COMPLAINT Page 1 of 13

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

email: carl@crowell-law.com

CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308

(503) 581-1240

Of attorneys for plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company, and

TCYK, LLC, a California Limited Liability 

Company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOE-76.105.157.206

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14-cv-1191

COMPLAINT

EXHIBIT 1

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

ORS 647.105 – State Trademark

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Voltage Pictures, LLC, and TCYK, LLC, complain and allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

Act”) and for a violation of ORS 647.105, Oregon’s State Trademark Law.

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

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 2 of 13

4. 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.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

5. Plaintiff Voltage Pictures, LLC (“Voltage”) is a limited liability company with principal 

offices in Los Angeles, California that produces, markets and distributes motion pictures 

including a motion picture titled The Company You Keep (“motion picture”), the subject work in 

this lawsuit. 

6. Plaintiff TKYC, LLC is a limited liability company with principal offices in Los Angeles, 

California and the registered copyright holder for the motion picture, The Company You Keep, 

the subject work in this lawsuit.

The Rights of TCYK, LLC

7. The motion picture in this case, titled The Company You Keep, has been registered with 

the United States Copyright Office by the owner, TCYK, LLC, Registration No. PAu 3-66-935, 

2012.

8. Under The Copyright Act, TCYK, LLC is the proprietor of all copyrights, title, and 

related interest in the motion picture.

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

under the laws of the United States.

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

11. The motion picture is easily discernible as a professional work as it was created using 

professional performers, directors, cinematographers, lighting technicians, set designers and 

editors and with professional-grade cameras, lighting and editing equipment.

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 2 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 3 of 13

12. 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. 

Rights of Voltage

13. Voltage has sole and exclusive rights to use the mark VOLTAGE PICTURES in 

association with its goods and services both within the State of Oregon and nationwide.

14. Voltage marks its works with the trademark VOLTAGE PICTURES to distinguish its 

products from others and to identify it as the source of its products.

15. In the marketing of The Company You Keep, Voltage has branded the motion picture with 

plaintiff’s famous, distinctive and registered trademark, VOLTAGE PICTURES.

16. The mark VOLTAGE PICTURES has been registered with the State of Oregon pursuant 

to ORS 647.015, Registry Number 42677.

THE DEFENDANT

17. The defendant identified herein as DOE-76.105.157.206 is currently known only by their 

Internet Protocol (“IP”) Address 76.105.157.206 which on May 9, 2014, at 08:05:07 PM UTC, 

was observed infringing the motion picture.

18. Through geolocation, the IP address used by the defendant has been traced to the State of 

Oregon.

19. This IP address has been associated with significant infringing activity with hundreds of

titles exchanged on peer-to-peer networks associated with this IP address. An abbreviated list of 

titles associated with this IP address is shown on Exhibit 1.

20. The volume and titles of the activity associated with defendant’s IP address, some of 

which is listed in Exhibit 1, indicates that the defendant is either the primary subscriber of the IP 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 3 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 4 of 13

address or someone who resides with the subscriber, as such activity indicates the defendant is an 

authorized user of the IP address.

21. The volume of the activity associated with defendant’s IP address, some of which is 

listed in Exhibit 1, indicates that anyone using or observing activity on the IP address would be 

aware of the conduct of the defendant. 

22. The volume and titles of the activity associated with defendant’s IP address, some of 

which is listed in Exhibit 1, indicates that the defendant is not a young child, but an adult with 

mature tastes.

23. 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 should be able to 

identify either the defendant, or the subscriber contracted with the ISP and who is likely to have 

knowledge which will lead to the identity of the defendant. 

24. Plaintiffs intend to seek initial discovery to ascertain the true identity of the defendant. 

BACKGROUND

PEER-TO-PEER INTERNET PIRACY

25. 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 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 4 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 5 of 13

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

Americans who don’t see the harm.”

26. 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

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; 

...

27. As such it is clear that giving effect to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and ORS Chapter 647, 

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.

28. Peer-to-peer networks, at least in their most common form, are computer systems that 

enable internet users to: 1) make files (including motion pictures) stored on each user's computer 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 5 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 6 of 13

available for copying by other users or peers; 2) search for files stored on other users' computers; 

and 3) transfer exact copies of files from one computer to another via the internet. 

29. The particular peer-to-peer protocol at issue in this suit is the BitTorrent protocol.

30. To use BitTorrent, a user intentionally downloads a program that they install on their 

computer called a “client.” The BitTorrent client is the user's interface during the 

downloading/uploading process. The client may be free, supported by advertising, offer 

upgrades or add on services for a fee, or a combination of several options.

31. Users then intentionally visit a “torrent site” or network site to find media or content 

available for download, often using a standard web browser.

32. A torrent site is often an advertisement-revenue based or subscription-supported index of 

media or content being made available by other users on the network and maintains a listing of 

movies and television programs among other copyrighted content. 

33. A user then uses the torrent site to connect with other users and exchange content though 

the BitTorrent protocol often with many users at the same time.

34. 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.

35. Many parties, and possibly defendant, have paid money to facilitate or permit increased 

access to content which has been made available without authorization.

36. 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 through increasing the number of member peers and thus the desirability of their clients 

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

download speeds, greater access, or other benefits.

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 6 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 7 of 13

37. A significant element of the BitTorrent model is that those who participate and download 

movies not only share and upload movies with others, but participants are often rewarded 

through various means based on the volume and availability of content participants in turn 

provide to the network. In sum, there is a feedback incentive for participants as they obtain not 

only the benefit of their pirated copy of a movie, but they obtain other benefits by increasing the 

availability of pirated content to others.

38. As such, there are a growing number of users that participate in peer-to-peer networks 

and receive personal gain or compensation in that the networks they use reward those who 

provide large numbers of files for upload to others. Many parties, and possibly defendant have 

been compensated for their participation in expanding the availability of pirated content to others 

through BitTorrent networks, including plaintiff’s movie.

39. 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 a system of rewards and compensation to the participants, 

each of whom contribute to and further the enterprise. 

40. As can be seen from Exhibit 1, the user of IP address 76.105.157.206 is a prolific 

proponent of the BitTorrent distribution system advancing the BitTorrent economy of piracy.

FACTS OF THE CLAIM

IP Address

41. An Internet Service Provider, (“ISP”), grants access to the Internet and the ability to send 

and receive information, whether in the form of an email, photo or motion picture. To connect to 

the Internet a user must contract with an ISP and create an account for service either directly, or 

through an intermediary such as a subscriber. 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 7 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 8 of 13

42. The ISP then generally assigns each subscriber a unique IP address. An IP address is like 

the address used on an envelope. It is the public identifier each user uses to tell the world not 

only where they are sending data from, but the location to where any requested data should be 

sent.

43. The defendant has been identified as the party using IP address 76.105.157.206.

44. Plaintiff has, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, learned the ISP used by the 

infringer, the torrent file copied and distributed by the infringer as identified by file hash, the 

BitTorrent client application utilized by the infringer, and the general location of the infringer, as 

determined by geolocation technology, relevant information listed on Exhibit 1.

45. Based on the volume and type of activity associated with IP address 76.105.157.206, it is 

believed the defendant is the actual subscriber and infringer who contracted with ISP Comcast, 

or someone who operated with knowledge of the subscriber.

Conduct of Infringer

46. Plaintiff has recorded the infringer identified herein as copying and publishing plaintiff’s 

motion picture via BitTorrent, as plaintiff's investigator has made a direct TCP/IP connection 

with the defendant’s computer and downloaded content to confirm defendant is actively 

distributing the motion picture.

47. On operation, the infringer accessed the Internet either as the subscriber to the ISP

(Comcast) account or through access provided by the subscriber. The infringer then initiated his 

or her infringing conduct by first intentionally logging into one of many BitTorrent client 

repositories known for their large index of copyrighted movies, television shows and software. 

The infringer then intentionally obtained a torrent file identified by a “hash” which was attached 

to plaintiff’s motion picture from the index and intentionally loaded that torrent file into a 

computer program or client designed to read such files.

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 8 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 9 of 13

48. With the torrent file intentionally loaded by the infringer, his or her BitTorrent client used 

the BitTorrent protocol to initiate connections with possibly hundreds of other users possessing 

and uploading or sharing copies of the digital media described in that same hash, namely, 

plaintiff's motion picture. As the motion picture was copied to the infringer’s computer piece by 

piece, these downloaded pieces of plaintiff's motion picture were then published and made 

available for upload to other users’ computers. Thus, the infringer not only participated in the 

BitTorrent by downloading the plaintiff’s motion picture, but also uploaded or published the 

work via BitTorrent and made it available to others.

49. On information and belief, the infringer’s conduct was unauthorized and in violation of 

the license and terms of access to the Internet through his or her ISP.

50. Upon information and belief, the infringer was a willing and knowing participant in the 

infringing of plaintiff’s copyright. 

51. Upon information and belief, the infringer also obtained compensation or other personal 

benefit through making content, including plaintiff’s motion picture, available to others, even if 

such compensation was only increased access to other infringing works.

52. On information and belief, the volume and persistence of infringing activity though IP 

address 76.105.157.206 is of such an amount that it would have been readily apparent to anyone 

using that IP address.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

53. Defendant, without the permission or consent of TCYK, LLC, copied and distributed 

plaintiff’s motion picture through a public BitTorrent network. 

54. Defendant’s actions infringed TCYK, LLC's exclusive rights under The Copyright Act. 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 9 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 10 of 13

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

TCYK, LLC’s rights. 

56. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s conduct, TCYK, LLC’s exclusive rights 

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

57. TCYK, LLC is entitled to damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 and attorney fees and 

costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

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

will continue to cause plaintiffs great and irreparable injury. 

59. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503, TCYK, LLC is entitled to injunctive relief 

prohibiting defendant from further contributing to the infringement of TCYK, LLC’s copyrights 

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

LLC's rights. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ALTERNATE THEORY – INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT 

60. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations above.

61. Defendant obtained Internet access through an ISP and permitted, facilitated and 

promoted the use of the Internet access for the infringing of TCYK, LLC’s exclusive rights under 

The Copyright Act by others.

62. Defendant failed to reasonably secure, police and protect the use of their Internet service 

against use for improper purposes such as piracy, including the downloading and sharing of the

motion picture by others.

63. Defendant’s failure was with notice as piracy is in violation of the license for access 

granted to defendant by their ISP which issued defendant an IP address to access the internet.

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 10 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 11 of 13

64. Defendant’s failure was with notice as the volume of activity associated with IP address 

76.105.157.206 is such that defendant either knew of or should have known of the infringing 

activity.

65. Defendant is liable as an indirect or secondary infringer.

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

plaintiffs’ rights.

67. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, TCYK, LLC’s exclusive rights 

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

68. TCYK, LLC is entitled to damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 and attorney fees and 

costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

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

will continue to cause plaintiffs great and irreparable injury. 

70. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503, TCYK, LLC is entitled to injunctive relief 

prohibiting defendant from further indirect infringement of its copyrights and ordering that 

defendant destroy all copies of the motion picture made in violation of its rights and take such 

further steps as are necessary to prevent further indirect infringement.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ORS 647.105 – STATE TRADEMARK

71. Pursuant to ORS 647.095, a person who without the consent of Voltage uses the 

VOLTAGE PICTURES mark in connection with the distribution of a reproduction or counterfeit 

of a motion picture is liable for the equitable remedies provided in ORS 647.105.

72. Pursuant to ORS 647.105, “The owner of a mark registered under this chapter may 

proceed in a civil action to seek an injunction against the ... use, display or sale of a counterfeit 

or imitation of the mark.”

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 11 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 12 of 13

73. Voltage comes to this court seeking the equitable remedies provided by ORS Chapter 

647, namely an injunction against those who would, without authorization, reproduce and 

distribute motion pictures which bear its registered trademark. 

74. Defendant, without the authorization or consent of Voltage, used and distributed a 

reproduction or counterfeit of a motion picture bearing Voltage’s registered trademark 

VOLTAGE PICTURES. 

75. Defendant has acted with knowledge and in bad faith in their infringement of Voltage’s 

rights.

76. Voltage is entitled to an order of from this court enjoining defendant from infringing its 

rights and directing defendant to delete all unauthorized copies of Voltage’s motion pictures.

DAMAGES

77. With the specific intention of deterring Internet piracy such as has been committed by 

defendant in this case, Congress significantly increased the maximum award for willful 

infringement from $100,000 to $150,000 per title. 

78. Plaintiff TCYK, LLC has been damaged and claims statutory damages from the infringer

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) and an amount to be determined by the court.

79. Plaintiffs each have been damaged and claim equitable relief.

80. Plaintiffs give notice they may move to elect the full scope of relief available against 

defendant and others as discovery proceeds. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant as follows:

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

contributory infringing plaintiffs’ rights, including without limitation by using the 

internet to reproduce or copy plaintiffs’ motion pictures, to distribute plaintiffs’

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 12 of 13
COMPLAINT Page 13 of 13

motion pictures, or to make plaintiffs’ motion pictures available for distribution to 

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

plaintiffs. And further directing defendant to destroy all unauthorized copies of

plaintiffs’ motion pictures;

B. Statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 in an amount deemed just and 

proper by the Court.

C. For plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorney fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 and 

ORS 647.105(2); and

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs demand a trial by 

jury.

DATED: July 25, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

CROWELL LAW

/s/Carl D. Crowell

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

carl@crowell-law.com

503-581-1240

Of attorneys for the plaintiffs

Case 3:14-cv-01191-AC Document 1 Filed 07/25/14 Page 13 of 13