Part of the issue with this case, to me, is that the standing for bunnie does not adequately describe what is believed to be "paid for" content. As in, there is no differentiation between a streamed license or a purchased 'copy' in technical terms. To me this is a very important sticking point, legally, simply considering the nature of modern commerce.
I don't have the right to make and sell copies. I do certainly have that right for the original.