The interesting thing about the ed Sheeran verdict is that it went the completely opposite direction of the Blurred Lines case.
The Blurred Lines case was exponentially weaker and less clear. That verdict should never have been allowed and will likely be reversed.
When you consider that Led Zeppelin (among others) has gotten away with much clearer violations many times, it seems insane that blurred lines was considered a copyright violation.
In Sheeran's case - the fact that he totally ripped off the groove, feel and chord progression of another song and then changed the melody and lyrics, and added a different chorus, is annoying as fuck to me - but absolutely not copyright violation.
This is how art and music works.
In my personal world - I don't (try not to) support artists that do this shit, because it is not something I enjoy. But others love it and the guy sells millions of records by being derivative. Good for him - it's legal, just unethical in my opinion.
In my perfect world, Sheeran would have credited the original writer as a co-writer and the music world would be a better place.
I have very clear beliefs in this area, they are arcane - but so am I.