It’s interesting to see how as soon as intellectual property theft starts to be critical for powerful interests the legal system magically gets more lenient about copyright enforcement.
The balance between public good and protecting IP ownership of the creatives (which is, paradoxically, also part of the public good) has to be struck and enforced consistently.
Isn’t this decision in exact opposition to the point you’re trying to make?
It's interesting to see how people look for powerful interests to explain simple and correct supreme court decisions.