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

PORTLAND DIVISION

QOTD FILM INVESTMENT LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITTORRENT USERS: 

DOE-67.166.95.111; DOE-24.20.28.24; 

DOE-67.160.138.19; DOE-73.37.64.195; 

DOE-67.189.40.114; DOE-71.59.237.236; 

and DOE-76.27.232.24

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:16-cv-00246

COMPLAINT

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff QOTD Film Investment Ltd. (“QOTD”), 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).

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 2 of 9

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

PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff QOTD is a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom with

offices in Los Angeles, California. 

5. QOTD is an affiliate of Benaroya Pictures, a production company with a notable catalog 

of major motion pictures. 

The Rights of QOTD

6. Queen of the Desert is a major motion picture scheduled for release in the United States 

in early 2016, with an official web site of https://www.queenofthedesertmovie.com.

7. Queen of the Desert has been registered with the United States Copyright Office by the 

owner, QOTD, Registration No. PAu 3-766-976, 2015.

8. Under The Copyright Act, QOTD is the proprietor of all copyrights and interests needed 

to bring suit.

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. 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. 

12. QOTD comes to court seeking relief as the motion picture Queen of the Desert is the 

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

worldwide with thousands of confirmed instances of infringing activity traced to Oregon.

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 3 of 9

THE DEFENDANTS

13. The defendants identified herein as Doe-67.166.95.111, Doe-24.20.28.24, Doe67.160.138.19, Doe-73.37.64.195, Doe-67.189.40.114, Doe-71.59.237.236, and Doe76.27.232.24, are currently known only by their Internet Protocol (“IP”) Addresses which were 

each observed by plaintiff’s investigators, Maverickeye, as distributing the motion picture.

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

to the State of Oregon.

15. The defendants’ IP addresses have each been observed and confirmed as distributing 

plaintiff’s motion picture multiple times with the defendants combined observed distributing the 

motion picture over 800 times.

16. While each defendant has been observed distributing plaintiff’s motion picture multiple 

times, plaintiff discloses the following specific observed instances of distribution:

Doe IP	Address	Used Date	and	Time	(UTC) Motion	Picture

Doe-67.166.95.111 67.166.95.111 2016-02-03	21:50:49 Queen	of	the	Desert	(2016)

Doe-24.20.28.24 24.20.28.24 2016-02-02	03:30:29 Queen	of	the	Desert	(2016)

Doe-67.160.138.19 67.160.138.19 2016-01-29	14:34:02 Queen	of the	Desert	(2016)

Doe-73.37.64.195 73.37.64.195 2016-01-27	04:43:02 Queen	of	the	Desert	(2016)

Doe-67.189.40.114 67.189.40.114 2016-02-09	00:05:00 Queen	of	the	Desert	(2016)

Doe-71.59.237.236 71.59.237.236 2016-02-04	03:11:34 Queen	of	the	Desert	(2016)

Doe-76.27.232.24 76.27.232.24 2016-01-31	13:54:17 Queen	of	the	Desert	(2016)

17. The defendants’ IP addresses have been observed as associated with the peer-to-peer 

exchange of a large number of copyrighted titles through the BitTorrent network with over 6,000 

acts of distribution of content in violation of U.S. copyright law associated with these IP 

addresses alone, as such the defendants’ conduct is clearly willful and persistent. 

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

indicates that the defendants are likely the primary subscriber of the IP addresses or someone 

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 4 of 9

who resides with the subscriber, as such activity indicates each defendant is an authorized user of 

the IP address with consistent and permissive access.

19. The volume of the activity associated with each defendant’s IP address indicates that 

anyone actively using or observing activity on the IP address would likely be aware of the 

conduct of the defendant. 

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

indicates that the defendants are not young children.

21. The defendants’ IP addresses were 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.

22. The records maintained by Comcast should be able to identify either each 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 defendants. 

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

the true identity of the defendants. 

BACKGROUND

PEER-TO-PEER INTERNET PIRACY

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

billion per year.

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 

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 5 of 9

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.”

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; 

...

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 6 of 9

27. 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.

28. 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. 

29. 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.

30. Defendants’ 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.

31. Many parties, and possibly defendants 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.

32. 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. 

33. Based on activity observed associated with defendants’ IP addresses, defendants are 

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

piracy.

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 6 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 7 of 9

JOINDER

34. Plaintiff acknowledges that joinder in this action under FRCP 20(a)(2) is permissive in 

that plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same occurrences or transactions, or series of occurrences 

or transactions and that there are questions of law and fact common to each of the defendants. 

35. All the defendants have collectively acted through the willful and intentional use of 

BitTorrent with the express purpose of committing intellectual property theft and damaging 

plaintiff. 

36. All of the defendants have collectively acted with notice that their individual and 

collective conduct facilitated intellectual property theft being committed by others. 

37. Each of the defendants willfully joined in the collective conspiracy of using BitTorrent 

for an illegal purpose and willfully acted to cause harm to plaintiff and to assist others in causing 

harm to plaintiff through their use of and support of the BitTorrent distribution of motion 

pictures. 

38. The plaintiff’s rights to relief, as stated below, ultimately arise out of the same series of 

related transactions and occurrences.

39. This action also raises substantial questions of law and fact common to all defendants. 

40. Permissive joinder in the instant case is to permit a more efficient management of the 

claims of plaintiff against the several defendants and to reduce the costs to plaintiff and 

defendants and to reduce the costs and burdens on the Court.

41. Notice is provided, that on being specifically identified and on request from an identified 

defendant, plaintiff agrees to sever any defendant that claims prejudice in being joined in this 

matter and proceed against each such defendant individually. 

42. Plaintiff intends to provide updates to the court on the status of this action and the status 

of each defendant on a regular basis.

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 7 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 8 of 9

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

43. Defendants, without the permission or consent of QOTD, copied and distributed 

plaintiff’s motion picture through a public BitTorrent network. 

44. Defendants’ actions infringed QOTD’s exclusive rights under The Copyright Act. 

45. The conduct of each of the defendants has been willful, intentional, in disregard of and 

indifferent to QOTD’s rights. 

46. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ conduct, QOTD’s exclusive rights 

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

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

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

48. The conduct of the defendants is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this 

Court, will continue to cause plaintiff great and irreparable injury. 

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

the defendants from further contributing to the infringement of QOTD’s copyrights, the economy 

of piracy, and ordering that defendants destroy all copies of the motion picture made in violation 

of QOTD’s rights. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against each of the defendants as follows:

A. For entry of permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from direct, indirect or 

contributory infringement of 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 

Case 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 8 of 9
COMPLAINT Page 9 of 9

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;

B. For entry of permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from supporting the 

BitTorrent economy of piracy by enjoining the defendants from direct, indirect or 

contributory peer-to-peer file sharing in violation of U.S. copyright law.

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.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

jury.

DATED: February 10, 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 3:16-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 9 of 9