1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No. 

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability 

company, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 

66.176.149.132, an individual, 

Defendant.

/ 

COMPLAINT-ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR 

PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3” or “Plaintiff”), brings this complaint against 

Defendant, John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.149.132 (“Defendant”), 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 millions of 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 quality. 

4. Defendant is, in a word, stealing these works on a grand scale. Using the BitTorrent 

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 1 of 9
2 

protocol, Defendant is committing rampant and wholesale copyright infringement by downloading 

Strike 3’s motion pictures as well as distributing them to others. Defendant did not infringe just 

one or two of Strike 3’s motion pictures, but has been recorded infringing 157 movies over an 

extended period of time. 

5. Although Defendant attempted to hide this theft by infringing Plaintiff’s content 

anonymously, Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Comcast Cable, can identify 

Defendant through his or her IP address 66.176.149.132. 

6. This is a civil action seeking damages under the United States Copyright Act of 

1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (the “Copyright Act”). 

Jurisdiction and Venue

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 (federal question); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (jurisdiction over copyright actions). 

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant used an 

Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) traced to a physical address located within this District to 

commit copyright infringement. Therefore: (i) Defendant committed the tortious conduct alleged 

in this Complaint in this State; (ii) Defendant resides in this State and/or; (iii) Defendant has 

engaged in substantial – and not isolated – business activity in this State. 

9. Plaintiff used IP address geolocation technology by Maxmind Inc. (“Maxmind”), 

an industry-leading provider of IP address intelligence and online fraud detection tools, to 

determine that Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical address in this District. Over 5,000 

companies, along with United States federal and state law enforcement, use Maxmind’s GeoIP 

data to locate Internet visitors, perform analytics, enforce digital rights, and efficiently route 

Internet traffic.

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 2 of 9
3 

10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), venue is proper in this District because: 

(i) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District; 

and, (ii) the Defendant resides (and therefore can be found) in this District and resides in this State. 

Additionally, venue is proper in this District pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) (venue for copyright 

cases) because Defendant or Defendant’s agent resides or may be found in this District.

Parties

11. Plaintiff, Strike 3 is a Delaware limited liability company located at 2140 S. Dupont 

Hwy, Camden, DE. 

12. Plaintiff currently can only identify Defendant by his or her IP address. 

Defendant’s IP address is 66.176.149.132. Defendant’s name and address can be provided by 

Defendant’s Internet Service Provider.

Factual Background 

Plaintiff’s Award-Winning Copyrights 

13. Strike 3’s subscription-based websites proudly boast a paid subscriber base that is 

one of the highest of any adult-content sites in the world. Strike 3 also licenses its motion pictures 

to popular broadcasters and Strike 3’s motion pictures are the number one selling adult DVDs in 

the United States. 

14. Strike 3’s motion pictures and websites have won numerous awards, such as “best 

cinematography,” “best new studio,” and “adult site of the year.” 

15. Strike 3’s motion pictures have had positive global impact, leading more adult 

studios to invest in better content, higher pay for performers, and to treat each performer with 

respect and like an artist.

16. Unfortunately, Strike 3, like a large number of other makers of motion picture and 

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

television works, has a major problem with Internet piracy. Often appearing among the most 

infringed popular entertainment content on torrent websites, Strike 3’s motion pictures are among 

the most pirated content in the world. 

Defendant Used the BitTorrent File Distribution Network

to Infringe Plaintiff’s Copyrights

17. 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. 

18. 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. 

19. To share a movie within the BitTorrent network, a user first uses BitTorrent 

software to create a .torrent file from the original digital media file. This process breaks the 

original digital media file down into numerous pieces. 

20. The entire movie file being shared has a hash value (i.e., the “File Hash”). A hash 

value is an alpha-numeric value of a fixed length that uniquely identifies data. 

21. Hash values are not arbitrarily assigned to data merely for identification purposes, 

but rather are the product of a cryptographic algorithm applied to the data itself. As such, while 

two identical sets of data will produce the same cryptographic hash value, any change to the 

underlying data – no matter how small – will change the cryptographic hash value that correlates 

to it.

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

22. To find and re-assemble the pieces of the digital media file, i.e., to download the 

file using BitTorrent, a user must obtain the .torrent file for the specific file that has been broken 

down into pieces. 

23. Each .torrent file contains important metadata with respect to the pieces of the file. 

When this data is put into the cryptographic algorithm, it results in a hash value called the “Info 

Hash.” 

24. The “Info Hash” is the data that the BitTorrent protocol uses to identify and locate 

the other pieces of the desired file (in this case, the desired file is the respective file for the 

infringing motion pictures that are the subject of this action) across the BitTorrent network. 

25. Using the Info Hash in the metadata of a .torrent file, a user may collect all the 

pieces of the digital media file that correlates with the specific .torrent file.

26. Once a user downloads all of the pieces of that digital media file from other 

BitTorrent users, the digital media file is automatically reassembled into its original form, ready 

for playing. 

27. Plaintiff has developed, owns, and operates an infringement detection system, 

named “VXN Scan.”

28. Using VXN Scan, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant used the BitTorrent file 

network to illegally download and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion pictures. 

29. To explain, while Defendant was using the BitTorrent file distribution network, 

VXN Scan established direct TCP/IP connections with Defendant’s IP address.

30. VXN Scan downloaded from Defendant one or more pieces of numerous digital 

media files.

31. Plaintiff identified these pieces as portions of infringing copies of Strike 3’s motion 

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

pictures.

32. To explain, the VXN Scan system first searched for and obtained .torrent files 

claiming to be infringing copies of Plaintiff’s works, and then downloaded complete copies of the 

digital media files that correlate to those .torrent files. 

33. Plaintiff then compared the completed digital media files to Plaintiff’s copyrighted 

works to determine whether they are infringing copies of one of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works.

34. 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.

35. VXN Scan then used the “Info Hash” value, contained within the metadata of the 

.torrent file correlated with a digital media file that was determined to be identical (or substantially 

similar) to a copyrighted work, to download a piece (or pieces) of the same digital media file from 

Defendant using the BitTorrent network.

36. At no point did VXN Scan upload content to any BitTorrent user. Indeed, it is 

incapable of doing so. 

37. The VXN Scan captured transactions from Defendant sharing specific pieces of 

157 digital media files that have been determined to be identical (or substantially similar) to a 

copyrighted work(s) that Plaintiff owns. 

38. VXN Scan recorded each transaction in a PCAP file. 

39. VXN Scan recorded multiple transactions in this matter.

40. For each work infringed a single transaction is listed on Exhibit A. 

41. For each transaction listed, Exhibit A sets forth the Universal Time Coordinated 

(UTC) time and date of each transaction, along with (1) the Info Hash value obtained from the 

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 6 of 9
7 

metadata of the corresponding .torrent file that formed the basis of the VXN Scan’s request for 

data, and (2) the File Hash value of the digital media file itself. 

42. Exhibit A also sets forth relevant copyright information for each work at issue: the 

date of publication, the date of registration, and the work’s copyright registration number. In a 

showing of good faith, Plaintiff has intentionally omitted the title of the work from this public 

filing due to the adult nature of its content, but can provide a version of Exhibit A containing the 

works’ titles to the Court or any party upon request. 

43. Thus, Defendant downloaded, copied, and distributed Plaintiff’s Works without 

authorization. 

44. Defendant’s infringement was continuous and ongoing. 

45. Plaintiff owns the copyrights to the Works and the Works have been registered with 

the United States Copyright Office. 

46. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 501 

of the United States Copyright Act.

COUNT I

Direct Copyright Infringement

47. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-46 are hereby re-alleged as if fully set 

forth herein. 

48. Plaintiff is the owner of the Works, which is an original work of authorship. 

49. Defendant copied and distributed the constituent elements of Plaintiff’s Works 

using the BitTorrent protocol. 

50. At no point in time did Plaintiff authorize, permit or consent to Defendant’s 

distribution of its Works, expressly or otherwise. 

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

51. As a result of the foregoing, 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 “publicly” 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).

52. 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 8 of 9
9 

§ 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. 

Dated: September 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

SMGQ LAW

By: /s/ Rachel E. Walker 

Rachel E. Walker, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 111802 

1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 950 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel.: 305-377-1000 

Fax: 855-327-0391 

Email: RWalker@smgqlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

MAMONE VILLALON 

By: /s/ Tyler A. Mamone 

Tyler A. Mamone, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 111632 

Yetian Wang, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 1025778 

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2000 

Miami, Florida, 33131 

Tel: (786) 209-2379 

Email: Tyler@mvlawpllc.com 

Email: Yetian@mvlawpllc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81469-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2022 Page 9 of 9