I understand what Gizmodo is trying to say here, but... Shouldn't that be "90 percent of potential infringing IP addresses", rather than "pirates"? These suit

I understand what Gizmodo is trying to say here, but... Shouldn't that be "90 percent of potential infringing IP addresses", rather than "pirates"? These suits are not exactly renowned for accuracy of identifying IP addresses that might be involved in infringement, so they should say "potential". Probably a lot of corpse's, printer's and router's IP addresses would ultimately get dropped anyway. Infringement isn't even theft, much less "piracy". Also, these are almost certainly "John Doe" IP addresses, USCG almost certainly just named them in order to get subpoenas to get the billing address for the IP addresses in order to name the nominal user of the IP address, and shake them down for some fee greater than trivial, but less than what a court case would take. Dropping 90% of the John Doe IP addresses is interesting, but "why" would be even more interesting. Is USCG wising up, by maybe watching what happened to Righthaven? Has the court in question finally communicated that jurisdiction and standing matter to it? Something else?