So, this is copyright trolling, and not patent trolling.
But why is this example of non-practicing entities using law to troll for (copyright) damages seen as terrible by this judge, when non-practicing entities using law to troll for (patent) damages seen as great by other judges?
(Also, the federal thing is confusing to me, but I'm going to web search an answer for that.)
EDIT: Thanks for submitting a Popehat article. It was really good. I like torrentfreak, but this article had more legal "stuff"; a feeling of legal truthiness.
In cases like this, law firms are supposed to be independent of the rights owner. That's why they went through all these gymnastics to hide the fact that they'd bought the IP and were basically representing themselves.
But why is this example of non-practicing entities using law to troll for (copyright) damages seen as terrible by this judge, when non-practicing entities using law to troll for (patent) damages seen as great by other judges?
(Also, the federal thing is confusing to me, but I'm going to web search an answer for that.)
EDIT: Thanks for submitting a Popehat article. It was really good. I like torrentfreak, but this article had more legal "stuff"; a feeling of legal truthiness.