I agree with the title and general sentiment, but the article comes across as a diatribe and the author does not seem to be arguing completely in good faith ("T

I agree with the title and general sentiment, but the article comes across as a diatribe and the author does not seem to be arguing completely in good faith ("There’s no evidence the borrowing program scooped up any independent writers’ income" relies entirely on the impossibility of proving a counterfactual). I want more information about the nitty gritty details of the case; the implications of the ruling on the CDL and books besides the 133 involved in the suit. It's seems like a pretty narrow case; not an existential threat to the IA itself.