The article (or the judge) didn't overlook it. The whole basis is that Democracy Now made a reasonable settlement offer.
The point of the article is that the copyright infringement is a mouse to the trolling elephant.
The lawyer basically offers a risk free offer to clients en masse where if he finds someone to sue, you'll get a cut. He basically gets enforcement rights to a portfolio.
Then, he finds targets (who ideally did use someone's photo without paying for it) and threatens to drown them in legal costs. Settle big or we keep going. Now they're under legal attack, expensive and scary.
Then, it turns out that this massive trial generating >$100k in legal costs was over a stinking $1000 that the copyright owner/troll could have had months ago.
Where are you seeing that in the decision? If they thought it was abusive, they'd throw it out. Requiring a bond to be posted is not the same as finding it to be abusive.
The point of the article is that the copyright infringement is a mouse to the trolling elephant.
The lawyer basically offers a risk free offer to clients en masse where if he finds someone to sue, you'll get a cut. He basically gets enforcement rights to a portfolio.
Then, he finds targets (who ideally did use someone's photo without paying for it) and threatens to drown them in legal costs. Settle big or we keep going. Now they're under legal attack, expensive and scary.
Then, it turns out that this massive trial generating >$100k in legal costs was over a stinking $1000 that the copyright owner/troll could have had months ago.
The judge thought this was abusive.