1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SUNLUST PICTURES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1 – 75,

Defendants.

CASE NO. _________________

Judge: 

Magistrate Judge: 

COMPLAINT

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Sunlust Pictures, LLC, through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this 

Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff files this action for copyright infringement under the United States 

Copyright Act and a related civil conspiracy claim under the common law to combat the willful 

and intentional infringement of its creative works. Defendants, whose names Plaintiff expects to 

ascertain during discovery, illegally reproduced and distributed Plaintiff’s copyrighted Video by 

acting in concert via the BitTorrent file sharing protocol and, upon information and belief,

continue to do the same. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, statutory or actual damages, 

award of costs and attorney’s fees, and other relief.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Sunlust Pictures, LLC is a limited liability company organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of California. Plaintiff is the exclusive holder of the relevant 

rights with respect to the copyrighted creative work at issue in this Complaint.

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
2

3. Plaintiff is a producer of adult entertainment content. Plaintiff invests significant

capital in producing the content associated with its brand and has produced substantial numbers 

of videos and photographs. The copyrighted work at issue here is one of these adult videos, 

“Sunny Leone – Goddess” (the “Video”).

4. Defendants’ actual names are unknown to Plaintiff. Instead, each Defendant is 

known to Plaintiff only by an Internet Protocol address (“IP address”), which is a number 

assigned to devices, such as computers, connected to the Internet. In the course of monitoring 

Internet-based infringement of its copyrighted content, Plaintiff’s agents observed unlawful 

reproduction and distribution occurring among the IP addresses listed on Exhibit A, attached

hereto, via Bit Torrent protocol. Plaintiff cannot ascertain Defendants’ actual identities without 

information from Defendants’ Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim

under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., (the Copyright Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (actions arising under the 

laws of the United States), and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (actions arising under an Act of Congress

relating to copyrights). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the civil conspiracy claim 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because it is so related to Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, 

which is within this Court’s original jurisdiction, that the two claims form part of the same case 

and controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction because upon information and belief, all 

Defendants either reside in or committed copyright infringement in the State of Illinois. Plaintiff 

used geolocation technology to trace the IP addresses of each Defendant to a point of origin 

within the State of Illinois. Geolocation is a method for ascertaining the likely geographic region 

associated with a given IP address at a given date and time. Although not a litmus test for 

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
3

personal jurisdiction, the use of geolocation gives Plaintiff good cause for asserting that personal 

jurisdiction is proper over the Defendants. 

7. In the alternative, this Court has personal jurisdiction over non-resident 

Defendants, if any, under the Illinois long-arm statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(2), because they 

downloaded copyrighted content from, or uploaded it to, Illinois residents, thus committing a 

tortious act within the meaning of the statute, and because they participated in a civil conspiracy

to commit copyright infringement with Illinois residents.

8. Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1391(b) and 1400(a) because Defendants reside in this District, may be found in this District, 

or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred within this 

District.

JOINDER

9. Joinder of Defendants is proper because they engaged in a series of transactions to 

illegally reproduce and distribute the Video. Specifically, the Defendants intentionally entered 

and participated in a single BitTorrent swarm that was formed for the purpose of exchanging 

pieces of a file that was unique to the swarm. The file, in this case, was a specific digital 

reproduction of the Video. The series of transactions in this case involved exchanging pieces of 

the Video file with other Defendants in the group of individuals who were sharing pieces of the 

file among one another (i.e., the swarm) to obtain a complete copy of the Video. Plaintiff’s 

agents observed multiple swarms involved in reproducing and distributing the Video, but the 

Defendants in this action joined in one swarm.

10. Joinder is also proper because Defendants participated in a civil conspiracy to 

illegally reproduce and distribute the Video. The Defendants intentionally entered a swarm for 

the purpose of collaborating with the other Defendants and numerous third parties to conduct 

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
4

illegal distribution and reproduction of the particular Video file. The Defendants were 

collectively engaged in the conspiracy even if they were not engaged in the swarm 

contemporaneously because they all took concerted action that contributed to the chain of data 

distribution. Plaintiff has asserted a right to relief jointly and severally against the Doe 

Defendants.

11. Joinder is also proper at the early stage of the litigation because, upon information 

and belief, a single individual can be associated with multiple IP addresses. Due to the dynamic 

nature of most consumer IP address assignments, an individual’s IP address can change 

frequently. Thus, Plaintiff’s monitoring software, which identifies infringing activity by IP 

address, may identify multiple instances of infringing activity that are actually associated with a 

single individual. In other words, it is likely that multiple Does (i.e., IP addresses listed on 

Exhibit A) are, in fact, a single individual. For example, in the past, a single individual was 

associated with nearly one-third of the IP addresses contained in an initial complaint. Joinder of 

identical claims against a single individual is encouraged under the Federal Rules and conserves 

the resources of this Court.

12. Finally, Defendants share the same questions of law with respect to copyright 

infringement, including but not limited to:

(A) Whether “copying” has occurred within the meaning of the Copyright Act;

(B) Whether entering a torrent swarm constitutes a willful act of infringement; 

(C) Whether entering a torrent swarm constitutes a civil conspiracy; and

(D) Whether and to what extent Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant’s conduct.

13. Supporting the propriety of joinder in this case is the underlying nature of the 

BitTorrent file distribution protocol. The BitTorrent protocol is different than the standard peerCase: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
5

to-peer (“P2P”) protocol used for such networks as Kazaa, Grokster and Limewire. Unlike 

standard P2P networks, every BitTorrent downloader is also an uploader of the illegally 

transferred file. Further, the BitTorrent protocol breaks an individual file into small pieces, which 

are shared among a group of collaborators. Standard P2P protocols involve the one-to-one 

transfer of whole files. Use of the BitTorrent protocol provides significant benefits to swarm 

participants that derive from its distributed and collaborative nature, but it also makes its users 

susceptible to joinder.

BACKGROUND

14. BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method (“protocol”) used for distributing data 

via the Internet.

15. Traditional file transfer protocols involve a central server, which distributes data 

directly to individual users. This method is prone to collapse when large numbers of users 

request data from the central server, in which case the server can become overburdened and the 

rate of data transmission can slow considerably or cease altogether. In addition, the reliability of 

access to the data stored on a server is largely dependent on the server’s ability to continue 

functioning for prolonged periods of time under high resource demands.

16. Standard P2P protocols involve a one-to-one transfer of whole files between a 

single uploader and single downloader. Although standard P2P protocols solve some of the 

issues associated with traditional file transfer protocols, these protocols still suffer from such 

issues as scalability. For example, when a popular file is released (e.g., an illegal copy of the 

latest blockbuster movie) the initial source of the file performs a one-to-one whole file transfer to 

a third party, who then performs similar transfers. The one-to-one whole file transfer method can 

significantly delay the spread of a file across the world because the initial spread is so limited.

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
6

17. In contrast, the BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data. 

Instead of relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent 

protocol allows individual users to distribute data among themselves. Further, the BitTorrent 

protocol involves breaking a single large file into many small pieces, which can be transferred 

much more quickly than a single large file and in turn redistributed much more quickly than a 

single large file. Moreover, each peer can download missing pieces of the file from multiple 

sources—often simultaneously—which causes transfers to be fast and reliable. After 

downloading a piece, a peer automatically becomes a source for the piece. This distribution 

method contrasts sharply with a one-to-one whole file transfer method.

18. In BitTorrent vernacular, individual downloaders/distributors of a particular file 

are called peers. The group of peers involved in downloading/distributing a particular file is 

called a swarm. A server which stores a list of peers in a swarm is called a tracker. A computer 

program that implements the BitTorrent protocol is called a BitTorrent client. Each swarm is 

unique to a particular file.

19. The BitTorrent protocol operates as follows. First, a user locates a small “torrent” 

file. This file contains information about the files to be shared and about the tracker, the 

computer that coordinates the file distribution. Second, the user loads the torrent file into a 

BitTorrent client, which automatically attempts to connect to the tracker listed in the torrent file.

Third, the tracker responds with a list of peers and the BitTorrent client connects to those peers

to begin downloading data from and distributing data to the other peers in the swarm. When the 

download is complete, the BitTorrent client continues distributing data to other peers in the 

swarm until the user manually disconnects from the swarm or the BitTorrent client otherwise 

does the same.

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
7

20. The degree of anonymity provided by the BitTorrent protocol is extremely low. 

Because the protocol is based on peers connecting to one another, a peer must broadcast 

identifying information (i.e., an IP address) before it can receive data. Nevertheless, the actual 

names of peers in a swarm are unknown, as the users are allowed to download and distribute 

under the cover of their IP addresses.

21. The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data. The 

size of swarms for popular files can reach into the tens of thousands of unique peers. A swarm 

will commonly have peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several 

countries around the world. And every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to 

dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other peers.

22. The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully 

copying, reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United 

States. A broad range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other 

forms of media are available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol.

23. Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been stymied 

by BitTorrent’s decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from 

unlawfully distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus antipiracy efforts. Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely 

robust and efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from 

anti-piracy measures. This lawsuit is Plaintiff’s only practical means of combating BitTorrentbased infringement of the Video.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

24. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was the exclusive rights holder with respect 

to BitTorrent-based reproduction and distribution of the Video. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
8

25. Plaintiff has applied for and received a certificate of copyright registration for the 

Video from the United States Copyright Office (Reg. No. PA0001771451.)

26. The torrent file used to access the copyrighted material was named in a manner 

that would have provided an ordinary individual with notice that the Video was protected by the 

copyright laws.

27. Plaintiff employs proprietary peer-to-peer network forensic software to perform 

exhaustive real time monitoring of the BitTorrent-based swarm involved in distributing the 

Video. This software is effective in capturing data about the activity of peers in a swarm and 

their infringing conduct.

28. Defendants, without Plaintiff’s authorization or license, intentionally downloaded 

a torrent file particular to Plaintiff’s Video, purposefully loaded that torrent file into their 

BitTorrent clients, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to Plaintiff’s Video, and reproduced 

and distributed the Video to numerous third parties.

29. Plaintiff observed Defendants’ activities in the torrent swarm specific to the 

Video and created a log of IP addresses identifying each Defendant and the date and time of 

Defendant’s activity, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

COUNT I – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 

the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully herein.

31. Defendants’ conduct infringes upon Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction 

and distribution that are protected under the Copyright Act.

32. Each Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that their acts constituted 

copyright infringement.

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
9

33. Defendants’ conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:

intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.

34. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants’ conduct, including but not limited to 

economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no 

adequate remedy at law to compensate the Plaintiff for all of the possible damages stemming 

from the Defendants’ conduct.

35. Plaintiff hereby reserves the right, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), to elect to 

recover statutory damages for each infringement, in lieu of seeking recovery of actual damages.

36. As Defendants’ infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled 

to an award of statutory damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, and the costs of the suit.

COUNT II – CIVIL CONSPIRACY

37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in 

the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

38. In using the peer-to-peer BitTorrent file distribution method, each Defendant

engaged in a concerted action with other Defendants and yet unnamed individuals to reproduce 

and distribute Plaintiff’s Video by exchanging pieces of the Video file in the torrent swarm.

39. Each of the Defendants downloaded a torrent file, opened it using a BitTorrent 

client, and then entered a torrent swarm comprised of other individuals distributing and 

reproducing Plaintiff’s Video.

40. Participants in the torrent swarm have conspired to provide other individuals with

pieces of the Video in exchange for receiving other pieces of the same Video to eventually obtain 

a complete copy of the file.

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
10

41. In furtherance of this civil conspiracy, Defendants committed overt tortious and

unlawful acts by using BitTorrent software to download the Video from and distribute it to 

others, and were willful participants in this joint activity.

42. As a proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff has been damaged, as is more 

fully alleged above.

JURY DEMAND

43. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Judgment and relief as follows:

1) Judgment against all Defendants that they have: a) willfully infringed Plaintiff’s 

rights in federally registered copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501; and b) otherwise injured the 

business reputation and business of Plaintiff by Defendants’ acts and conduct set forth in this 

Complaint;

2) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendants for actual damages or 

statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, at the election of Plaintiff, in an amount to be 

ascertained at trial;

3) Order of impoundment under 17 U.S.C. §§ 503 & 509(a) impounding all 

infringing copies of Plaintiff’s audiovisual works, photographs or other materials, which are in 

Defendants’ possession or under their control;

4) On Count II, an order that Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the 

Plaintiff in the full amount of the Judgment on the basis of a common law claim for civil 

conspiracy to commit copyright infringement; for an award of compensatory damages in favor of 

the Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
11

5) Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendants awarding the Plaintiff 

attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses (including fees and costs of expert witnesses), and other costs 

of this action; and

6) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, awarding Plaintiff 

declaratory and injunctive or other equitable relief as may be just and warranted under the 

circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

Sunlust Pictures, LLC

DATED: March 2, 2012

By: /s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

Prenda Law Inc. 

161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 880-9160

Facsimile: (312) 893-5677

E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-01546 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11