United States District Court District of Columbia
United States District Court District of Columbia
United States District Court District of Columbia
Plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, brings this complaint against John Doe subscriber
Introduction
3. Strike 3’s motion pictures are distributed through the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen
adult websites and DVDs. With more than 20 million unique visitors to its websites each month,
the brands are famous for redefining adult content, creating high-end, artistic, and performer-
inspiring motion pictures produced with a Hollywood style budget and quality.
4. Defendant is, in a word, stealing these works on a grand scale. Using the
1
Case 1:18-cv-00537 Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 8
downloading Strike 3’s motion pictures as well as distributing them to others. Defendant did not
infringe just one or two of Strike 3’s motion pictures, but has been recorded infringing 35 movies
anonymously, Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Verizon Online LLC (“Verizon
6. This is a civil action seeking damages under the United States Copyright Act of
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331 (federal question); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (jurisdiction over copyright actions).
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant used an
Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) traced to a physical address located within this District
to commit copyright infringement. Therefore (i) Defendant committed the tortious conduct
alleged in this Complaint in this State; and, (ii) Defendant resides in this State and/or;
(iii) Defendant has engaged in substantial – and not isolated – business activity in this State.
determine that Defendant’s IP address traced to a physical address in this District. Over 5,000
companies, along with United States federal and state law enforcement, use Maxmind’s GeoIP
data to locate Internet visitors, perform analytics, enforce digital rights, and efficiently route
Internet traffic.
2
Case 1:18-cv-00537 Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 8
10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), venue is proper in this district because:
(i) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District;
and, (ii) the Defendant resides (and therefore can be found) in this District and resides in this
State. Additionally, venue is proper in this District pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) (venue for
copyright cases) because Defendant or Defendant’s agent resides or may be found in this
District.
Parties
11. Strike 3 is a Delaware limited liability company located at 2140 S. Dupont Hwy,
Camden, DE.
12. Plaintiff currently can only identify Defendant by his or her IP address.
Factual Background
13. Strike 3’s subscription based websites proudly boast a paid subscriber base that is
one of the highest of any adult-content sites in the world. Strike 3 also licenses its motion
pictures to popular broadcasters and Strike 3’s motion pictures are the number one selling adult
14. Strike 3’s motion pictures and websites have won numerous awards, such as “best
cinematography,” “best new studio,” and “adult site of the year.” One of Strike 3’s owners, two-
time director of the year Greg Lansky, has been dubbed the adult film industry’s “answer to
Steven Spielberg.”
15. Strike 3’s motion pictures have had positive global impact, leading more adult
3
Case 1:18-cv-00537 Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 8
studios to invest in better content, higher pay for performers, and to treat each performer with
16. Unfortunately, Strike 3, like a large number of other makers of motion picture and
television works, has a major problem with Internet piracy. Often appearing among the most
infringed popular entertainment content on torrent websites, Strike 3’s motion pictures are
Defendant Used the BitTorrent File Distribution Network to Infringe Plaintiff’s Copyrights
17. BitTorrent is a system designed to quickly distribute large files over the Internet.
Instead of downloading a file, such as a movie, from a single source, BitTorrent users are able to
connect to the computers of other BitTorrent users in order to simultaneously download and
18. To use BitTorrent to download a movie, the user has to obtain a “torrent” file for
that movie, from a torrent website. The torrent file contains instructions for identifying the
Internet addresses of other BitTorrent users who have the movie, and for downloading the movie
from those users. Once a user downloads all of the pieces of that movie from the other
BitTorrent users, the movie is automatically reassembled into its original form, ready for playing.
19. BitTorrent’s popularity stems from the ability of users to directly interact with
each other to distribute a large file without creating a heavy load on any individual source
computer and/or network. It enables Plaintiff’s motion pictures, which are often filmed in state
of the art 4kHD, to be transferred quickly and efficiently. Moreover, BitTorrent is designed so
that the more files a user offers for download to others, the faster the user’s own downloads
become. In this way, each user benefits from illegally distributing other’s content and violating
copyright laws.
4
Case 1:18-cv-00537 Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 8
20. Each piece of a BitTorrent file is assigned a unique cryptographic hash value.
21. The cryptographic hash value of the piece (“piece hash”) acts as that piece’s
unique digital fingerprint. Every digital file has one single possible cryptographic hash value
correlating to it. The BitTorrent protocol utilizes cryptographic hash values to ensure each piece
22. The entirety of the digital media file also has a unique cryptographic hash value
(“file hash”), which acts as a digital fingerprint identifying the digital media file (e.g. a movie).
Once infringers complete the downloading of all pieces which comprise a digital media file, the
BitTorrent software uses the file hash to determine that the file is complete and accurate.
23. Defendant used the BitTorrent file network to illegally download and distribute
24. Plaintiff’s investigator, IPP International U.G. (“IPP”) established direct TCP/IP
connections with the Defendant’s IP address as outlined on Exhibit A while Defendant was using
25. While Defendant was infringing, IPP downloaded from Defendant one or more
pieces of the digital media files containing Strike 3’s motion pictures listed on Exhibit A
(“Works”).
26. A full copy of each digital media file was downloaded from the BitTorrent file
distribution network, and it was confirmed through independent calculation that the file hash
28. At no point was Plaintiff’s copyrighted content uploaded by IPP to any BitTorrent
5
Case 1:18-cv-00537 Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 6 of 8
user.
29. The digital media files have been verified to contain a digital copy of a motion
picture that is identical (or alternatively, strikingly similar or substantially similar) to Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff knows of no way to effectively prevent Defendant from infringing Plaintiff’s motion
pictures.
31. Plaintiff owns the copyrights to the Works and the Works have either been
registered with the United States Copyright Office or have pending copyright registrations. The
United States Copyright Office registration information for the Works, including the registration
32. For Plaintiff’s Works that are still pending registration, a complete application,
fees, and deposit materials for copyright registration have been received by the Copyright Office
in compliance with the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. The application number is
listed on Exhibit A.
33. Plaintiff is entitled to seek statutory damages and attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C.
COUNT I
34. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 are hereby re-alleged as if fully set
forth herein.
35. Plaintiff is the owner of the Works, which is an original work of authorship.
36. Defendant copied and distributed the constituent elements of Plaintiff’s Works
6
Case 1:18-cv-00537 Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 7 of 8
38. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant violated Plaintiff’s exclusive right to:
(A) Reproduce its Works in copies, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 501;
(B) Distribute copies of the Works to the public by sale or other transfer of
(C) Perform the copyrighted Works, in violation of 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 performance of the work, by means of a device or process,
to members of the public capable of receiving the display (as set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 101’s
(D) Display the copyrighted Works, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(5) and 501, by
showing individual images of the works non-sequentially and transmitting said display of the
works by means of a device or process to members of the public capable of receiving the display
U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
Works;
(B) Order that Defendant delete and permanently remove the digital media files
relating to Plaintiff’s Works from each of the computers under Defendant’s possession, custody
7
Case 1:18-cv-00537 Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 8 of 8
or control;
(C) Order that Defendant delete and permanently remove the infringing copies of the
(D) Award Plaintiff statutory damages per infringed work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
(E) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
505; and
(F) Grant Plaintiff any other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.