Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
11 Cv 00245 SS Docket 1 Complaint

11 Cv 00245 SS Docket 1 Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 44|Likes:
Published by J Doe
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com/io-group-cases/io-group-inc-v-john-doe/
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com/io-group-cases/io-group-inc-v-john-doe/

More info:

Published by: J Doe on Jun 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/12/2011

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
IO GROUP, INC. d/b/a TITAN MEDIA,a California corporation,Plaintiff, vs. JOHN DOE , an individual,Defendant. ________________________________  ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-245COMPLAINT
Plaintiff complains against Defendant as follows:
Introduction 
1.
 
 This is an action by IO GROUP, INC. a California corporation, d/b/a Titan Media
(“Titan Media”), to recover damages arising from infringement of Io Group’s copyrights in its
creative work by Defendant John Doe and to enjoin Defendant from future infringement.Defendant reproduced, distributed, and publicly displayed, through the P2P network 
“eDonkey2000” an Io Group
-owned movie.
 Jurisdiction and Venue 
 
Case 1:11-cv-00245-SS Document 1 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 6
 
2
2.
 
 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for copyright
infringement and related claims pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101,
et. seq.,
and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and1338(a).
3.
 
 The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff is informed andbelieves and based thereon alleges that Defendant engaged in the infringing activity from within this
jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the conduct that gives rise to personal jurisdiction over
Defendant.
4.
 
 Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1400(a).
The Parties 
 
5.
 
Io Group, Inc. is a California corporation doing business as T
ITAN
M
EDIA
® and T
ITAN
M
EN
® with its principal place of business located at 69 Converse Street, San Francisco,California 94103. Titan Media produces, markets, and distributes adult entertainment products,including Internet website content, videos, DVDs, photographs, etc. Plaintiff operates andmaintains a website by and through which customers paying a monthly subscription fee may view 
Plaintiff’s photographic and audiovisual works. Io Group has won numerous awards for its high
-quality work, and competitors and consumers alike recognize Plaintiff as one of the highest quality producers of gay erotica.
6.
 
 The true name and capacity of John Doe is presently unknown to Plaintiff, and forthat reason, Plaintiff sues the Defendant under a fictitious name. Plaintiff is informed and believesand based thereon alleges that Defendant John Doe is responsible for the damages herein alleged.Plaintiff will amend this Complaint when it discovers the true name and capacity of John Doe.
Claims of Copyright Infringement 
Case 1:11-cv-00245-SS Document 1 Filed 03/29/11 Page 2 of 6
 
3
7.
 
 Technological advances have made it increasingly possible to transfer large amountsof data, including digital video files, by and through the Internet. As Congress and the courts clarify the law and close legal loopholes in order to hold infringers liable for their actions, would-beinfringers develop new and often increasingly complex means of engaging in piracy, hoping that thecomplexity of their systems will help them avoid detection, identification, and prosecution.
Defendant’s in
fringement represents one of these manifestations of on-line digital piracy.
8.
 
 The system Defendant used to infringe Plaintiff’s movie is a peer
-to-peer file sharing system known as eDonky2000. In order to access and use the eDonkey2000 Network, a user mustfirst download special software called an eDonkey client, the most popular client being eMule. When a user downloads eMule or another eDonkey2000 client, he obtains a user hash id, whichidentifies him to others on the network for the purpose of uploading and downloading infringing content.
9.
 
eDonkey2000 relies on a centralized index residing on a series of servers. Using aneDonkey2000 client, users can access the index residing on the series of servers in order to locatecopies of infringing works offered by other eDonkey2000 users. Employing the rather sophisticatedtechnology users can identify material they wish to obtain from others. As part of the bargain, theuser of course must offer content to his peers in return. Often peers will use content as acommodity to obtain content they want, even if they have no particular interest in the content they offer.
10.
 
Defendant reproduced a copy of Io Group’s movie,
Campus Pizza 
, and distributedthe infringing reproduction by and through the eDonkey2000 peer-to-peer network.
11.
 
 The Movie
Campus Pizza 
was created with obviously high production values and iseasily discernable as a professional work. Io Group created the work using professional performers,
Case 1:11-cv-00245-SS Document 1 Filed 03/29/11 Page 3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->