2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 1 of 9

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

email: carl@crowell-law.com

Drew P. Taylor, OSB No. 135974

email: drew@crowell-law.com

CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308

(503) 581-1240

Of attorneys for plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

COBBLER NEVADA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-24.21.136.125, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-00866-ST

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to the Order of June 27, 2016 (Ecf. 40), plaintiff Cobbler Nevada, LLC 

(“Cobbler Nevada”), complains and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a suit for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (“The Copyright 

Act”).

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

3. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) 

as the defendant is believed to reside in this district.

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 2 of 9

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff Cobbler Nevada is a Limited Liability Company with principal offices in Los 

Angeles, California. 

The Rights of Cobbler Nevada

5. The Cobbler is a major motion picture that was released in theaters in March 2015. 

6. The Cobbler has been registered with the United States Copyright Office by the owner, 

Cobbler Nevada, Registration No. PAu 3-744-688, 2014.

7. Under The Copyright Act, Cobbler Nevada is the proprietor of all copyrights and 

interests needed to bring suit.

8. The motion picture contains wholly original material that is copyrightable subject matter 

under the laws of the United States.

9. The motion picture is currently offered for sale in commerce.

10. Defendant had notice of plaintiff's rights through general publication and advertising and 

more specifically as identified in the content of the motion picture, advertising associated with 

the motion picture, and all packaging and copies, each of which bore a proper copyright notice. 

11. Cobbler Nevada comes to court seeking relief as the motion picture The Cobbler is the 

subject of significant piracy and has been illegally downloaded and distributed countless times 

worldwide with over 10,000 confirmed instances of infringing activity traced to Oregon.

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 3 of 9

THE DEFENDANT

12. The defendant identified herein as DOE-24.21.136.125 is currently known only by their 

Internet Protocol (“IP”) Address 24.21.136.125 which on 04/29/2015 and at other times was 

observed through direct TCP/IP connection as infringing plaintiff’s motion picture.

13. Through geolocation and as confirmed by ISP Comcast, the IP address used by the 

defendant was used in the State of Oregon, and has been specifically traced to 12567 SE Bush 

St., Portland, Oregon.

14. The defendant’s IP address has been observed and confirmed as distributing plaintiff’s 

motion picture and the motion pictures of others multiple times.

15. The defendant’s IP address has been observed as associated with the peer-to-peer 

exchange of a large number of copyrighted titles through the BitTorrent network.

16. The volume and titles of the activity associated with the defendant’s IP address indicates 

that the defendant is not a young child, but an adult with adult tastes.

17. The defendant’s IP address was at that time of observed infringement managed by 

Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) Comcast, who on information and belief, generally assigns an 

IP address to a single party for extended periods of time, often for months and provides Wi-Fi 

systems with notable pre-installed security and passwords.

18. The subscriber in this action has been identified as Thomas Gonzales who provided 

internet service to a limited number of parties at the residence of 12567 SE Bush St., Portland, 

Oregon.

19. Based on the persistent and continuous level of infringing activity, on information and 

belief the infringer is believed to be one of a limited number of two or three regular occupants of 

12567 SE Bush St., Portland, Oregon.

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 4 of 9

BACKGROUND

PEER-TO-PEER INTERNET PIRACY

Operation

20. BitTorrent, also known as peer-to-peer file sharing, has become one of the most common 

systems for users to illegally dispense huge amounts of data, including motion pictures, in digital 

format.

21. The BitTorrent protocol enables computers to exchange large files (such as motion 

pictures) without creating a heavy workload for any individual source/computer. It allows users 

to interact directly with each other to: (1) make files stored on a user’s computer (e.g., motion 

pictures) available for copying by other users; (2) search for files stored on other computers; and 

(3) transfer exact copies of files from one computer to another over the Internet.

22. The use of BitTorrent requires multiple intentional acts. A user must load specific 

software, use the software to join the network, search for a file, and then select the file they wish 

to download. As each user or peer joins the network and requests a copy of a file, they form a 

type of social contract to not only download the file, but to be a part of the network to allow the 

file to be downloaded by others. Each new peer requesting the file receives pieces of the data 

from each peer who already has downloaded the file, and then in turn makes that content 

available to others. 

23. Since the BitTorrent protocol also generally limits a peer’s ability to download unless he 

or she also uploads or shares, there is substantial incentive for each peer to remain online and 

continue to make files available for other peers to download because this will maximize his or 

her download speed and access to content.

24. The defendant in this action has been observed as persistently making plaintiff’s motion 

picture available to others in furtherance of the BitTorrent network.

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 4 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 5 of 9

The Business of Piracy

25. Internet piracy, and in particular BitTorrent piracy, though known as peer-to-peer file 

sharing, is often a for-profit business as many software clients, torrent sites and networks 

generate millions of dollars in revenue through sales and advertising. 

26. To increase the value of the advertising and sometimes subscription access sold by 

torrent sites, many parties work to expand the pool of available titles and speed of downloads 

available by increasing the number of member peers and thus the desirability of their clients and 

networks. To accomplish this they often reward participants who contribute by giving them 

faster download speeds, greater access, or other benefits.

27. Defendant’s participation in the BitTorrent exchange of plaintiff’s motion picture is the 

type of activity that torrent sites use to promote their business and likely directly furthered the 

for-profit business of at least one torrent site.

28. Many parties, and possibly the defendant have been compensated for their participation 

in expanding the availability of pirated content to others through BitTorrent networks, including 

plaintiff’s movie, even if only through being granted greater access to other pirated content.

29. The use of BitTorrent does more than cause harm through the simple theft of intellectual 

property. The BitTorrent distribution of pirated files is a model of business that profits from 

theft through sales and advertising and provides a system of rewards and compensation to the 

participants, each of whom contribute to and further the enterprise. 

30. Based on activity observed associated with defendant’s IP addresses, defendant is a 

prolific proponent of the BitTorrent distribution system advancing the BitTorrent economy of 

piracy.

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 5 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 6 of 9

Harm to Plaintiff and Others

31. Digital piracy, including BitTorrent piracy, costs the entertainment industry over $80 

billion per year.

32. As noted by Senator Levin in Congressional hearings on peer-to-peer Internet piracy, “In 

the world of copyright law, taking someone’s intellectual property is a serious offense, 

punishable by large fines. In the real world, violations of copyright law over the Internet are so 

widespread and easy to accomplish that many participants seem to consider it equivalent to 

jaywalking – illegal but no big deal. But it is a big deal. Under U.S. law, stealing intellectual 

property is just that – stealing. It hurts artists, the music industry, the movie industry, and others 

involved in creative work. And it is unfortunate that the software being used – called ‘file 

sharing’ as if it were simply enabling friends to share recipes, is helping create a generation of 

Americans who don’t see the harm.”

33. In 2013, in recognition of the growing problems and challenges with counterfeiting and 

piracy, The Oregon House of Representatives passed House Memorial 2, which made the 

following findings: 

Whereas the United States and other nations share the challenge of combating 

intellectual piracy and the counterfeiting of intellectual property such as ... films... and 

technologies that affect the quality of life; and

Whereas intellectual piracy and counterfeiting have a significant impact on Oregon's 

economy, and the economies of other states and of nations around the world, which 

results in job and earnings losses, reduced tax revenues and increased threats to public 

health and safety; and

...

Whereas protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights is crucial to the future 

of our innovation-based economy; and

Whereas industries that use intellectual property extensively generate nearly $7.7 

trillion in gross output and account for more than 60 percent of total exports from our 

nation; and

Whereas industries that use intellectual property extensively ... employ more than 19 

million Americans, whose salaries average about 60 percent higher than salaries in 

industries that do not make extensive use of intellectual property; and

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 6 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 7 of 9

Whereas intellectual property infringement can undermine the nation's economic 

security; and

Whereas violations of intellectual property rights, ambiguities in the law and a lack 

of enforcement create uncertainty in the marketplace and in the legal system and 

undermine consumer trust; and

Whereas intellectual property, including trademarks, [are] essential ...; and

...

Whereas failing to adequately protect and enforce intellectual property rights will 

increase counterfeiting and illicit trade; 

...

34. The impact of piracy is far greater than the mere loss of a single sale or loss due to the 

distribution of one copy of a motion picture. Piracy undermines the economy, job base, and tax 

base on which our citizens rely and promotes a general disregard for the respect of rights of 

others. 

35. As such it is clear that giving effect to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and the enforcement of 

intellectual property rights, and in particular the fight against counterfeiting and piracy are 

critical issues of importance to the both the United States of America and the State of Oregon.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

36. Defendant, without the permission or consent of Cobbler Nevada, copied and distributed 

plaintiff’s motion picture through a public BitTorrent network. 

37. Defendant’s actions infringed Cobbler Nevada’s exclusive rights under The Copyright 

Act. 

38. Defendant’s conduct has been willful, intentional, in disregard of and indifferent to 

Cobbler Nevada’s rights. 

39. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s conduct, Cobbler Nevada’s exclusive 

rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106 have been violated. 

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 7 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 8 of 9

40. Cobbler Nevada is entitled to damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 and attorney fees and 

costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

41. The conduct of the defendant is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, 

will continue to cause plaintiff great and irreparable injury. 

42. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503, Cobbler Nevada is entitled to injunctive relief 

prohibiting the defendant from further contributing to the infringement of Cobbler Nevada’s 

copyrights and ordering that defendant destroy all copies of the motion picture made in violation 

of Cobbler Nevada’s rights. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows:

A. For a finding that the defendant willfully infringed plaintiff’s rights;

B. For entry of permanent injunction enjoining defendant from directly, indirectly or 

contributory infringing plaintiff’s rights, including without limitation by using the 

internet to reproduce or copy plaintiff’s motion picture, to distribute plaintiff’s 

motion picture, or to make plaintiff’s motion picture available for distribution to the 

public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of plaintiff. 

And further directing defendant to destroy all unauthorized copies of plaintiff’s 

motion picture;

C. Statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504;

D. For plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; and

E. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 8 of 9
2d AMDD. COMPLAINT Page 9 of 9

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff demands a trial by 

jury.

DATED: July 5, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

CROWELL LAW

/s/ Carl D. Crowell

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

carl@crowell-law.com

Drew P. Taylor, OSB No. 135974

drew@crowell-law.com

503-581-1240

Of attorneys for the plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-00866-SB Document 41 Filed 07/05/16 Page 9 of 9