Regarding the "cleaned up" version, perhaps, it just won't be profitable? From judge's order:
"Further, Plaintiffs cannot conclude whether that person spoofed the IP address, is the
subscriber of that IP address, or is someone else using that subscriber’s Internet
access. Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires
substantial effort in order to make a case. It is simply not economically viable to
properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video."
Maybe. I don't know enough about it to tell. It sounds like like a lot of the stuff leading to the judges angry response is somewhat incidental to the business model.
In any case, if they hadn't evaded taxes, forged signatures and were "legitimately" representing copyright owners they may not have gotten such "harsh" treatment from the judge. So even if not completely above board, they may have escaped with a wrist slap and moved on to another scam.
"Further, Plaintiffs cannot conclude whether that person spoofed the IP address, is the subscriber of that IP address, or is someone else using that subscriber’s Internet access. Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires substantial effort in order to make a case. It is simply not economically viable to properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video."