it does, because they were adducing a cause of action that doesn't exist in either statute or caselaw. nor was it asserted by the plaintiffs, because that would have gotten their case summarily dismissed. moreover, to believe that it existed, you would have to have a comprehensively incorrect understanding of the legislative and political history of us copyright law. anyone who wants to understand any of the arguments or decisions in the case needs to understand what cause of action is actually being asserted and what the possible alternatives were. reading misleading comments about imaginary legal theories the author just made up makes that more difficult