Google vs. Authors

Mr. Russo seems to suggest that all of the courts of law that have heard this issue have been corrupted without providing a scintilla of evidence to support such a claim (yes, I’m indulging in legalese, but my reason is poetic — it just sounds so good). Before impugning the ethics of many lawyers and judges, should he not make a good faith effort to explain that doctrine and then explain why the Authors Guild’s claims are so legally self-evident that the only reasonable explanation of its losses is a corrupted process? In the absence of such an attempt, isn’t that claim simply a facile and, frankly, childish response to a legal loss? The essay would be much improved by simply cutting that paragraph.