If you want to understand why the Times case has a near zero probability of winning, then read this thread. This fellow does a nice write up and he seems sincere in his belief that what he is saying about the suit is accurate and correct when in fact it’s basically just a lot of wishful thinking, misunderstanding of copyright law and red herrings. He’s really hopeful that this case will cement the media’s right to charge machines to learn, something not even remotely covered by copyright law. The text does not say what he thinks it says and it does not even come close to a “slam dunk.” In fact, the opposite.