Real quick thoughts:
Steve and others ARE sticking to their primary business, and outsourcing enforcement on a contingency fee basis. Beats paying per letter to a site that will repost the content the next day.
The murky "bad precedent" argument is too vague. I am not sure people getting caught and having to pay the content producers is a bad precedent. Or establishing multiple cases where rulings make it clear that the BS defenses the pirates have are in fact BS.
Most importantly BITTORRENT IS NOT USED FOR LEGITIMATE DOWNLOADING. What a misguided argument. P2P is used to anonymously steal content (well, not so anonymous anymore
P2P would not be used by a content producer who sells content and has it downloaded directly from his site to his legitimate clients. Bit torrent is horribly slow and inefficient compared to a direct link to a porn site. When we see bit torrent, we ask ourselves, "Hmmm, what is this person stealing today". And one study showed that 99.3% of all BT is illegal. Anyone here use BT for legal purposes?
Oh and fair use has been so discredited by federal courts on this issue that I suggest people considering that argument obtaining a westlaw account and research it. People relying on that nonsense are going to be paying our clients big money.
At the end of the day, it is all about results. The number of companies contacting my firm since the AVN article is only overshadowed by the number of pirates tying up our phone lines to discuss settlement. Something tells me Steve will be more than vocal about any success we have for him.