I disagree with both articles. Galassi's position is the publishers are entitled to produce or to a cut of the profits of ebooks, and Esposito's position is that the publisher has a moral claim but not a legal claim. I don't believe publishers have either a moral claim or a legal claim on the authors work in regards to ebooks.
Bloomsbury was the original publisher of J.K. Rowlings’ Harry Potter series, but that doesn’t entitle them to Rowlings’ profits from the Harry Potter movies — legally or morally. Likewise, publishers have no legal or moral claim on ebooks, which didn’t even exist when authors contracted with the publishers in the first place.