The law firm of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. filed a mass copyright infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois styled BKGTH Productions LLC v. Does 1–87, Case No. 1:13-cv-04712. The case targets 87 John Doe defendants alleged to have downloaded and distributed the film Bad Kids Go to Hell, a comedy horror film, through BitTorrent peer-to-peer networks without authorization. If you have been named or notified in connection with this lawsuit, you need experienced legal representation immediately.
BKGTH Productions LLC v. Does 1–87 follows the standard template for BitTorrent copyright enforcement litigation. The plaintiff, BKGTH Productions LLC, holds the copyright to Bad Kids Go to Hell and engaged a monitoring firm to track IP addresses participating in BitTorrent swarms distributing the film without authorization. The 87 IP addresses identified were named as John Doe defendants in a single federal complaint filed in Chicago’s Northern District.
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym is a well-established Chicago litigation firm, which distinguishes this case from many BitTorrent copyright suits filed by solo practitioners or boutique firms that specialize exclusively in copyright trolling. The involvement of a firm with broader litigation resources means defendants should not assume these cases will be abandoned if vigorously defended.
The Northern District of Illinois, headquartered in Chicago, has seen hundreds of BitTorrent copyright cases since 2010. Judges in that district developed significant jurisprudence on mass joinder, expedited discovery, and the limits of IP address evidence in copyright cases. Several judges have been particularly skeptical of copyright troll litigation tactics—refusing to grant expedited discovery, severing misjoined defendants, and in some cases sanctioning plaintiffs who abused the discovery process.
However, the Northern District is not uniformly hostile to copyright plaintiffs. Well-supported copyright claims filed by legitimate rights holders with real economic interests in their works receive fair treatment. Defendants in this district cannot assume that the case will be dismissed on procedural grounds alone.
After a complaint is filed, the court must authorize expedited discovery before the plaintiff can subpoena ISPs. Most courts require the plaintiff to demonstrate good cause for early discovery and show that the complaint states a plausible claim. Once the court authorizes discovery, the plaintiff serves subpoenas on ISPs, which then notify subscribers and provide a limited period to challenge the subpoena before disclosing identifying information.
After subscriber information is obtained, the plaintiff may pursue settlement negotiations with unrepresented defendants or file amended complaints naming specific individuals. Settlement demands in cases like this have historically ranged from several thousand dollars to amounts reflecting the full statutory damages exposure, though actual settlements are typically negotiated at a significant discount.
Several defenses are available to defendants named in cases like BKGTH Productions:
The subscriber identified by an ISP may not be the person who downloaded the film. Shared Wi-Fi networks, multiple household users, and open routers create scenarios where the account holder is innocent even if someone using the connection engaged in infringement. Courts have recognized that the named subscriber cannot be presumed to be the infringer.
Joining 87 defendants who each allegedly downloaded a file at different times does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20’s requirement that defendants participated in the same transaction or occurrence. A motion to sever can force the plaintiff to litigate each case separately, dramatically increasing its costs and reducing the economics of the settlement campaign.
BitTorrent monitoring software has known error rates. Challenges to the methodology, accuracy, and chain of custody of IP address evidence can undermine the plaintiff’s case at the evidentiary level.
Revision Legal has extensive experience defending clients in mass copyright infringement cases in the Northern District of Illinois and other federal courts nationwide. If you have been named or notified as a defendant in the BKGTH Productions case or any similar lawsuit, contact us immediately. The window to challenge ISP subpoenas is short, and early intervention provides the best available options. Call us at (231) 714-0100 or reach out through our website for a confidential consultation.
Copyright litigation in federal court follows the standard framework of civil litigation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but with several doctrinal features specific to intellectual property disputes. Copyright cases are heard in federal district court — state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over copyright infringement claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The Copyright Act provides both legal and equitable remedies, including injunctions, impoundment, statutory damages, actual damages and profits, and attorney’s fees.
To make out a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) unauthorized copying of protected expression. Ownership is established through a copyright registration certificate, which creates a presumption of validity. The copying element is typically proved through circumstantial evidence: access to the copyrighted work and substantial similarity between the accused work and the protected expression in the original.
Substantial similarity is a mixed question of law and fact, analyzed under the “ordinary observer” test in most circuits — whether an ordinary, reasonable person would recognize the accused work as having been appropriated from the original. The Ninth Circuit applies a more complex “extrinsic/intrinsic” test that separates objective similarity (analyzed by the court as a matter of law) from subjective similarity (left to the trier of fact).
Copyright registration before infringement — or within three months of first publication — is not required for copyright protection to exist, but it is a prerequisite to filing a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court under 17 U.S.C. § 411, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019). More importantly, timely registration preserves the right to elect statutory damages (up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement) and attorney’s fees — making the difference between a case that is economically viable to litigate and one where only actual damages are available.
For content creators and publishers engaged in ongoing production — bloggers, photographers, software companies, film studios — a registration program that systematically registers works shortly after publication is the most reliable way to preserve maximum remedies. Group registration options for certain categories of works (photographs, serial publications) provide an efficient mechanism for bulk registration at reduced cost per work.
One strategic consideration that experienced copyright litigators raise at the outset of any case is the viability of a preliminary injunction to stop ongoing infringement. A copyright plaintiff can seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, requiring the defendant to cease distribution of the infringing work while the case is pending. Courts applying the standard from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), require the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of relief, that the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Where the defendant’s ongoing distribution threatens to permanently cannibalize the market for the original, irreparable harm is often readily established, making the preliminary injunction a powerful tool for copyright plaintiffs who move quickly after discovering infringement.
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