Bridgeport Music, Inc. - Who are you?

Tim Wu, a copyright and communications professor at Columbia Law School refers to Bridgeport as the "shady one-man corporation that's destroying hip hop" in his article for Slate, Jay-Z versus the Sample Troll. Wu accuses Bridgeport (or Armen Boladian, its "one man") of using lawsuits "to extort money from successful music artists for routine sampling, no matter how minimal or unnoticeable." Additionally, Bridgeport supposedly owns no other assets except a catalogue of copyrights "accumulated in dubious fashion."

All of these claims aspire to shed some light on Bridgeport's potentially ethically questionable operations. From monetary extortion to copyright fraud, is Bridgeport abusing copyright laws for fat checks from hard working artists?

First, let's look into what Bridgeport Music, Inc. really does - what products and services do they offer? Is Boladian really its sole employee? Who are they really?

Incorporated in 1969 as a profit corporation with the purpose "To engage in the business of publishing music," Bridgeport began with 3 board of directors (the minimum number required to file an Articles of Incorporation document), Armen Boladian, Louise Boladian and Elizabeth Amboian. So it started with more than one person, though at least one of the other two was most likely a family member.

A quick Google search for Bridgeport Music, Inc. pulled up lots of court cases and articles about the company's lawsuits, but 3rd on the list was their corporate site: http://bridgeportmusicinc.com/
Clicking around revealed that every single tab and link from About Us to FAQ leads to the same current page with a list of songs "available for licensing." No news, no additional services, and no more contact info aside from the phone number and email listed at the top of the page. Now this is of concern...what reputable company would have such a webpage in this day and age? And why are there no news or services?

It seems that Bridgeport is indeed nothing more than a catalogue company holding copyrights.

Should such a company have the right to pursue legal actions against other artists actually contributing creative media to the music scene? Copyright laws were enacted to benefit the creator of a original work. Bridgeport did not create and is not creating any original works. Even if sampling is undisputedly copyright infringement, should Bridgeport be the one filing the claims and cashing the checks? Is the intent of the copyright laws being upheld in this court case?