I would argue that in the case of file-sharing that it's Trolling when the plaintiff is going after an individual who, when removed from the system of distribut

I would argue that in the case of file-sharing that it's Trolling when the plaintiff is going after an individual who, when removed from the system of distribution, would have no real effect on the rate or availability of the copyrighted work. Someone just downloading a copy would always fit this definition, and while BitTorrent always involves some amount of "distribution" by the legal definition, they don't represent a distributor in a meaningful way. Going after this individual does not protect the the monetization of the copyrighted work. The individual's actions only represent the loss of motorization for the single copy they might have purchased. The only possible argument for this protecting monetization of the copyrighted work would be some kind of "chilling effect" on others sharing, but given the prevalence of file sharing after decades of such legal cases, this seems like a extremely weak argument. Given that, then only reasonable conclusion is that the they are attempting to make money using the law itself, rather then using it to protect the monetization of the copyrighted work.