PTG Nevada: Pay the Ghost Lawsuit Explained

PTG Nevada, LLC, a movie producer and developer, recently filed a copyright infringement complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan (PTG Nevada, LLC v Does 1-5, Case No. 2:16-cv-10125). A copy of the complaint can be found here, but to summarize: PTG Nevada has filed suit against five John Doe defendants (Does 1-5) who they believe have copied and distributed its copyrighted work, the movie “Pay The Ghost,” without license or permission via bit torrent sites. These five defendants are either physically located in Michigan or are believed to have sent the work to users who are physically located in Michigan. PTG Nevada, in its suit, has acknowledged that it does not know the specific identities of the defendants, but believes that this information will come to light through the course of the suit.

What Is This Lawsuit?

This type of lawsuit seems odd at first glace, but is becoming more commonplace: a movie producer will sue a number of “John Doe” defendants and then serve a subpoena on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to obtain the names and contact details of subscribers who have downloaded or transferred the producer’s content illegally. The producer then attempts to either force individual settlements with the subscribers or brings a named individual into the copyright infringement lawsuit.

How to Respond?

If you are implicated in a lawsuit similar to PTG Nevada v Does 1-5, the best first step is to get informed. A simple Internet search will reveal a great deal of general information about this type of lawsuit. Next, consult an attorney who’s experienced in dealing with issues like yours: while the Internet is great for research, it cannot answer specific questions about your particular case.

Will My ISP Disclose My Information?

If your ISP is served with a subpoena, it will release your information in response. The only way to prevent the disclosure of your information is to either file a motion to quash the subpoena or confidentially settle the matter prior to the deadline provided by your ISP.

Revision Legal Has Experience Defending Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Revision Legal is an intellectual property law firm that regularly litigates and negotiates copyright infringement cases. We understand that each case is different and strive to achieve the best result for each individual, whether that means settlement or actively fighting the case.

To contact Revision Legal’s experienced copyright attorneys, simply complete the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.

The Legal Mechanics of John Doe Copyright Suits

John Doe copyright lawsuits against BitTorrent users have become a significant area of copyright litigation since roughly 2010. The model is straightforward: a rights holder files suit against anonymous defendants identified only by their IP addresses, then uses early-discovery subpoenas to compel Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose the subscriber information associated with those IP addresses. Once identities are revealed, the plaintiff either pursues individual claims or—more commonly—seeks quick settlements.

The legal authority for this approach comes from 17 U.S.C. § 501, which provides a private right of action for copyright infringement, and from Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), which allows courts to authorize early discovery before the normal discovery period opens. Courts have generally permitted this early discovery in BitTorrent cases provided the plaintiff demonstrates good cause—typically by showing it cannot identify defendants without the ISP’s records.

Why IP Addresses Are Imperfect Identifiers

One of the most significant defenses in these cases is the unreliability of IP address evidence. An IP address identifies a router or internet connection—not a specific person. If the connection is a shared household account, a business network, or an open Wi-Fi hotspot, the subscriber of record may have had nothing to do with the alleged infringement. Courts have recognized this problem, and some have limited or denied early-discovery subpoenas where the plaintiff cannot show a sufficient nexus between the IP address and a specific individual.

Additionally, BitTorrent monitoring technology has been challenged on accuracy grounds. Plaintiffs rely on third-party forensic firms that capture IP addresses allegedly participating in peer-to-peer file sharing. Errors in these captures—ranging from misidentified IP addresses to incorrect timestamps—have led to cases being dismissed or settlements being voided.

Motions to Quash and Sever

If you receive notice that your ISP has been subpoenaed in a case like PTG Nevada v. Does 1-5, your first legal option is a motion to quash the subpoena. A motion to quash argues that the subpoena is procedurally defective, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over you, or that enforcement would impose an undue burden. Courts across different circuits apply different standards, but motions to quash succeed most often when the plaintiff has joined large numbers of defendants together in a single lawsuit purely for the purpose of obtaining bulk subpoenas at reduced cost.

In multi-defendant cases, defendants may also move to sever the claims, arguing that each alleged infringement is a separate transaction and that joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 is improper. Successful severance splits the case into separate actions, significantly increasing the plaintiff’s filing costs and often causing the plaintiff to abandon claims against defendants who fight back.

Settlement Pressure and Your Options

Copyright plaintiffs in BitTorrent cases typically send demand letters seeking settlements in the range of $3,000 to $5,000—far less than the cost of litigation but based on the threat of statutory damages of up to $150,000 per willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Settling may seem like the practical choice, but there are risks: settling one case does not prevent other rights holders from bringing similar claims, and some settlement agreements include admissions that can be used in subsequent litigation.

Whether to settle or fight depends heavily on the specific facts of your situation—including whether you actually downloaded the file, whether your IP address was correctly identified, and what your exposure to statutory damages would be if a court found willful infringement.

Contact a Copyright Defense Attorney

If you have been implicated in a BitTorrent copyright lawsuit similar to PTG Nevada v. Does 1-5, do not ignore the notice from your ISP. You have a limited window—typically 30 days—to respond before your information is disclosed. Contact the copyright attorneys at Revision Legal at 855-473-8474 or complete the contact form on this page. We will evaluate your options, including filing a motion to quash, negotiating a resolution, or contesting the claim on its merits.

The Discovery Preservation Obligation

Once you receive notice that your ISP has been subpoenaed or that you have been named in a copyright lawsuit, a legal duty to preserve relevant evidence arises. This means you should not delete any emails, internet browser history, files, or communications that could be relevant to the claims. Destroying evidence after receiving notice of litigation can result in “spoliation” sanctions—courts have dismissed defenses and entered adverse inferences against parties who destroyed relevant evidence. If you believe you are or may become a defendant in a BitTorrent copyright lawsuit, consult an attorney before taking any action that might be interpreted as evidence destruction.

The copyright attorneys at Revision Legal have extensive experience defending individuals in John Doe BitTorrent copyright cases. We understand the technical and legal arguments available in these cases and can quickly assess whether your situation warrants a motion to quash, settlement negotiation, or active defense on the merits. Contact us at 855-473-8474.