruling (aka, the part where the judge explains the reasoning behind their decision): "On those undisputed facts, in 2020 Locast made far more money from user charges than was necessary to defray its costs of maintaining and operating its service," Stanton wrote." The copyright exemption for non-profits explicitly limits revenue to the costs of providing the service, and no more. (Note that the way the exemption is written, this means current and past costs associated with the service, not prospective future costs such as those associated with expansion. Locast could have expanded; they simply aren't allowed to raise the money to pay for the expansion until after they have actually expanded. This is a deliberate and intended result of the law, which is intended to limit the size and growth of non-profit re-broadcasters while still allowing their existence.) Locast could have kept operating, by reducing the donations it collected. Shutting down was entirely its own decision.