1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT INDIANA

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )
)
PlaintiII, ) Civil Action Case No.
)
v. )
)
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address )
50.129.162.170, )
)
DeIendant. )
)

COMPLAINT-ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR
PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT

PlaintiII, Malibu Media, LLC, sues DeIendant John Doe subscriber assigned IP address
50.129.162.170 and alleges:
Introduction

1. This matter arises under the United States Copyright Act oI 1976, as amended, 17
U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (the 'Copyright Act¨).
2. DeIendant is a persistent online inIringer oI PlaintiII`s copyrights. Indeed,
DeIendant`s IP address as set Iorth on Exhibit A was used to illegally distribute each oI the
copyrighted movies set Iorth on Exhibit B.
3. PlaintiII is the registered owner oI the copyrights set Iorth on Exhibit B (the
'Copyrights-in-Suit¨).
1urisdiction And Venue

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331 (Iederal question); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (patents, copyrights, trademarks and unIair
competition).
Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
2

5. PlaintiII used proven IP address geolocation technology which has consistently
worked in similar cases to ensure that the DeIendant`s acts oI copyright inIringement occurred
using an Internet Protocol address ('IP address¨) traced to a physical address located within this
District, and thereIore this Court has personal jurisdiction over the DeIendant because (i)
DeIendant committed the tortious conduct alleged in this Complaint in this State, and (ii)
DeIendant resides in this State and/or (iii) DeIendant has engaged in substantial and not isolated
business activity in this State.
6. Based upon experience Iiling over 1,000 cases the geolocation technology used by
PlaintiII has proven to be accurate to the District level in over 99° oI the cases.
7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because:
(i) a substantial part oI the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District;
and, (ii) the DeIendant resides (and thereIore can be Iound) in this District and resides in this
State; additionally, venue is proper in this District pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) (venue Ior
copyright cases) because DeIendant or DeIendant`s agent resides or may be Iound in this
District.
Parties

8. PlaintiII, Malibu Media, LLC, (d/b/a 'X-Art.com¨) is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws oI the State oI CaliIornia and has its principal place oI
business located at 409 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 501, Los Angeles, CA, 90015.
9. PlaintiII only knows DeIendant by his, her or its IP Address. DeIendant`s IP
address is set Iorth on Exhibit A.
10. DeIendant`s Internet Service Provider can identiIy the DeIendant.
Factual Background
Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
3

I. Defendant Used the BitTorrent File Distribution Network To Infringe Plaintiffs
Copvrights

11. The BitTorrent Iile distribution network ('BitTorrent¨) is one oI the most
common peer-to-peer Iile sharing venues used Ior distributing large amounts oI data, including,
but not limited to, digital movie Iiles.
12. BitTorrent`s popularity stems Irom the ability oI users to directly interact with
each other in order to distribute a large Iile without creating a heavy load on any individual
source computer and/or network. The methodology oI BitTorrent allows users to interact directly
with each other, thus avoiding the need Ior intermediary host websites which are subject to
DMCA take down notices and potential regulatory enIorcement actions.
13. In order to distribute a large Iile, the BitTorrent protocol breaks a Iile into many
small pieces called bits. Users then exchange these small bits amongst each other instead oI
attempting to distribute a much larger digital Iile.
14. AIter the inIringer receives all oI the bits oI a digital media Iile, the inIringer`s
BitTorrent client soItware reassembles the bits so that the Iile may be opened and utilized.
15. Each bit oI a BitTorrent Iile is assigned a unique cryptographic hash value.
16. The cryptographic hash value oI the bit ('bit hash¨) acts as that bit`s unique
digital Iingerprint. Every digital Iile has one single possible cryptographic hash value correlating
to it. The BitTorrent protocol utilizes cryptographic hash values to ensure each bit is properly
routed amongst BitTorrent users as they engage in Iile sharing.
17. The entirety oI the digital media Iile also has a unique cryptographic hash value
('Iile hash¨), which acts as a digital Iingerprint identiIying the digital media Iile (e.g. a movie).
Once inIringers complete downloading all bits which comprise a digital media Iile, the
BitTorrent soItware uses the Iile hash to determine that the Iile is complete and accurate.
Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
4

18. PlaintiII`s investigator, IPP Limited, established a direct TCP/IP connection with
the DeIendant`s IP address as set Iorth on Exhibit A.
19. IPP Limited downloaded Irom DeIendant one or more bits oI each oI the digital
movie Iiles identiIied by the Iile hashes on Exhibit A.
20. On inIormation and belieI, DeIendant downloaded, copied, and distributed a
complete copy oI PlaintiII`s movies without authorization as enumerated on Exhibit A.
21. Each oI the cryptographic Iile hashes as set Iorth on Exhibit A correlates to
copyrighted movies owned by PlaintiII as identiIied on Exhibit B.
22. IPP Limited downloaded Irom DeIendant one oI more bits oI each Iile hash listed
on Exhibit A. IPP Limited Iurther downloaded a Iull copy oI each Iile hash Irom the BitTorrent
Iile distribution network and conIirmed through independent calculation that the Iile hash
matched what is listed on Exhibit A. IPP Limited then veriIied that the digital media Iile
correlating to each Iile hash listed on Exhibit A contained a copy oI a movie which is identical
(or alternatively, strikingly similar or substantially similar) to the movie associated with that Iile
hash on Exhibit A. At no time did IPP Limited upload PlaintiII's copyrighted content to any
other BitTorrent user.
23. IPP Limited connected, over a course oI time, with DeIendant`s IP address Ior
each hash value as listed on Exhibit A. The most recent TCP/IP connection between IPP and the
DeIendant's IP address Ior each Iile hash value listed on Exhibit A is included within the column
labeled Hit Date UTC. UTC reIers to Universal Time which is utilized Ior air traIIic control as
well as Ior computer Iorensic purposes.
24. An overview oI the Copyrights-in-Suit, including each hit date, date oI Iirst
publication, registration date, and registration number issued by the United States Copyright
Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
5

OIIice is set Iorth on Exhibit B.
25. IPP Limited has also engaged in enhanced surveillance oI other digital media Iiles
being distributed by DeIendant. The results oI this more intensive surveillance are outlined in
Exhibit C. The Copyrights-in-Suit are solely limited to content owned by PlaintiII as outlined in
Exhibit B. PlaintiII is not alleging any claims oI inIringement on works other than the
Copyrights-in-Suit., and this Iiling oI Exhibit C on the date oI the suit provides an evidentiary
snap shot oI what existed at the time oI Iiling the suit.
26. Exhibit C demonstrates that the DeIendant is a regular and persistent BitTorrent
user. And, thereIore, is more likely the inIringer oI PlaintiII`s copyright. Further, Exhibit C
contains inIormation about the types oI media the DeIendant has downloaded. Consequently, it
may be used by either PlaintiII or the John Doe deIendant (in connection with the exculpatory
evidence Iorm) Ior the purpose oI identiIying the inIringer. The inIringer`s computer may also
contain inIormation about the Iiles on Exhibit C proving he is the downloader because a
BitTorrent user is more likely the inIringer oI PlaintiII`s copyrighted works.
Miscellaneous
27. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred or been waived.
28. PlaintiII has retained counsel and is obligated to pay said counsel a reasonable Iee
Ior its services.
COUNT I
Direct Infringement Against Defendant

29. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-27 are hereby re-alleged as iI Iully set
Iorth herein.
30. PlaintiII is the owner oI the Copyrights-in-Suit, as outlined in Exhibit B, each oI
which covers an original work oI authorship.
Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
6

31. By using BitTorrent, DeIendant copied and distributed the constituent elements oI
each oI the original works covered by the Copyrights-in-Suit.
32. PlaintiII did not authorize, permit or consent to DeIendant`s distribution oI its
works.
33. As a result oI the Ioregoing, DeIendant violated PlaintiII`s exclusive right to:
(A) Reproduce the works in copies, in violation oI 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 501;
(B) Redistribute copies oI the works to the public by sale or other transIer oI
ownership, or by rental, lease or lending, in violation oI 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(3) and 501;
(C) PerIorm the copyrighted works, in violation oI 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 perIormance oI the works, by means oI a device or process,
to members oI the public capable oI receiving the display (as set Iorth in 17 U.S.C. § 101`s
deIinitions oI 'perIorm¨ and 'publically¨ perIorm); and
(D) Display the copyrighted works, in violation oI 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(5) and 501, by
showing individual images oI the works nonsequentially and transmitting said display oI the
works by means oI a device or process to members oI the public capable oI receiving the display
(as set Iorth in 17 U.S.C. § 101`s deIinition oI 'publically¨ display).
34. DeIendant`s inIringements were committed 'willIully¨ within the meaning oI 17
U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
WHEREFORE, PlaintiII respectIully requests that the Court:
(A) Permanently enjoin DeIendant and all other persons who are in active concert or
participation with DeIendant Irom continuing to inIringe PlaintiII`s copyrighted works;
(B) Order that DeIendant delete and permanently remove the digital media Iiles
Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
7

relating to PlaintiII`s works Irom each oI the computers under DeIendant`s possession, custody
or control;
(C) Order that DeIendant delete and permanently remove the inIringing copies oI the
works DeIendant has on computers under DeIendant`s possession, custody or control;
(D) Award PlaintiII statutory damages in the amount oI $150,000 per inIringed Work
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504-(a) and (c);
(E) Award PlaintiII its reasonable attorneys` Iees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
505; and
(F) Grant PlaintiII any other and Iurther relieI this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR A 1URY TRIAL
PlaintiII hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
RespectIully submitted,
NICOLETTI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti
Paul J. Nicoletti, Esq. (P44419)
36880 Woodward Ave, Suite 100
BloomIield Hills, MI 48304
Tel: (248) 203-7800
Fax: (248) 203-7801
E-Fax: (248) 928-7051
Email: paul¸nicoletti-associates.com
Attornevs for Plaintiff




Case 1:13-cv-01518-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful