the "horse-trading" (§ II.B.5) sounds particularly egregious. I think there's a strong case to be made there (well, they *have* made this case) that any proceeds from this trading would have been paid to the plaintiffs if the law were being followed. it's hard to hang "we're just little uwu fair-use small guys" on it when you're doing deals to sell what you stole to another guy, and buying some of his lifted inventory.