IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the old "TA-DA!" ploy would be countered by the "I hereby sentence you to five years in Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison" maneuver. Of course, he could counter with the "But I'm crazier than a shithouse rat!" defense, to which the proper judicial response (if hazy memories of old Perry Mason TV shows serve me correctly) would be "We are not amused."
Earlier in 2013 he created a cyber-investigation service, which cracks the real identities of cyber bullies who post defamatory material online. The release of names and identities is part of this new service, for one of Monsarrat's client with an ongoing legal case against cyber bullies. His company is working in partnership with Defend My Name, perhaps the most technically advanced of the top anti-defamation services, and Ishman Law Firm, which has expertise in defending victims from cyber-attack.
OK, groovy. He's got patented technology to identify anonymous posters online. And yet, in his actual Complaint it states:
Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 100 are individuals whose true names and addresses of residence are currently unknown and unascertainable by Plaintiff, who have defamed Plaintiff through various false and defamatory Internet postings, and Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff intends to identify the Doe Defendants through means of discovery and will amend this lawsuit to identify the Doc Defendants by proper legal names upon obtaining such information.
He owns a cyber-investigation service. Wouldn't he have already identified these Does? Is his means of discovery the same old 'harvest IP addresses then subpoena ISPs for the actual name' shuck and jive the copyright trolls have been trying? Or do you have to notify the court before using cyber-investigation kung fu?
Reputations are forged in the crucible of collective society. You don't own them. Reputations can own you, however, if you define yourself only through past achievements and spend your days zealously guarding what once was, at the cost of what is.
The ultimate goal of any for-profit org is to literally turn you upside-down and shake every penny out of your pockets. Taking just 3.4% must seem a teeth-grinding compromise for SABAM (and does anyone else think that name sounds like laundry detergent?). Companies may propose any damn thing they please; it's up to those affected by these proposals to tell them to go pound sand.
Your discussion with Akiri re 'attribution' brings to mind a concept perhaps closer to what you may be thinking about - provenance - wherein
"[t]he primary purpose of tracing the provenance of an object or entity is normally to provide contextual and circumstantial evidence for its original production or discovery..."
which if you think for a moment sounds like the idealized version of metadata. Technology has caused the current churn in how copyright is viewed; perhaps someday descendants of current search/match algorithms will provide an automated provenance for any work appearing online: "This is the work of so-and-so; the style is in the school of such-and-such; the classical themes of thus-and thus are mirrored in the work." and so on.
Sadly, the only response to the assertions of posturing lawyers is to drag in another layer of attorneys. Traditional - honorable - remediations such as pillow fights or drinking contests are unavailing once the nuclear legal option is deployed.
The gentleman from France perhaps forgets that the creation of town centers devastated the door-to-door trade. Who speaks for the peddlers? And at what point in searching history do we stop and say 'this fits my ideal of commerce; let's use this system from the Middle Ages'?
In striving to become inoffensive to all, Google will evolve into some weird analog of gut bacteria: necessary for the smooth operation of the corpus internetum, but not something you'd want your sister to date.