Attorney Steve® Torrent Defense Law - [You CLICK, we DEFEND®] - Miami-Dade County Court Lawsuit Overview.

Welcome to our Blog.  If you are facing a bittorrent legal action, call us to discuss your case in confidence.  We can be reached at (877) 276-5084.

How to find out how many movies are at issue in the Florida "bill of discovery" case.

VIDEO:  Here is an easy way to find out how many movies are being allegedly infringed as noted in the Florida Bill of Discovery case.  Call us for a free consultation if your IP address is involved in the case.

Introduction

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is a prolific filer of copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States.  However, many people do not know how the case may start.  It may start in the State of Florida with a "bill of discovery" case.  In this case, 100's or "unknown infringers" may be sued (naming only I.P. addresses allegedly involved in the infringement).  In some cases, a Florida lawyer can quash the subpoena.  But, what happens next?  We have found that many California residents end up being sued in California even following a quash.  

Some clients ask "if I quashed the subpoena, how does Strike 3 know to sue me in California?"  Well, they knew through their geo-location technology where you were located (generally) in the first place - even before filing their bill of discovery in Florida.  Now, they are just pursuing you where you are located.  This means, you will end up in a federal court lawsuit if they decide to pursue you - which is very likely in our opinion and through our experience handling hundreds of infringement cases.

This blog discusses how to find out how many movies are at issue.  Normally, the more the movies the higher the settlement.  This video shows you how to do that (click on the image above).

Watch Attorney Steve® explain an overview of BitTorrent technology and file-sharing lawsuits

VIDEO:  Attorney Steve® overview of the BitTorrent litigation process in the United States.

Cases Filed

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC VS UNKNOWN INFRINGERS IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT 1

May 2021

Local Case Number:  2021-016540-CC-05

State case number:  132021CC016540000005

Filing Date: 05/25/2021

Case type:  Equitable relief under $30,000

______________________

Bill of Discovery - Sample Allegations

Here are some of the allegations being made in the case:

COMPLAINT IN EQUITY FOR A PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY

Plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3” or “Plaintiff”), brings this complaint against Defendants, Unknown Infringers identified on Exhibit 1 (“Defendants”) and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a Complaint for a pure bill of discovery. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks only to identify the name and address of certain Internet subscribers whose IP address has been identified as infringing Plaintiff's copyrighted content so that Plaintiff may bring a copyright infringement action. The only remedy sought by this lawsuit is limited discovery so that Plaintiff can identify the appropriate defendant for a subsequent copyright infringement lawsuit.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Strike 3 is a Delaware limited liability company located at 2140 S. Dupont Hwy, Camden, DE. Strike 3 is the owner of the copyright(s) for the motion picture(s) set forth on Exhibit 1. Filing # 127531676 E-Filed 05/25/2021 07:14:32 PM

3. Defendants are unknown infringers using the BitTorrent protocol, an anonymous file sharing service, to obtain Plaintiff's copyrighted movies and distribute them to others throughout the country, including in Florida, without Plaintiff's consent or authorization. Defendant distributed Plaintiff's motion pictures to Plaintiff's servers that are located in Florida. Thus, the tortious acts took place within Florida. Defendants are known only by the IP addresses listed on Exhibit 1.

4. An IP address is a number that is assigned by an Internet Service Provider (an “ISP”) to devices, such as computers, that are connected to the Internet.

5. Spectrum (Charter Communications Operating, LLC) is the ISP in control of each IP address on Exhibit 1 and can correlate the name and address of the person subscribing to the Internet account behind each IP address, enabling Plaintiff to identify Defendants' true identity.

6. Defendants used BitTorrent websites to access, download, and distribute Plaintiff's motion pictures that are accessible in Miami-Dade County and accessed by Florida residents using the BitTorrent protocol, and thus those tortious acts took place within Florida.

7. Indeed, Defendants have been recorded distributing Plaintiff's motion pictures into Miami-Dade County, and thus those tortious acts took place within Florida.

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because a pure bill of discovery falls within the equity jurisdiction of the County Court and the amount in controversy does not exceed $30,000, as discovery is the only relief sought. See § 34.01(4), Fla. Stat.

9. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have occurred, have been performed, or have otherwise been waived or excused.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright(s) for the motion picture(s) set forth on Exhibit 1, (each individually a “Work” and collectively the “Works”).

11. Each of the Doe Defendants infringed Plaintiffs' copyrights in and to the Works set forth on Exhibit 1.

12. As set forth below, Plaintiff has an actionable claim for direct copyright infringement against each of the Defendants based on each Defendants' use of the “BitTorrent” protocol to illegally download, reproduce, redistribute and perform one of Plaintiff's Works.

A. Plaintiff's Award-Winning Copyrights.

13. Plaintiff's subscription-based websites proudly boast a paid subscriber base that is one of the highest of any adult-content sites in the world. Plaintiff also licenses its motion pictures to popular broadcasters and its motion pictures are the among the most popular selling DVDs in its genre in the United States.

14. Unfortunately, Plaintiff, like a large number of other makers of motion picture and television works, is plagued by Internet piracy. Often appearing among the most infringed popular entertainment content on torrent websites, Plaintiff's motion pictures are among the most pirated content in the world. B. The Unknown Defendants Used BitTorrent to Infringe Plaintiff's Copyrights.

15. BitTorrent is a system designed to quickly distribute large files over the Internet. Instead of downloading a file, such as a movie, from a single source, BitTorrent users are able to connect to the computers of other BitTorrent users to simultaneously download and upload pieces of the file from and to other users.

16. To use BitTorrent to download a movie, the user must obtain a “torrent” file for that movie from a torrent website. The torrent file contains instructions for identifying the Internet addresses of other BitTorrent users who have the movie, and for downloading the movie from those users. Once a user downloads all of the pieces of that movie from the other BitTorrent users, the movie is automatically reassembled into its original form, ready for playing.

17. BitTorrent's popularity stems from the ability of users to directly interact with each other to distribute a large file without creating a heavy load on any individual source computer and/or network. It enables Plaintiff's motion pictures, which are often filmed in state of the art 4kHD, to be transferred quickly and efficiently. Moreover, BitTorrent is designed so that the more files a user offers for download to others, the faster the user's own downloads become. In this way, each user benefits from illegally distributing other's content and violating copyright laws.

18. Each piece of a BitTorrent file is assigned a unique cryptographic hash value.

19. The cryptographic hash value of the piece (“piece hash”) acts as that piece's unique digital fingerprint. Every digital file has one single possible cryptographic hash value correlating to it. The BitTorrent protocol utilizes cryptographic hash values to ensure each piece is properly routed amongst BitTorrent users as they engage in file sharing.

20. The entirety of the digital media file also has a unique cryptographic hash value (“file hash”), which acts as a digital fingerprint identifying the digital media file (e.g. a movie). Once infringers complete the downloading of all pieces which comprise a digital media file, the BitTorrent software uses the file hash to determine that the file is complete and accurate.

21. Defendants used the BitTorrent file network to illegally download and distribute Plaintiff's copyrighted motion pictures.

22. Plaintiff utilized proprietary technology to establish direct TCP/IP connections with the Defendants' IP addresses, as outlined on Exhibit 1, while Defendants were using the BitTorrent file distribution network. 

23. While Defendants were infringing, Plaintiff's investigative servers established a TCP/IP connection with each Defendants' IP address and downloaded from each Defendant one or more pieces of the digital media files containing Strike 3's motion pictures listed on Exhibit 1 (“Works”).

24. A full copy of each digital media file was downloaded from the BitTorrent file distribution network, and it was confirmed through independent calculation that the file hash correlating to the file hash downloaded by Defendants.

25. At no point was Plaintiff's copyrighted content uploaded by Plaintiff to any BitTorrent user.

26. The digital media files have been verified to contain a digital copy of a motion picture that is identical (or alternatively, strikingly similar or substantially similar) to Plaintiff's corresponding original copyrighted Works.

27. Defendants' infringement is continuous and ongoing. Absent a lawsuit, Plaintiff knows of no way to effectively prevent Defendants from infringing Plaintiff's motion pictures. However, in order for Plaintiff to bring suit against Defendants, Plaintiff must first identify them.

28. Plaintiff owns the copyrights to the Works and registration applications for each Work have been submitted to the United States Copyright Office. Exhibit 2 shows the Registration Number and Registration Date for each processed and finalized application.

COUNT I: PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY

29. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 are hereby re-alleged as if fully set forth herein.

30. Plaintiff is the owner of the copyrights for the motion pictures set forth on Exhibit 1. 

31. Each of the Works set forth on Exhibit 1 contains an original work of authorship.

32. Each of the Defendants used the BitTorrent protocol and the computer software and processes described above to illegally reproduce, distribute, display or perform the original elements of one of Plaintiff's Works.

33. The above alleged facts support claims of copyright infringement by Plaintiff against the Defendants. Plaintiff will be an actual party, and not merely a witness or other third party to the claims it brings against the Defendants.

34. Plaintiff does not know Defendants' true identities.

35. The only way Plaintiff can determine the identity of the Defendants is to learn the identity of the subscriber assigned the IP address that Defendant is using to infringe. The subscriber's ISP is the only entity that can provide Plaintiff with that information.

36. Plaintiff seeks only the name and address of the subscriber assigned the IP addresses listed on Exhibit 1 so that Plaintiff may identify each of the Defendants.

37. Plaintiff is interested in and entitled to this information so that Plaintiff may bring claims of copyright infringement against the Defendants.

38. Plaintiff has a right to the relief sought in order to identify the Unknown Infringers, which is a condition precedent to Plaintiff effectuating service of process in a subsequent copyright infringement lawsuit.

39. The discovery sought is material to Plaintiff's anticipated actions at law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment:

(A) Ordering that Spectrum provide Plaintiff with the name and address of the subscribers assigned the IP addresses on Exhibit 1.

(B) Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Can I quash the subpoena?

In the Miami-Dade County lawsuits (or bill of discovery as they are called), many of their attempts to obtain name and address from the ISP have been successfully quashed.  However, this might not end the case (especially if you live in a State like California).  Realize, before the Florida bill of discovery case is filed, Strike 3 already knows geographically where you reside.  This is one reason I think the bill of discovery cases are, lets just say, not the coolest thing to do.  At any rate, if you are a California resident and the subpoena is quashed, you can still expect to be sued in a federal court in California.  For example, if you live in Los Angeles area, you can be sued in the Central District Court in California.  If you live in San Jose, San Francisco, Marin County, Silicon Valley or other area, you can be sued in the Northern District Courts in California.  We see MANY of these cases filed.  San Diego cases can be filed in the Southern District Court of California.  We see less of these but still a viable option for Strike 3.

What happens if they pursue me in California following a motion to Quash?

If you are sued in California following the Florida "Bill of Discovery" you are essentially involved in a federal court lawsuit.  They are the Plaintiff and you (as an I.P address), is named as the John Doe Defendant.  In the federal case, they will also seek "early discovery" (which will typically be approved) and again they will be seeking your name and address.  Once they have this, they can conduct their due diligence to see if they can meet the "Cobbler" standard.  The Cobbler Nevada case says that (in the 9th circuit) Plaintiff must show "something more" - than just the fact that an internet subscriber has an internet account - to establish that the internet "SUBSCRIBER" is also the "INFRINGER."

The analogy I like to use is like in a DUI case - they have to PUT YOU BEHIND THE WHEEL.  The Prosecutor has to show you were the actual driver, that you were behind the wheel, that you had control of the vehicle. 

Same thing in BitTorrent file-sharing cases.  They have to put you behind the computer and show that you are the dowloader of their Tushy, Blacked or Vixen movies.  There are various ways they can do this, a main way is matching up other torrent downloads with things stated on your social media profiles (like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.  

Call us for more details if you are facing a case.

What are the typical settlement amounts?

Watch this video to learn more about "settlement factors in BitTorrent lawsuits."

Contact a California Torrent Defense Law Firm

When you find yourself being accused of infringing 40-130 movies (which is a typical number range), you want an experienced BitTorrent law firm on your side.  They have very aggressive intellectual property and copyright infringement attorneys on their team.  They can be very aggressive, very!  We have helped hundreds of clients (don't believe the fakers who claim they have helped "thousands."  There is a lot of sales talk out there.  Also, you should not be spending "$3,000 to $5,000" as many lawyers will charge in this area.  We offer low FIXED flat rate legal fees that allows you to put more money toward your settlement - not in your lawyers pocket.  Call us for more information at (877) 276-5084.

Check out our past client reviews on Avvo.

According to LexMachina, our firm is a top 25 copyright law firm in the United States according to number of cases filed.  This evidences our rock solid experience in handling federal copyright cases.

You can also leave a message with your phone number through our contact form.

________________________________

Disclaimer:  We are not licensed to practice law in Florida.  If you are looking for a local lawyer to file a motion to Quash in Florida, let us know, and we can refer you to a Florida firm we have used in the past.  Note, however, if you are a California resident, even if you are able to Quash the subpoena in Florida (which is highly likely given past results I have witnessed), Strike 3 Holdings will most likely sue you in California Federal Court (ex. Northern District of California and the Central District of California are two popular courts.