COMPLAINT Page 1 of 8

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 plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

AUTOMATA PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE-71.237.177.28,

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-00675

COMPLAINT

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Automata Productions, Inc., 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-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 2 of 8

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff Automata Productions, Inc. is a Nevada Corporation and a motion picture 

production company.

5. Plaintiff Automata Productions, Inc. is an affiliate of Nu Image / Millennium Films, 

production companies and distributors of a notable catalog of major motion pictures. 

The rights of Automata

6. The motion picture titled Automata is a notable motion picture released in 2014, but is

being wrongfully distributed on the Internet through the BitTorrent network and is now being 

widely pirated, limiting its ability to gain access to and benefit from conventional market outlets. 

7. The motion picture Automata has been downloaded through BitTorrent hundreds of 

thousands of times with over 10,000 instances of piracy traced to locations in the state of 

Oregon.

8. Automata Productions, Inc., is the registered copyright holder of the motion picture 

Automata, which has been registered with the United States Copyright Office, Registration No. 

PA 1923090, 2014.

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

the laws of the United States.

10. Under The Copyright Act, plaintiff is the proprietor of copyrights and interests necessary 

to bring suit.

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

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. 

Case 3:15-cv-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 3 of 8

THE DEFENDANT

13. The defendant identified herein as DOE-71.237.177.28 is currently known only by their 

Internet Protocol (“IP”) Address 71.237.177.28 which on 3/27/15 at 05:01:05 AM UTC, was 

observed through direct TCP/IP connection as infringing the motion picture.

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

Oregon.

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

motion picture on over 180 separate occasions almost daily since mid-January.

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

of hundreds of other copyrighted titles through the BitTorrent network.

17. 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.

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

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

19. 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.

20. 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 4 of 8

21. 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

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

billion per year.

23. 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.”

24. 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

Case 3:15-cv-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 5 of 8

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; 

...

25. 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.

26. 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 which 

promote and facilitate piracy generate millions of dollars in illicit revenue through sales and 

advertising.

27. 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.

28. 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.

Case 3:15-cv-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 5 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 6 of 8

29. 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.

30. Many torrent sites have promoted the distribution and piracy of plaintiff’s motion picture 

through both the use of trailers and advertising material which bears the trademarks of plaintiff’s 

and the listing of the number of “seeders” or peers such as the defendant from whom the motion 

picture can be downloaded. 

31. 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 such as the defendant and those working with the defendant, each of whom 

contribute to and further the enterprise. 

32. 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 and 

causing harm to plaintiff.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

33. Defendant, without the permission or consent of plaintiff, copied and distributed 

plaintiff’s motion picture through a public BitTorrent network. 

34. Defendant’s actions infringed plaintiff’s exclusive rights under The Copyright Act. 

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

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

Case 3:15-cv-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 6 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 7 of 8

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

17 U.S.C. § 106 have been violated. 

37. Plaintiff is entitled to damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 and attorney fees and costs 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

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

will continue to cause plaintiff great and irreparable injury. 

39. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503, plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting

defendant from further contributing to the infringement of plaintiff’s copyrights and ordering that 

defendant destroy all copies of any motion picture made in violation of plaintiff’s rights. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows:

A. 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 pictures, 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 or delete all unauthorized copies 

of plaintiff’s motion pictures and any software used to copy or distribute plaintiff’s 

motion picture;

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

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

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

Case 3:15-cv-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 7 of 8
COMPLAINT Page 8 of 8

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

jury.

DATED: April 21, 2015.

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 plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-00675 Document 1 Filed 04/21/15 Page 8 of 8