3:15-cv-01817-SB 

Page 1 

Defendant’s Answer

David H. Madden 

Mersenne Law 

9600 S.W. Oak Street 

Suite 500 

Tigard, Oregon 97223 

(503)679-1671 

ecf@mersenne.com 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

GLACIER FILMS (USA) INC. and

GLACIER FILMS 1 LLC, 

Plaintiffs 

v. 

Andrey TURCHIN, 

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: ........... 3:15-cv-01817-SB 

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER 

FOR his Answer and defense of the complaint of copyright infringement filed by 

GLACIER FILMS (USA) INC. and GLACIER FILMS 1 LLC (together “GLACIER”), 

defendant Andrey TURCHIN admits, denies and alleges as set forth below. To the 

extent not specifically admitted or denied, TURCHIN generally denies each and every 

allegation in the complaint. In particular, Defendant denies each and every allegation 

for which he lacks information to admit or deny. 

1. TURCHIN admits that the present action arises under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 37 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 7
 

3:15-cv-01817-SB 

Page 2 

Defendant’s Answer

U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. 

2. TURCHIN admits that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. 

3. TURCHIN admits that venue in this district is proper. 

4. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny GLACIER FILMS (USA) INC.’s 

corporate form and nature of its business. 

5. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny GLACIER FILMS 1 LLC’s corporate 

form and nature of its business. 

6. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny GLACIER’s ownership of any 

interest in the motion picture Amercan Heist (“the MOVIE”). The balance of paragraph 

6 is denied as irrelevant. 

7. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny the alleged planned release 

schedule for the MOVIE. 

8. Defendant admits that GLACIER FILMS (USA) INC. is listed in the records of the 

U.S. Copyright Office in connection with registration no. PA0001938638 for a motion 

picture entitled American Heist, first published in the Russian Federation. He lacks 

information to admit or deny any relationship between the subject of this registration 

and the MOVIE. 

9. Defendant admits that GLACIER FILMS 1 LLC is listed in the records of the U.S. 

Copyright Office in connection with registration no. PAu003681371 for a screenplay 

entitled American Heist, containing text from The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery. He 

lacks information to admit or deny any relationship between the subject of this 

registration and the MOVIE. 

10. Defendant admits that the materials on deposit with the U.S. Copyright Office are 

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 37 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 7
 

3:15-cv-01817-SB 

Page 3 

Defendant’s Answer

presumptively eligible for copyright protection in the United States. 

11. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny whether Plaintiffs are the 

“proprietors” of any interests whatsoever. Plaintiffs have failed to identify the “interests 

necessary to bring suit,” so Defendant is unable to determine whether Plaintiffs possess 

any such interest. 

12. Defendant admits that a DVD of the same title as the MOVIE can currently be 

purchased from Amazon for $0.50. He lacks information to admit or deny whether the 

content of such a DVD is the MOVIE. 

13. Defendant denies having notice of Plaintiffs’ purported rights through any of the 

channels asserted by Plaintiffs. 

14. Defendant admits that his name is Andrey TURCHIN, and that he lives in 

Clackamas, Oregon. He lacks information to admit or deny his “confirmation” as “DOE73.164.151.227.” 

15. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny Plaintiffs’ purported observations. 

He denies that Plaintiffs’ characterizations of legal responsibility are correct. 

16. Defendant admits that he has used software believed to implement the 

BitTorrent protocol to download electronic information to his personal computer. He 

lacks information to admit or deny the copyright status of such electronic information. 

Defendant denies all other factual allegations of paragraph 16. 

17. Defendant admits that certain portions of the equipment through which Internet 

service is provided to his residence, have been password-protected at some relevant 

times. 

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 37 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 7
 

3:15-cv-01817-SB 

Page 4 

Defendant’s Answer

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18. Defendant admits downloading a single copy of electronic information which he 

believes to be the MOVIE, from a BitTorrent network, without permission or consent of 

Plaintiffs. He lacks information to admit or deny whether this information comprises 

material in which Plaintiffs possess any rights. Defendant denies all other factual 

allegations of paragraph 18. 

19. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny the legal conclusion of paragraph 

19. 

20. Defendant denies the legal conclusions of paragraph 20. He denies the factual 

allegation that he intended to deprive Plaintiffs of income or cause them harm. 

21. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny whether Plaintiffs possess any 

exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106 or whether any such purported rights have been 

violated. 

22. Defendant lacks information to admit or deny whether Plaintiffs or either of 

them are entitled to damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504 or attorney fees and costs pursuant 

to 17 U.S.C. § 505. 

23. Defendant denies that his conduct is currently causing or will in the future cause 

any harm to Plaintiffs. 

24. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25. Plaintiffs GLACIER FILMS (USA) INC. and GLACIER FILMS 1 LLC and/or their 

authorized agents participated in BitTorrent swarms, and so any download committed 

by Defendant (or by anyone for whom Defendant was responsible, as well as by any 

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 37 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 7
 

3:15-cv-01817-SB 

Page 5 

Defendant’s Answer

other “infringer” who participated in the BitTorrent swarms) was from a source 

authorized to permit such download. Consequently, any exercise by Defendant of an 

exclusive right protected by the Copyright Act was with the consent of an authorized 

party and not in derogation of any exclusive right. 

26. Any downloading or uploading of the copyrighted work was permitted by the 

doctrine of fair use. 

27. Any downloading or uploading of the copyrighted work was no more than a de 

minimis act. 

28. Any downloading or uploading of less than all of the copyrighted work results in 

a non-functional copy (i.e., a partial copy that cannot under any circumstances be used 

to infringe any of Plaintiffs’ purported exclusive rights.) Therefore, no infringement of 

Plaintiffs’ rights has occurred or can occur. 

29. Any partial copy of the copyrighted work is overwhelmingly likely to lack a 

proper copyright notice. In the absence of such notice, Plaintiffs’ asserted enhanced 

damages are not available. 

30. Any portion of the copyrighted work that was downloaded or uploaded by 

Defendant or by anyone for whom Defendant is responsible is not eligible for copyright 

protection under the doctrine of scènes à faire. 

31. Any portion of the copyrighted work that was downloaded or uploaded by 

Defendant or by anyone for whom Defendant is responsible is not eligible for copyright 

protection due to lack of original expressive content. 

22. The infringement of Plaintiff’s purported rights that allegedly occurred through 

the concerted, common and conspiratorial action of individuals participating in a 

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 37 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 7
 

3:15-cv-01817-SB 

Page 6 

Defendant’s Answer

BitTorrent swarm constituted a single instance of infringement for which the 

participating individuals are jointly and severally liable, and for which Plaintiffs can only 

recover a single statutory damage award. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have 

been made whole by one or more settling individuals. Any further recovery would be in 

excess of statutory limits and of actual damages. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant prays that this Court grant judgment in his favor, 

including: 

1. A determination that he did not directly infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights by any 

action or inaction; 

2. A determination that he did not indirectly infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights by any 

action or inaction; 

3. Defendant’s costs and reasonable attorney fees for his successful defense of 

Plaintiffs’ infringement claims under 17 U.S.C. § 505; and 

4. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

24 June 2016 

Date David H. Madden, SBN OR080396 

Attorney for Defendant Andrey TURCHIN 

Mersenne Law 

9600 S.W. Oak Street 

Suite 500 

Tigard, Oregon 97223 

dhm@mersenne.com 

(503)679-1671 

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 37 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 7
 

3:15-cv-01817-SB Certificate of Service

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the document entitled: 

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER 

was served upon the parties listed below on the date indicated, 

 by following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of 

general jurisdiction where the district court is located or where service is made: 

 by delivery of a true copy of the document to the party to be served; 

 by delivering a true copy of the document to the dwelling house or usual place 

of abode of the person to be served, to any person 14 years of age or older 

residing in the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the person to be 

served; 

 by leaving a true copy of the document during working hours at an office 

maintained by the party to be served for the conduct of business, with the person 

who is apparently in charge; 

 by mailing a true copy of the document to the party by first class mail and by any 

of the following: certified, registered, or express mail with return receipt 

requested; 

 by delivering a copy of the document to the individual personally; 

 by leaving a copy of the document at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of 

abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; 

 by delivering a copy of the document to an agent authorized by appointment or by 

law to receive service of process; 

 by electronic filing notification (PACER); or

 other: courtesy copy by electronic mail to carl@crowell-law.com 

Carl D. Crowell, Esq. 

Crowell Law 

943 Liberty Street S.E. 

P.O. Box 923 

Salem, Oregon 97308-0923 

Attorney for Plaintiffs GLACIER FILMS USA INC. and GLACIER FILMS 1 LLC 

24 June 2016 

Date David H. Madden 

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 37 Filed 06/24/16 Page 7 of 7