COMPLAINT Page 1 of 8

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

email: carl@crowell-law.com

Drew P. Taylor, OSB 135974

email: drew@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

CLEAR SKIES NEVADA, LLC and

PTG NEVADA, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOE-73.11.62.88,

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-02140

COMPLAINT

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Clear Skies Nevada, and PTG Nevada, LLC (“plaintiffs”) 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”).

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

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 1 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 2 of 8

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.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

4. Plaintiff Clear Skies Nevada, LLC is a Limited Liability Company and the registered 

copyright holder of the motion picture Good Kill.

5. Plaintiff PTG Nevada, LLC is a Limited Liability Company with principal offices in Los 

Angeles, California and the registered copyright holder of the motion picture Pay The Ghost.

The Rights of Plaintiffs

6. Good Kill has been registered with the United States Copyright Office by the owner, 

Clear Skies Nevada, LLC, Registration No. PAu 3-762-377, 2015.

7. Under The Copyright Act, Clear Skies Nevada, LLC is the proprietor of copyrights and 

related interest needed to bring suit for infringement of Good Kill.

8. Pay The Ghost is protected by United States Copyright laws, including laws at they 

pertain to Registration No. TXu 1920050, 2014.

9. Under The Copyright Act, PTG Nevada, LLC is the proprietor of copyrights and interests 

needed to bring suit for infringement of Pay The Ghost.

10. Each of the listed motion pictures contains wholly original material that is copyrightable 

subject matter under the laws of the United States.

11. Defendant had notice of plaintiffs’ rights through general publication and advertising and 

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

each motion picture, and marketing and copies, each of which bore a proper copyright notice. 

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 2 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 3 of 8

12. Plaintiffs come to court seeking relief as their motion pictures are being illegally 

downloaded and distributed countless times worldwide with many confirmed instances of 

infringing activity traced to Oregon.

13. Plaintiffs seek relief against Doe-73.11.62.88 as this defendant has been particularly 

egregious in the trafficking plaintiffs’ motions pictures and others.

14. Plaintiffs provide notice that other parties owning rights to content infringed by the 

defendant may join this suit.

THE DEFENDANT

15. The defendant identified herein as DOE-73.11.62.88 is currently known only by their 

Internet Protocol (“IP”) Address 73.11.62.88 which was observed by plaintiffs’ investigators, 

Maverickeye, as infringing their motion pictures.

16. A listing of some, but not all, of the observed instances of infringing conduct includes:

IP Address Title Date of Observed Activity

73.11.62.88 The Rise of the Krays (2015) 2015-09-22

73.11.62.88 Pay The Ghost (2015) 2015-09-22

73.11.62.88 Good Kill (2014) 2015-10-10

17. Through geolocation, the IP address used by the defendant has subsequently been traced 

to the State of Oregon.

18. The defendant’s IP address has been observed and confirmed as distributing plaintiffs’

motion pictures multiple times. 

19. Defendant’s IP address has been observed as associated with the peer-to-peer exchange 

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

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 3 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 4 of 8

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

the defendant is likely the primary subscriber of the IP address or someone who resides with the 

subscriber, as such activity indicates the defendant is an authorized user of the IP address with 

consistent and permissive access.

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

the defendant is not a young child.

22. 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.

23. The records maintained by Comcast should be able to identify either the defendant, or the 

subscriber who contracted with Comcast for service who in turn is likely to have knowledge that

will lead to the identity of the defendant. 

24. Plaintiff intends to seek initial discovery to subpoena records from Comcast to ascertain 

the true identity of the defendant. 

BACKGROUND

PEER-TO-PEER INTERNET PIRACY

25. Digital piracy, including BitTorrent piracy, costs the entertainment industry over $70 

billion per year.

26. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 4 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 5 of 8

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.”

27. 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; 

...

28. 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.

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 5 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 6 of 8

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. Defendant’s participation in the BitTorrent exchange of plaintiffs motion pictures 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.

32. Many parties, and possibly defendant have been compensated for their participation in 

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

plaintiffs’ motion pictures.

33. 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. 

34. Based on activity observed associated with defendant’s IP address, defendant is a prolific 

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

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

35. Defendant, without the permission or consent of plaintiffs, copied and distributed each of 

plaintiffs’ motion pictures through a public BitTorrent network. 

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 6 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 7 of 8

36. Defendant’s actions infringed plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under The Copyright Act. 

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

plaintiffs’ rights with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of income and cause plaintiff harm.

38. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under 

17 U.S.C. § 106 have been violated. 

39. Plaintiffs are each entitled to damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 and attorney fees and 

costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

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

will continue to cause plaintiffs great and irreparable injury. 

41. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503, plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief 

prohibiting defendant from further contributing to the infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrights and 

ordering that defendant destroy all copies of the motion picture made in violation of plaintiffs’

rights. 

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 picture, to distribute plaintiffs’

motion picture, or to make plaintiffs’ motion picture 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;

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 7 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 8 of 8

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

contributory furthering the BitTorrent economy of piracy through the downloading 

or uploading of unlicensed copyrighted content using the Internet;

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

D. For plaintiffs’ 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.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

jury.

DATED: November 15, 2015.

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 plaintiffs

Case 3:15-cv-02140-AC Document 1 Filed 11/15/15 Page 8 of 8