Seems like everybody... including Hollywood Reporter... really wants to rename Judge Kenney; must be that ever-popular Kennedy name - real star power! But the docs say Kenney, and rubber stamps don't lie.
And regarding the Dickens example... that's the whole point: The fly-by-nighters were illegally selling exact copies of his complete work -- that's what was covered by copyright, and that's why it was illegal. If they were selling a new work in which Ebenezer Scrooge flew the Cratchits to the south of France for a holiday -- even if it were clearly derivative -- that wouldn't have violated copyright.
"How To Speak Australian"... did they suggest substituting "dribble" for "drivel"? Or maybe it was onomatopoeia - the sound of his firm's reputation dribbling into the loo, complete with its down-under drainwater swirling, of course, in a counter-clockwise direction.
"... benefit from the value of some copyright-protected cultural goods and services without ever paying for using them..."
"Copyright-protected" - that would be, ummm, the entire website, right? I've benefited from visiting websites "without ever paying for using them", so I guess I'm guilty as charged. Stick my fiber connection into the guillotine, Madame!