I try to make the analysis more about the facts and the situation rather than about parties' identities. I don't want to make it sound like I have any kind of agenda toward a particular type of entity. I hear what you're saying though.
Here this party identity adds a lot of clarity. Online platform is very ambiguous as to what it even is that is being dicussed. And the litigation is the result of actions of a specific company.
With that adjective it sounds as though you didn't think much respect was due to begin with!
In any event, the summary is very clear that this was a motion to dismiss, not a trial judgment. So your critique is likely to mislead.
And yes, the court left open the option for plaintiff to replead. But I would suggest that does not do much to mitigate the extent to which the court's reasoning here as to how the agreement could limit a claim of copyright is questionable.
But thanks for your comments. I just did not feel that your word choice reflected well on our profession. Let's try to be friends anyway!
