The 'name and shame' angle is really curious - the lawyers threatening to do this are instructed by the copyright holders -- ie the companies that own the right

The 'name and shame' angle is really curious - the lawyers threatening to do this are instructed by the copyright holders -- ie the companies that own the rights to the pornography in the first place. The rights holders probably produced the pornography too, or at the very least are in charge of its distribution. It's a peculiar state of affairs when a company wants to assert shame for (allegedly) viewing/possessing the material they produced/distributed. I wonder what message that says to people who legitimately purchased, viewed and own copies of the same titles the rights holder is trying to shame people over?