[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/computer-internet-rest...
Can you imagine if we allowed someone’s entire right to the courts be removed? In that instance, you wouldn’t even be able to challenge your lack of rights. That’s not right. But by advocating for no access to the courts in one instance, there will be people advocating for more. So we draw the line somewhere and say your right to the courts can’t be taken away.
I’m also ignoring how you’re ignoring the actual reality of the Prenda scandal. It wasn’t over copyright infringements lawsuits. It was about lying to the court. Sure, they filed frivolous lawsuits, but that wasn’t why they were arrested.
Paul Hansmeier isn't in jail for abusing copyright, or for doing anything the courts thought was wrong relating to copyright. He's in jail for misrepresenting facts to the court. The entire case against Prenda was that they represented to the court that they were agents of the copyright owner, when in fact they were the copyright owner themselves. There was nothing, legally, wrong with their suit.
And yet everyone seems to think of the Prenda case as a victory against copyright trolling. It is no such thing! Why would Hansmeier lose rights to own copyrights, when he didn't do anything wrong with the copyrights he had?
The minor point here is that what he's suing for has no connection to his misbehavior. If lying to the court in a copyright lawsuit doesn't bar him from suing for libel, there's no reason for it to bar him from suing for copyright infringement.
The major point is that malfeasance in a lawsuit can't get you barred from the courts, for the obvious reason that people can still commit crimes against you even if you once misrepresented yourself in court.