1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

CASE NO. _________________

Judge: 

Magistrate Judge: 

COMPLAINT

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC (“Plaintiff”), 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 related contributory infringement and negligence claims under the common 

law to combat the willful and intentional infringement of its creative works. Unidentified 

Defendant John Doe (“Defendant”), whose name Plaintiff expects to ascertain during discovery, 

knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed Plaintiff’s copyrighted Video by acting in 

concert with others via the BitTorrent file sharing protocol and, upon information and belief,

continues to do the same. In using BitTorrent, Defendant’s infringment actions furthered the 

efforts of numerous others in infringing on Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. The result: exponential 

viral infringement. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, statutory or actual damages, award of 

costs and attorney’s fees, and other relief to curb this behavior.

///

///

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
2

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing 

under the laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Plaintiff is a holder of rights to various 

copyrighted works, and is the exclusive holder of the relevant rights with respect to the 

copyrighted creative work at issue in this Complaint.

3. The copyrighted work at issue in this complaint is one of Plaintiff’s adult 

entertainment videos, “Popular Demand” (the “Video”).

4. Defendant’s actual name is unknown to Plaintiff. Instead, Defendant is known to 

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

devices, such as computers, that are 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 over IP address 99.24.201.252 via the BitTorrent file 

transfer protocol. Plaintiff cannot ascertain Defendant’s actual identity without limited expedited 

discovery.

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 contributory 

infringement and negligence claims 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
3

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

Defendant either resides in or committed copyright infringement in this District. Plaintiff used 

geolocation technology to trace the IP address of 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 personal jurisdiction, 

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

over Defendant. 

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

§§ 1391(b) and 1400(a) because Defendant resides 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.

BACKGROUND

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

via the Internet.

9. 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.

10. 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 

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
4

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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
5

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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
6

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

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

18. Plaintiff is the exclusive rights holder with respect to BitTorrent-based 

reproduction and distribution of the Video. 

19. The Video is currently registered in the United States Copyright Office 

(Copyright No. PA0001754383). (See Exhibit A to Complaint.) On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff 

received the rights to this Video pursuant to an assignment agreement, a true and correct copy of 

that agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. (See Exhibit B to Complaint.)

20. 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 of the United States.

21. 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.

22. Defendant, using IP address 99.24.201.252, without Plaintiff’s authorization or 

license, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiff’s Video, purposefully 

loaded that torrent file into his BitTorrent client—in this case, Azureus 4.5.0.4—entered a 

BitTorrent swarm particular to Plaintiff’s Video, and reproduced and distributed the Video to 

numerous third parties.

23. Plaintiff’s investigators detected Defendant’s illegal download on 

2012-03-14 at 17:51:37 (UTC). However, this is a simply a snapshot observation of when the IP 

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
7

address was observed in the BitTorrent swarm; the conduct took itself place before and after this 

date and time. 

24. Defendant was part of a group of BitTorrent users or peers in a single swarm—a 

process generally described above—whose computers were collectively interconnected for the 

sharing of a particular unique file. The particular file a BitTorrent swarm is associated with has a 

unique file “hash”—i.e. a unique file identifier generated by an algorithm. The unique hash 

value in this case is identified as E6FBFB55CC3ED9DF2177865BBEB0A796C2AC1C0B

(hereinafter “Hash Tag.”), and common to all of the participants in the swarm.

COUNT I – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

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

the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully herein.

26. Defendant’s conduct infringes upon Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction 

and distribution that are protected under the Copyright Act.

27. Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts constituted copyright 

infringement of Plaintiff’s Video.

28. Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:

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

29. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s conduct.

30. 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
8

31. As Defendant’s infringement was intentional and willful, Plaintiff is entitled to an 

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

COUNT II – CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT

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

the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

33. When users in this unique swarm all possess the same infringing work with the 

same exact hash value, it is because each infringer possesses an exact digital copy, containing the 

exact bits and pieces unique to that specific file of Plaintiff’s original copyrighted work. They 

only way this happens in a BitTorrent swarm is through the sharing of these bits and pieces of 

each same unique file, with the same unique hash value, between the users in the swarm. In 

essence, although hundreds of users may be uploading the copyrighted work, a single user will 

receive only the exact parts of a singular upload through that exact swarm, not a compilation of 

available pieces from various uploads.

34. Defendant published the Hash Tag to the BitTorrent network.

35. Defendant downloaded, uploaded and distributed the Video to other BitTorrent 

users through use of the hash-specified protocol in the unique swarm.

36. As each of the thousands of people who illegally downloaded the movie accessed 

this illegal publication, they derived portions of their illegal replication of the file from multiple 

persons, including, but not limited to, Defendant.

37. Defendant knew of the infringement, was conscious of his own infringement, and 

Defendant was fully concsious that his actions resulted in multiple other persons derivatively 

downloaded the file containing Plaintiff’s Video.

38. The infringement by the other BitTorrent users could not have occurred without 

Defendant’s participation in uploading Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. As such, Defendant’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
9

participation in the infringing activities of others is substantial and contributed, for profit, to the 

infringing activity of thousands of other peers over the Internet across the world.

39. Defendant profited from this contributory infringement by way of being granted 

access to a greater library of other infringing works, some of which belonged to Plaintiff and 

some of which belonged to other copyright owners.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENCE

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

the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

41. Defendant accessed, or controlled access to, the Internet connection used in 

performing the unauthorized copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video, proximately causing 

financial harm to Plaintiff.

42. Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection. Defendant breached that 

duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.

43. Reasonable Internet users take steps to secure their Internet access accounts 

preventing the use of such accounts for an illegal purpose. Defendant’s failure to secure his 

Internet access account, thereby allowing for its illegal use, constitutes a breach of the ordinary 

care that a reasonable Internet account holder would do under like circumstances.

44. In the alternative, Defendant secured his connection, but permitted an unknown 

third party to use his Internet connection to infringe on Plaintiff’s Video. Defendant knew, or 

should have known, that this unidentified individual used Defendant’s Internet connection for the 

aformentioned illegal activities. Defendant declined to monitor the unidentified third-party 

infringer’s use of his computer Internet connection, demonstrating further negligence.

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
10

45. In the alternative, Defendant knew of, and allowed for, the unidentified third party 

infringer’s use of his Internet connection for illegal purposes and thus was complicit in the 

unidentified third party’s actions.

46. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s failure to secure his Internet access 

account directly allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video over the BitTorrent 

protocol through Defendant’s Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights 

in the copyrighted work.

47. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew, or should have known of, the 

unidentified third party’s infringing actions, and, despite this, Defendant directly, or indirectly, 

allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video over the BitTorrent protocol through 

Defendant’s Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the 

copyrighted Video.

48. By virtue of his unsecured access, Defendant negligently allowed the use of his 

Internet access account to perform the above-described copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s 

copyrighted Video.

49. Had Defendant taken reasonable care in securing access to this Internet 

connection, or monitoring the unidentified third-party individual’s use of his Internet connection, 

such infringements as those described above would not have occurred by the use of Defendant’s 

Internet access account.

50. Defendant’s negligent actions allow others to unlawfully copy and share 

Plaintiff’s copyrighted Video, proximately causing financial harm to Plaintiff and unlawfully 

interfering with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Video.

JURY DEMAND

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

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Judgment and relief as follows:

1) Judgment against Defendant that he has: 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 Defendant’s acts and conduct set forth in this 

Complaint;

2) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant 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 

Defendant’s possession or under his control;

4) On Count II, an order that Defendant is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff 

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

infringement of copyright; for an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and 

against Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;

5) On Count III, an order that Defendant is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff 

in the full amount of Judgment on the basis of Defendant’s negligence in allowing an 

unidentified third party access his Internet account and, through it, violate Plaintiff’s copyrighted 

works; for an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant, 

jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;

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

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

of this action; and

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
12

7) 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,

AF Holdings LLC,

DATED: May 30, 2012

By: /s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496)

Prenda Law Inc.

161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-880-9160

Fax: 312-893-5677

E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-04244 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12