COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address

76.187.22.15,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 

COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT

INFRINGEMENT - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

Defendant, John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.187.22.15 (“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 its adult websites and DVDs. 

With millions of unique visitors to its websites each month, Strike 3 is famous for redefining 

adult content and for creating high-end, artistic motion pictures produced with a Hollywood-style 

budget and quality.

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

protocol, Defendant is committing rampant and wholesale copyright infringement by 

Case 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 2

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. Rather, Defendant has been recorded 

infringing 53 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”), Spectrum, can identify Defendant 

through his or her IP address 76.187.22.15. 

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 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 2
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 3

10. To ensure that Defendant’s IP address accurately traced to this District, Plaintiff 

inputted Defendant’s IP address into Maxmind’s GeoIP database twice: first when it learned of 

the infringement and again, just prior to filing this lawsuit. 

11. 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

12. Plaintiff Strike 3 is a Delaware limited liability company located at 2140 S. 

Dupont Hwy, Camden, DE. 

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

Defendant’s IP address is 76.187.22.15. Defendant’s name and address can be provided by 

Defendant’s Internet Service Provider.

Factual Background

Plaintiff’s Award-Winning Copyrights

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

are among the highest of any adult-content sites in the world and Strike 3’s motion pictures are 

the number one selling adult DVDs in the United States. Strike 3 also licenses its motion 

pictures to popular broadcasters. 

15. Strike 3’s motion pictures and websites have won numerous awards relating to the 

quality of the content produced and the professionalism of its business operations. 

16. Strike 3’s motion pictures have had positive global impact in the industry, leading 

Case 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 3
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 4

more adult studios to invest in better content and to higher pay and better treatment for 

performers.

17. Unfortunately, like a large number of other makers of motion picture and 

television works, Strike 3 is a victim of mass 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

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. 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. 

20. 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. 

21. 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. 

22. 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 

Case 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 4
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 5

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

to it.

23. 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. 

24. 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.” 

25. 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. 

26. 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.

27. 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. 

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

named “VXN Scan.”

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

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

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

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

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

media files.

Case 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 5
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 6

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

motion pictures.

33. More specifically, 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. 

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

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

incapable of doing so. 

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

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

copyrighted works that Plaintiff owns. 

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

40. VXN Scan recorded multiple transactions in this matter.

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

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

Case 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 6
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 7

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

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. 

43. 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.

44. Thus, Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant downloaded, copied, and 

distributed Plaintiff’s works without authorization. 

45. Defendant’s infringement was continuous and ongoing. 

46. Plaintiff owns the copyrights to the works and the works have been registered 

with the United States Copyright Office. 

47. 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

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

forth herein.

49. Plaintiff is the owner of the works, which are each an original work of authorship.

50. Defendant copied and distributed the constituent elements of Plaintiff’s works 

using the BitTorrent protocol.

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

copying, distribution, performance and/or display of its works, expressly or otherwise. 

Case 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 7
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 8

52. 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).

53. 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 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 8
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT –

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Page 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.

Dated: April 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Paul S. Beik 

PAUL S. BEIK

Texas Bar No. 24054444

BEIK LAW FIRM, PLLC

8100 Washington Ave., Suite 1000

Houston, TX 77007

T: 713-869-6975

F: 713-868-2262

E-mail: paul@beiklaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 3:22-cv-00769-K Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 9