Malibu Media attorney Paul Nicoletti has filed another mass doe copyright infringement lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan. Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-30, Case No. 1:14-cv-00073 alleges that Does 1-30 infringed upon the copyright of the film “Charlie Countryman” through the bittorrent protocol. You can view the Complaint here.
If you have been targeted as a Doe defendant in this case, Revision Legal is here to help. We regularly represent copyright infringement defendants in mass copyright lawsuits in the Western District of Michigan. Contact us today at (231) 714-0100.
Mass BitTorrent copyright lawsuits became a major phenomenon in the early 2010s when copyright trolling operations—firms that acquire copyrights to films and other content for the specific purpose of filing infringement suits—discovered that BitTorrent piracy offered a scalable revenue model. These operations identify IP addresses that have shared copyrighted content over BitTorrent networks, file suit against groups of anonymous defendants identified only by their IP address (“Does”), and then use the litigation process to subpoena ISPs to identify the account holders behind those IP addresses.
The strategy exploits the difference between the cost of litigation and the cost of settlement. Even when defendants have viable defenses, many choose to pay settlement amounts in the range of $2,000 to $5,000 to avoid the embarrassment and expense of defending a lawsuit that often involves adult content or blockbuster films. Plaintiffs in these cases frequently include Malibu Media LLC (which produced and distributed adult films under the X-Art brand), Voltage Pictures, and entities created specifically to monetize copyright litigation.
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-30, Case No. 1:14-cv-00073, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiff, Countryman Nevada, LLC, claimed to own the copyright to the film “Charlie Countryman,” which was released in 2013 and starred Shia LaBeouf. The complaint alleged that the 30 Doe defendants unlawfully downloaded and distributed the film through the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing protocol without authorization, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s reproduction and distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 106(3).
As with most mass BitTorrent lawsuits, the plaintiff’s evidence at the time of filing was limited to a list of IP addresses, timestamps, and geolocation data generated by monitoring software. The complaint did not name the actual defendants because their identities were unknown—the plaintiff intended to use the court’s subpoena power to compel ISPs such as Comcast, AT&T, and Charter to identify the account holders associated with the flagged IP addresses.
Courts across the country scrutinized mass BitTorrent lawsuits heavily because plaintiffs were joining dozens or hundreds of unrelated defendants in a single lawsuit solely for the purpose of obtaining inexpensive discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of defendants only when the claims against them arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share common questions of law or fact. Courts including those in the Western District of Michigan frequently found that individual BitTorrent downloaders who happened to download the same file were not properly joined, and ordered plaintiffs to sever the cases and pay separate filing fees.
One of the most important defenses available to a Doe defendant in a BitTorrent copyright case is the argument that an IP address does not identify a person—it identifies a device or, more specifically, a network connection. A home router shared by multiple family members, an open WiFi network, or a connection compromised by an unauthorized user can all be associated with infringing activity that the account holder did not personally commit. Courts have recognized this argument and it frequently leads to dismissal or favorable settlement in cases where the account holder is genuinely innocent.
Copyright infringement claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), the Supreme Court clarified that the statute of limitations runs separately for each infringing act. In some mass BitTorrent cases, the plaintiff’s monitoring records were sufficiently old that statute of limitations defenses were available to some defendants.
If you receive a letter from your ISP notifying you that your account information has been subpoenaed in a copyright infringement lawsuit, or if you receive a settlement demand letter from a copyright troll’s attorney, you should consult with an experienced copyright defense attorney immediately. You typically have a limited window—often 30 days—to file a motion to quash the subpoena before your ISP produces your information to the plaintiff.
Revision Legal has defended numerous defendants in mass BitTorrent copyright lawsuits in the Western District of Michigan and other federal courts. We evaluate each case on its specific facts, identify all available defenses, and work to achieve the best possible outcome—whether that means filing a motion to quash, negotiating a settlement, or defending the case through dispositive motions. Contact us today if you have been targeted as a Doe defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Many people who receive ISP notification letters do not realize that they have a limited window to take action before their identity is disclosed to the plaintiff. Most ISPs provide a 30-day notice period before complying with a subpoena, during which the account holder may move to quash the subpoena in the court where the case is pending. A motion to quash must be filed promptly and must meet the legal standard applied by the court for unmasking anonymous defendants in copyright cases.
Courts apply varying standards to these motions. Some courts require that the plaintiff make a prima facie showing of infringement before allowing disclosure of the defendant’s identity. Others apply a good faith standard or a balancing test that weighs the plaintiff’s need for the information against the defendant’s privacy interests. An experienced copyright defense attorney can evaluate which standard applies in your jurisdiction and craft the most effective motion to quash given the specific facts of your case.
Copyright trolls rely on defendants paying settlement demands without consulting an attorney. Settlement demands in BitTorrent copyright cases typically threaten statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work—a frightening number that is designed to pressure defendants into paying settlements of $2,000 to $5,000 that represent a fraction of the threatened damages but pure profit for the plaintiff. In many cases, defendants who consult with experienced copyright defense attorneys discover that they have viable defenses, that the plaintiff cannot prove they were the person who downloaded the file, or that the case will be dismissed before reaching the point of individual liability. Do not pay a copyright settlement demand without first speaking with an attorney who regularly handles BitTorrent copyright defense.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, which covers Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and the Upper Peninsula, was one of the courts that saw significant volume of mass BitTorrent copyright cases during the period when this litigation was most active. The Western District’s judges developed substantial experience with these cases and, in many instances, took proactive steps to address the joinder and procedural abuses that plaintiffs’ attorneys were attempting to exploit. Attorneys who regularly practice in the Western District of Michigan understand both the local rules and the judges’ individual approaches to these cases—knowledge that is invaluable when defending a client in a mass copyright action in that court.
Revision Legal has litigated copyright matters in the Western District of Michigan and other federal courts throughout Michigan and the country. If you have been named as a defendant in a copyright infringement case—whether a BitTorrent mass action or an individual infringement claim—contact us for a consultation to discuss your options and develop a defense strategy.
Hitpiece.com scraped artists’ music and created NFTs without permission. Here’s how the copyright infringement dispute unfolded and what it means for NFT platforms.
Read more about Hitpiece.com and Copyright Infringement
Cybersquatting involves registering domain names in bad faith to profit from others’ trademarks. Here’s an overview of the ACPA and how it protects trademark owners.
Read more about An Overview of Cybersquatting Laws
Copyright infringement fraud involves filing false DMCA notices or misrepresenting ownership to profit illegally. Here’s how these schemes work and how to fight back.
Read more about Copyright Infringement Fraud: A Serious Problem