Contact Us Today! (877) 276-5084

Attorney Steve® Blog

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC February 2019 Torrent Lawsuit Updates

Posted by Steve Vondran | Feb 12, 2019 | 0 Comments

Here are the new cases filed this month by prolific copyright infringement filer Strike 3 Holdings, LLC – Thirty-two new filings.

Internet movie file sharing attorney 1 1024x571

Casse numbers – Strike 3 Holdings, LLC

Here are the recent cases filed in the United States.  If you received a subpoena notice from your ISP call us for a free consultation to discuss your options.

STRIKE 3 1:2019cv00316 1:2019cv00317 1:2019cv00318 1:2019cv00319 1:2019cv00320 1:2019cv00322 1:2019cv00334 1:2019cv00335 1:2019cv00714 1:2019cv00717 1:2019cv00724 1:2019cv00725 1:2019cv00726 1:2019cv00729 1:2019cv00746 1:2019cv00756 1:2019cv00761 1:2019cv00762 1:2019cv00764 1:2019cv00766 8:2019cv00375 3:2019cv00722 3:2019cv00723 3:2019cv00724 3:2019cv00727 8:2019cv00390 8:2019cv00391 8:2019cv00394 8:2019cv00396 8:2019cv00397 8:2019cv00398 8:2019cv00399

How is Strike 3 pleading their cases post Cobbler Nevada case?

As we discussed in another blog, there was a fairly nice case holding in another torrent setting dealing with the Plaintiff Cobbler Nevada.  In that case, the Court said that a Plaintiff must allege something more than just that a Defendant is a subscriber to an internet account and the account has been found to be illegally downloading movie files.  There is another case in Oregon where a motion to quash the subpoena was filed using the CObbler Nevada case as persuasive legal authority (the Cobbler Nevada case is from the 9th Circuit Court of which Oregon is a covered state).

So, post Cobbler, how is Fox teeing up the complaints?  Is it any different from their previous complaints?  Here is what I found in a February 2019 filing in the Northern District of California.  The items in black bold I found interesting.

Strike Three Strikes Out In California Southern District

VIDEO:  Click on the pic above to hear Attorney Steve® explain the recent HUGE WIN for a Defendant in Southern District of California.  Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to our incredible legal channel.  We are now nearing 11,000 subscribers!!!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN DOE subscriber, assigned IP address 104.13.209.117, Defendant. Case Number:

COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3” or “Plaintiff”), brings this complaint against John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.13.209.117, and alleges as follows:

Introduction 1.

This is a case about the ongoing and wholesale copyright infringement of Plaintiff's motion pictures by Defendant, currently known only by an IP address.

2. Plaintiff is the owner of award winning, critically acclaimed adult motion pictures.

3. Strike 3's motion pictures are distributed through the Blacked, Tushy, Vixen, and Blacked Raw adult websites and DVDs. With more than 20 million unique visitors to its websites each month, the brands are famous for redefining adult content, creating high-end, artistic, and performer-inspiring motion pictures produced with a Hollywood style budget and Case 3:19-cv-00722-JSC Document 1 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 7 2 Complaint

4. Defendant is, in a word, stealing these works on a grand scale. Using the BitTorrent protocol, Defendant is committing rampant and wholesale copyright infringement by downloading Strike 3's motion pictures as well as distributin 3 Complaint…….

Plaintiff currently can only identify Defendant by his or her IP address. Defendant's IP address is 104.13.209.117.

Defendant's name and address can be provided by Defendant's Internet Service Provider.

Factual Background Plaintiff's Award-Winning Copyrights

Defendant Used the BitTorrent File Distribution Network to Infringe Plaintiff's Copyrights

18. 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 in order to simultaneously download and upload pieces of the file from and to other users.

19. To use BitTorrent to download a movie, the user has to 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.

20. 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.

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

22. 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.

23. 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.

BitTorrent software uses the file hash to determine that the file is complete and accurate.

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

25. Plaintiff's investigator, IPP International U.G. (“IPP”) established direct TCP/IP connections with the Defendant's IP address, as outlined on Exhibit A, while Defendant was using the BitTorrent file distribution network.

26. While Defendant was infringing, IPP downloaded from Defendant one or more pieces of the digital media files containing Strike 3's motion pictures listed on Exhibit A (“Works”).

27. 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 each file matched the file hash downloaded by Defendant.

28. Defendant downloaded, copied, and distributed a complete copy of Plaintiff's Works without authorization.

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

30. 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.

31. Defendant's infringement is continuous and ongoing. Absent this lawsuit, Plaintiff knows of no way to effectively prevent Defendant from infringing Plaintiff's motion pictures.

32. Plaintiff owns the copyrights to the Works and the Works have either been registered with the United States Copyright Office or have pending copyright registrations. The United States Copyright Office registration information for the Works, including the registration number, is outlined on Exhibit A.

Defendant violated Plaintiff's exclusive right to:

(A) Reproduce its Works in copies, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 501;

(B) Distribute copies of the Works to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or lending, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(3) and 501;

(C) Perform the copyrighted Works, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(4) and 501, by showing the Works' images in any sequence and/or by making the sounds accompanying the Works' audible and transmitting said performance of the work, by means of a device or process, to members of the public capable of receiving the display (as set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 101's definitions of “perform” and “publically” perform);

and

(D) Display the copyrighted Works, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(5) and 501, by showing individual images of the works non-sequentially and transmitting said display of the works by means of a device or process to members of the public capable of receiving the display (as set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 101's definition of “publicly” display).

40. Defendant's infringements were committed “willfully” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) Permanently enjoin Defendant from continuing to infringe Plaintiff's copyrighted Works;

(B) Order that Defendant delete and permanently remove the digital media files relating to Plaintiff's Works from each of the computers under Defendant's possession, custody or control;

(C) Order that Defendant delete and permanently remove the infringing copies of the Works Defendant has on computers under Defendant's possession, custody or control;

(D) Award Plaintiff statutory damages per infringed work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(a) and (c);

(E) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; and (F) Grant Plaintiff any “other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.”

Attorney Steve® Notes:  It is interesting that they seem to be making “conclusory allegations” that Defendant was THE copyright infringer when they know that (the best they can say at this early pleading stage) is that the infringement is tracked to the IP Address and they need to find out who the subscriber is, who may or may not be the actual infringer.  Is the complaint thus violating Rule 11 which requires a “good faith” belief that you are actually suing the right person?  Is a 50/50 guess that a subscriber MIGHT ALSO BE the infringer enough to allege?

Attorney Steve® Primer on F.R.C.P. Rule 11

VIDEO:  Click on the picture above to watch this video.  Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to join over 10,500 people who love our videos!  This video is not to imply that any adult pornography company, including Malibu or Strike 3, or their intellectual property law firms are in violation of Rule 11.  I have not seen any case succeed on these grounds.

Contact a copyright law firm

We can help with a variety of legal issues involving copyright law.  From copyright registration to chain of title and clearance, to copyright licensing and infringement matters.  Typical cases may involve the use of copyrighted photos, software, font, movies, videos, film, and jewelry.  Call us at (877) 276-5084.  When it comes to Strike 3 Holdings, and Malibu Media defense, we are a leading law firm in the United States with a proven track record of success.

 

About the Author

Steve Vondran

Thank you for viewing our blogs, videos and podcasts. As noted, all information on this website is Attorney Advertising. Decisions to hire an attorney should never be based on advertising alone. Any past results discussed herein do not guarantee or predict any future results. All blogs are written by Steve Vondran, Esq. unless otherwise indicated. Our firm handles a wide variety of intellectual property and entertainment law cases from music and video law, Youtube disputes, DMCA litigation, copyright infringement cases involving software licensing disputes (ex. BSA, SIIA, Siemens, Autodesk, Vero, CNC, VB Conversion and others), torrent internet file-sharing (Strike 3 and Malibu Media), California right of publicity, TV Signal Piracy, and many other types of IP, piracy, technology, and social media disputes. Call us at (877) 276-5084. AZ Bar Lic. #025911 CA. Bar Lic. #232337

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact us for an initial consultation!

For more information, or to discuss your case or our experience and qualifications please contact us at (877) 276-5084. Please note that our firm does not represent you unless and until a written retainer agreement is signed, and any applicable legal fees are paid. All initial conversations are general in nature. Free consultations are limited to time and availability of counsel and will depend on the type of case you are calling about (no free consultations for other lawyers). All users and potential clients are bound by our Terms of Use Policies. We look forward to working with you!

Menu