Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/170244044/Malibu-Media-Copyright-Complaint-John-Doe
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 13:18:05
Document Index: 512284274

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 106', '§ 106', '§ 106', '§ 101', '§ 106', '§ 101', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 505']

Malibu Media Copyright Complaint - John Doe | United States Code | Copyright
Malibu Media Copyright Complaint - John DoeUploaded by Kenan FarrellRelated InterestsUnited States CodeCopyrightIp AddressCryptographyCopyright InfringementRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Malibu Media Copyright ComplaintView MoreMalibu Media Copyright ComplaintCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT INDIANA MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, ) ) PlaintiII, ) Civil Action Case No. ) v. ) ) JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address ) 50.129.162.170, ) ) DeIendant. ) ) COMPLAINT-ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT PlaintiII, Malibu Media, LLC, sues DeIendant John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.129.162.170 and alleges: Introduction 1. This matter arises under the United States Copyright Act oI 1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (the 'Copyright Act¨). 2. DeIendant is a persistent online inIringer oI PlaintiII`s copyrights. Indeed, DeIendant`s IP address as set Iorth on Exhibit A was used to illegally distribute each oI the copyrighted movies set Iorth on Exhibit B. 3. PlaintiII is the registered owner oI the copyrights set Iorth on Exhibit B (the 'Copyrights-in-Suit¨). 1urisdiction And Venue 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Iederal question); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (patents, copyrights, trademarks and unIair competition). Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
2 5. PlaintiII used proven IP address geolocation technology which has consistently worked in similar cases to ensure that the DeIendant`s acts oI copyright inIringement occurred using an Internet Protocol address ('IP address¨) traced to a physical address located within this District, and thereIore this Court has personal jurisdiction over the DeIendant because (i) DeIendant committed the tortious conduct alleged in this Complaint in this State, and (ii) DeIendant resides in this State and/or (iii) DeIendant has engaged in substantial and not isolated business activity in this State. 6. Based upon experience Iiling over 1,000 cases the geolocation technology used by PlaintiII has proven to be accurate to the District level in over 99° oI the cases. 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because: (i) a substantial part oI the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District; and, (ii) the DeIendant resides (and thereIore can be Iound) in this District and resides in this State; additionally, venue is proper in this District pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) (venue Ior copyright cases) because DeIendant or DeIendant`s agent resides or may be Iound in this District. Parties 8. PlaintiII, Malibu Media, LLC, (d/b/a 'X-Art.com¨) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws oI the State oI CaliIornia and has its principal place oI business located at 409 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 501, Los Angeles, CA, 90015. 9. PlaintiII only knows DeIendant by his, her or its IP Address. DeIendant`s IP address is set Iorth on Exhibit A. 10. DeIendant`s Internet Service Provider can identiIy the DeIendant. Factual Background Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
3 I. Defendant Used the BitTorrent File Distribution Network To Infringe Plaintiffs Copvrights 11. The BitTorrent Iile distribution network ('BitTorrent¨) is one oI the most common peer-to-peer Iile sharing venues used Ior distributing large amounts oI data, including, but not limited to, digital movie Iiles. 12. BitTorrent`s popularity stems Irom the ability oI users to directly interact with each other in order to distribute a large Iile without creating a heavy load on any individual source computer and/or network. The methodology oI BitTorrent allows users to interact directly with each other, thus avoiding the need Ior intermediary host websites which are subject to DMCA take down notices and potential regulatory enIorcement actions. 13. In order to distribute a large Iile, the BitTorrent protocol breaks a Iile into many small pieces called bits. Users then exchange these small bits amongst each other instead oI attempting to distribute a much larger digital Iile. 14. AIter the inIringer receives all oI the bits oI a digital media Iile, the inIringer`s BitTorrent client soItware reassembles the bits so that the Iile may be opened and utilized. 15. Each bit oI a BitTorrent Iile is assigned a unique cryptographic hash value. 16. The cryptographic hash value oI the bit ('bit hash¨) acts as that bit`s unique digital Iingerprint. Every digital Iile has one single possible cryptographic hash value correlating to it. The BitTorrent protocol utilizes cryptographic hash values to ensure each bit is properly routed amongst BitTorrent users as they engage in Iile sharing. 17. The entirety oI the digital media Iile also has a unique cryptographic hash value ('Iile hash¨), which acts as a digital Iingerprint identiIying the digital media Iile (e.g. a movie). Once inIringers complete downloading all bits which comprise a digital media Iile, the BitTorrent soItware uses the Iile hash to determine that the Iile is complete and accurate. Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
4 18. PlaintiII`s investigator, IPP Limited, established a direct TCP/IP connection with the DeIendant`s IP address as set Iorth on Exhibit A. 19. IPP Limited downloaded Irom DeIendant one or more bits oI each oI the digital movie Iiles identiIied by the Iile hashes on Exhibit A. 20. On inIormation and belieI, DeIendant downloaded, copied, and distributed a complete copy oI PlaintiII`s movies without authorization as enumerated on Exhibit A. 21. Each oI the cryptographic Iile hashes as set Iorth on Exhibit A correlates to copyrighted movies owned by PlaintiII as identiIied on Exhibit B. 22. IPP Limited downloaded Irom DeIendant one oI more bits oI each Iile hash listed on Exhibit A. IPP Limited Iurther downloaded a Iull copy oI each Iile hash Irom the BitTorrent Iile distribution network and conIirmed through independent calculation that the Iile hash matched what is listed on Exhibit A. IPP Limited then veriIied that the digital media Iile correlating to each Iile hash listed on Exhibit A contained a copy oI a movie which is identical (or alternatively, strikingly similar or substantially similar) to the movie associated with that Iile hash on Exhibit A. At no time did IPP Limited upload PlaintiII's copyrighted content to any other BitTorrent user. 23. IPP Limited connected, over a course oI time, with DeIendant`s IP address Ior each hash value as listed on Exhibit A. The most recent TCP/IP connection between IPP and the DeIendant's IP address Ior each Iile hash value listed on Exhibit A is included within the column labeled Hit Date UTC. UTC reIers to Universal Time which is utilized Ior air traIIic control as well as Ior computer Iorensic purposes. 24. An overview oI the Copyrights-in-Suit, including each hit date, date oI Iirst publication, registration date, and registration number issued by the United States Copyright Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
5 OIIice is set Iorth on Exhibit B. 25. IPP Limited has also engaged in enhanced surveillance oI other digital media Iiles being distributed by DeIendant. The results oI this more intensive surveillance are outlined in Exhibit C. The Copyrights-in-Suit are solely limited to content owned by PlaintiII as outlined in Exhibit B. PlaintiII is not alleging any claims oI inIringement on works other than the Copyrights-in-Suit., and this Iiling oI Exhibit C on the date oI the suit provides an evidentiary snap shot oI what existed at the time oI Iiling the suit. 26. Exhibit C demonstrates that the DeIendant is a regular and persistent BitTorrent user. And, thereIore, is more likely the inIringer oI PlaintiII`s copyright. Further, Exhibit C contains inIormation about the types oI media the DeIendant has downloaded. Consequently, it may be used by either PlaintiII or the John Doe deIendant (in connection with the exculpatory evidence Iorm) Ior the purpose oI identiIying the inIringer. The inIringer`s computer may also contain inIormation about the Iiles on Exhibit C proving he is the downloader because a BitTorrent user is more likely the inIringer oI PlaintiII`s copyrighted works. Miscellaneous 27. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred or been waived. 28. PlaintiII has retained counsel and is obligated to pay said counsel a reasonable Iee Ior its services. COUNT I Direct Infringement Against Defendant 29. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-27 are hereby re-alleged as iI Iully set Iorth herein. 30. PlaintiII is the owner oI the Copyrights-in-Suit, as outlined in Exhibit B, each oI which covers an original work oI authorship. Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
6 31. By using BitTorrent, DeIendant copied and distributed the constituent elements oI each oI the original works covered by the Copyrights-in-Suit. 32. PlaintiII did not authorize, permit or consent to DeIendant`s distribution oI its works. 33. As a result oI the Ioregoing, DeIendant violated PlaintiII`s exclusive right to: (A) Reproduce the works in copies, in violation oI 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 501; (B) Redistribute copies oI the works to the public by sale or other transIer oI ownership, or by rental, lease or lending, in violation oI 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(3) and 501; (C) PerIorm the copyrighted works, in violation oI 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(4) and 501, by showing the works` images in any sequence and/or by making the sounds accompanying the works audible and transmitting said perIormance oI the works, by means oI a device or process, to members oI the public capable oI receiving the display (as set Iorth in 17 U.S.C. § 101`s deIinitions oI 'perIorm¨ and 'publically¨ perIorm); and (D) Display the copyrighted works, in violation oI 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(5) and 501, by showing individual images oI the works nonsequentially and transmitting said display oI the works by means oI a device or process to members oI the public capable oI receiving the display (as set Iorth in 17 U.S.C. § 101`s deIinition oI 'publically¨ display). 34. DeIendant`s inIringements were committed 'willIully¨ within the meaning oI 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). WHEREFORE, PlaintiII respectIully requests that the Court: (A) Permanently enjoin DeIendant and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with DeIendant Irom continuing to inIringe PlaintiII`s copyrighted works; (B) Order that DeIendant delete and permanently remove the digital media Iiles Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
7 relating to PlaintiII`s works Irom each oI the computers under DeIendant`s possession, custody or control; (C) Order that DeIendant delete and permanently remove the inIringing copies oI the works DeIendant has on computers under DeIendant`s possession, custody or control; (D) Award PlaintiII statutory damages in the amount oI $150,000 per inIringed Work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504-(a) and (c); (E) Award PlaintiII its reasonable attorneys` Iees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; and (F) Grant PlaintiII any other and Iurther relieI this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR A 1URY TRIAL PlaintiII hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. RespectIully submitted, NICOLETTI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti Paul J. Nicoletti, Esq. (P44419) 36880 Woodward Ave, Suite 100 BloomIield Hills, MI 48304 Tel: (248) 203-7800 Fax: (248) 203-7801 E-Fax: (248) 928-7051 Email: paul¸nicoletti-associates.com Attornevs for Plaintiff Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Malibu Media Copyright Complaint 92013Skip carouselDallas Buyers\\ZIP\\ Reflect Data 2.4.8.0 no..registration.spanish full,,version nulled fullKaren Armstrong - A History of God and Other Works14C13824-001_0_ComplaintOpenMind Solutions v. Does - Class Action Complaint[Eric_Setton,_Bernd_Girod]_Peer-to-Peer_Video_Stre(BookFi.org).pdfA Measurement Study of Attacks on BitTorrent LeechersInforeFX v. Does 1-180; 1:13-cv-03524; Judge Edmond E. Chang RulingReFX Audio Software - Motion to SeverBasics07951A05B7GridTorrent-PCI;;ONLINE;; Mother yr 1991 information.,.selling.,.Philips.,.italian sony11 CV 11789 WGY Document 1 ComplaintA BitTorrent Client in Python 3IOWHADNAdkawdlaMarkGuruDatastage Interview QuestionsmnlNOPI in Teradatacst300l kelso paper2Final Pci April ReportDNSO UKI OO Education Pack 27 March 2012After the Fact -FragmentoCinematic ProseCopyright SmeJava ShellD17037GC20_TOCTridef 3d EulaDocuments About United States CodeSkip carouselSocial Networking FOIA Complaint FinalwillallenLawsuit Against Ruth Madoff (Irving Picard)3-9-16 ECF 282 U.S.A. v A. BUNDY et al - Superseding IndictmentUS v. Deric LostutterRead omnibus spending bill textArcapita Bank Chapter 11 petitionAwlaki MemoPodliska v Select Committee and Trey GowdyUSCIS draft solicitationText of Senate budget agreementBand Crew IndictmentHostess Brands' Motion to Liquidate6th Circuit IRS/Tea Party TargetingTarget Practice and Marksmanship Training Support ActSilk Road Appeal BriefStudent Right to Know Before You Go ActKEYES v OBAMA - 55 - NOTICE Declaration regarding Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate of Barack ObamaS.E.C.'s Lawsuit Against 'America's Prophet,' Sean David MortonPublic Law American Recovery and Revitalization Act of 2009; Economic Stimulus Act signed by President Barack Obama February 17, 2009Survival Kits RFPS306 2011 CrimJ Commission ActMario Enrique Ramirez-Lainez, A205 236 187 (BIA Aug. 21, 2014)Teresa Giudice Order of Forfeiture Escobar LetterSecret Service Affidavit for Seizure of Bednar FundsU.S.C. Title 10, Title 22, And Title 50RNC_complaintJoel Pisano Financial Disclosure Report for 2010Gene Lanier v. Ellis Traub, Prudential Insurance Company of America, 934 F.2d 287, 11th Cir. (1991)More From Kenan FarrellSkip carouselMetaMetrics ComplaintCMG ComplaintHarry Chocolate Shop ComplaintPatsy's Pizzeria ComplaintJayco ComplaintBlack Widow ComplaintSunworks United ComplaintPortland Home Show ComplaintToland ComplaintChilly Panda ComplaintOREC ComplaintUSA Football ComplaintHenager ComplaintKlipsch ComplaintOregon Trademark and Service Mark ApplicationSuper 8 ComplaintAcushnet ComplaintDropzonems ComplaintLitov ComplaintNichols ComplaintNichols ComplaintSunlight Supply ComplaintRoambuilt ComplaintOregon Brewing Company Exhibit 1Oregon Brewing Company ComplaintSmoke Free ComplaintDelicato ComplaintEndeavour ComplaintOMRI ComplaintMecca Companies Complaint