Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Voltage Holdings, LLC; Voltage Pictures,

LLC; After Productions, LLC; After II
Movie, LLC; After We Fell Productions, Case No. 2:22-cv-03659
LTD; Venice PI, LLC; Bedeviled LLC;
Colossal Movie Productions, LLC; Dallas
Buyers Club, LLC; YAR Productions Inc.;
Wonder One, LLC; REP PRODUCTIONS 12
LTD; Fun Mom Dinner, LLC; Chase Film
Nevada LLC; H Films, Inc.; Ammo
Entertainment, LLC; SF Film, LLC; MON,
LLC; Goldenrod Holdings, LLC; and Rep
Productions Scandi LTD

Plaintiffs,

v.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND DMCA VIOLATIONS

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2 of 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
NATURE OF THE ACTION ......................................................................................................... 2
PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................................... 4
FACTS ............................................................................................................................................ 5
A. Plaintiffs own the copyrights to the motion pictures. ......................................................... 5
B. Third parties directly infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works using Comcast’s
internet services. ................................................................................................................. 9
1. The BitTorrent process. ............................................................................................... 9
2. Torrent files and torrent sites. ...................................................................................... 9
3. Comcast users reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, and publicly
performed Plaintiffs’ Works using BitTorrent. ......................................................... 10
C. Comcast knowingly materially contributed to its users’ copyright infringements. .......... 12
1. Comcast knew, had reason to know, or was willfully blind to, its users’ direct
infringements of Plaintiffs’ Works. ........................................................................... 12
2. Despite knowledge of specific infringements, Comcast continued to provide
infringing accounts with services essential to infringement. ..................................... 15
D. Comcast vicariously infringed Plaintiffs’ Works. ............................................................ 17
1. Comcast had the right and ability to supervise and control third parties’
infringements. ............................................................................................................ 17
2. Comcast profits from facilitating online piracy. ........................................................ 18
E. Comcast does not have a safe harbor from liability. ......................................................... 19
1. Comcast’s published DMCA policy. ......................................................................... 19
2. Comcast’s published policy did not provide for the termination of repeat
infringers under appropriate circumstances. .............................................................. 21
3. Comcast did not reasonably implement a policy that provided for the
termination of repeat infringers under appropriate circumstances. ........................... 22
F. Comcast users distributed copies of Plaintiffs’ Works with false or altered
copyright management information. ................................................................................. 22

i
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 3 of 37

1. The distributed files contained false or altered copyright management

information. ............................................................................................................... 22
2. Comcast users knew, had reason to know, or were willfully blind to the fact,
that the copyright management information was false or altered. ............................. 24
3. Comcast users knew, had reason to know, or were willfully blind to the fact,
that their acts would induce, facilitate, or enable copyright infringement. ............... 25
G. Comcast materially contributed to third parties’ use of false or altered copyright
management information. ................................................................................................. 27
1. Comcast knew, had reason to know, or was willfully blind to its users’ DMCA
violations.................................................................................................................... 27
2. Despite knowledge of these violations, Comcast continued to facilitate the
violations.................................................................................................................... 28
H. Comcast vicariously committed DMCA violations. ......................................................... 28
1. Comcast had the right and ability to supervise and control third parties’ DMCA
violations.................................................................................................................... 28
2. Comcast profits from third parties’ violations. .......................................................... 28
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ....................................................................................................... 29
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION .................................................................................................. 30
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ...................................................................................................... 31
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION .................................................................................................. 32
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 33
JURY DEMAND .......................................................................................................................... 34

ii
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 4 of 37

INTRODUCTION

1. Comcast is one of the largest internet service providers in the United States,

providing high-speed internet service to subscribers for a regular subscription fee. For years,

Comcast has knowingly allowed Comcast users to engage in online piracy, the illegal

distribution and downloading of copyrighted materials, including films. Comcast provides the IP

addresses used for piracy, makes the connections needed to share and download pirated films,

and transmits the pirated films.

2. Comcast knows that it is facilitating mass online piracy. Copyright owners have

repeatedly told Comcast that its services are used for piracy. Voltage and its affiliates—the

producer of movies like Dallas Buyers Club and I Feel Pretty—have sent Comcast more than

three hundred thousand infringement notices. In the last few years alone, Comcast users have

pirated Voltage’s movies over a million times.

3. Online piracy hurts the producers of creative works, as well as the nation’s

economy. The US Chamber of Commerce estimated that online piracy costs the US economy

over 200,000 jobs, and over $30 billion, a year.

4. Comcast can easily take action against online piracy. Comcast can stop providing

internet services to a customer at any time. It can stop providing internet services to customer

accounts that repeatedly use its services for piracy. And Comcast doesn’t have to find these

repeat offenders itself—copyright holders like Voltage already do that for Comcast, by sending

copyright infringement notices. But Comcast does not take this simple step.

5. That’s because online piracy is lucrative for Comcast. Comcast profits from

subscriptions to its internet services. Comcast’s churn rate—the rate at which it loses internet

subscribers—reached record lows in 2021. Instead of taking simple steps against illegal pirating,

Comcast turns a blind eye and continues to collect its customers’ subscription payments every

1
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 5 of 37

month. By not terminating and continuing to accept monthly payments from pirate accounts,

Comcast earns an estimated $400 to $1,000 in additional profits per average pirate account,

which adds tens of millions of dollars to Comcast’s bottom line. Instead of taking simple steps

against illegal pirating, Comcast turns a blind eye and continues to collect its customers’

subscription payments every month.

6. But the law does not allow Comcast to enable—and profit from—online piracy.

When an internet service provider like Comcast knows that its services are repeatedly used for

illegal piracy that it can easily stop and yet it continues to facilitate this piracy for its own gain,

the internet service provider is liable under federal law for the piracy. This action seeks to hold

Comcast accountable for the mass film piracy that it enables.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

7. This matter arises under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, as amended

(the “Copyright Act”). 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.

8. Defendant is secondarily liable for copyright infringements in violation of

sections 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act, and violations of Section 1202 of the Digital

Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). 17 U.S.C. § 1202.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiffs are owners of the motion pictures at issue in this litigation. Plaintiffs’

motion pictures are currently available for sale online and in brick-and-mortar retail locations.

These motion pictures include Dallas Buyers Club and I Feel Pretty. Many of these motion

pictures were released in theaters throughout the world and feature actors such as Matthew

McConaughey, Jared Leto, Jennifer Garner, Amy Schumer, Michelle Williams, and Zac Efron.

2
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 6 of 37

10. Plaintiff Voltage Pictures, LLC (“Voltage”) is a limited liability company formed

in California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. Each of the other

Plaintiffs is affiliated with Voltage.

11. Plaintiff Voltage Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company formed in Nevada.

12. Plaintiff After Productions, LLC is a limited liability company formed in

California.

13. Plaintiff After II Movie, LLC is a limited liability company formed in Nevada.

14. Plaintiff After We Fell Productions, LTD is a legal entity formed in the United

Kingdom.

15. Plaintiff Venice PI, LLC is a limited liability company formed in California.

16. Plaintiff Bedeviled LLC is a limited liability company formed in California.

17. Plaintiff Colossal Movie Productions, LLC is a limited liability company formed

in California.

18. Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC is a limited liability company formed in Texas.

19. Plaintiff YAR Productions Inc. is a corporation formed in New York.

20. Plaintiff Wonder One, LLC is a limited liability company formed in Wyoming.

21. Plaintiff REP PRODUCTIONS 12 LTD is a corporation formed in the United

Kingdom.

22. Plaintiff Fun Mom Dinner, LLC is a limited liability company formed in

Delaware.

23. Plaintiff Chase Film Nevada LLC is a limited liability company formed in

Nevada.

24. Plaintiff H Films, Inc. is a corporation formed in California.

3
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 7 of 37

25. Plaintiff Ammo Entertainment, LLC is a limited liability company formed in

California.

26. Plaintiff SF Film, LLC is a limited liability company formed in New York.

27. Plaintiff MON, LLC is a limited liability company formed in California.

28. Plaintiff Goldenrod Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company formed in

Nevada.

29. Plaintiff Rep Productions Scandi Ltd is a legal entity formed in the United

Kingdom.

30. Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) is a

telecommunications company incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Comcast is one of the largest providers of high-speed internet

services in the United States. Comcast’s internet service is marketed under the Xfinity brand.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

31. This is a civil action arising under the United States Copyright Act of 1976. 17

U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 28

U.S.C. § 1338.

32. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this judicial district.

Defendant’s principal place of business is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

33. Venue is proper in this district under Section 1400 of the United States Code,

because Defendant or Defendant’s agents reside and may be found in this district. 28 U.S.C. §

1400(a).

4
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 8 of 37

FACTS

A. Plaintiffs own the copyrights to the motion pictures.

34. Plaintiffs are the legal and/or beneficial owners of copyrights, including but not

limited to, the rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, and prepare

derivative works, in the following motion pictures:

35. Plaintiff After Productions, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in

the motion picture After. The copyright registration numbers for this work include

PAu003973225 and PAu003527570.

36. Plaintiff After II Movie, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in the

motion picture After We Collided. The copyright registration numbers for this work include

PAu004014087 and PAu003988168.

37. Plaintiff After We Fell Productions, LTD is a beneficial and actual owner of

copyrights in the motion picture After We Fell. The copyright registration numbers for this work

include PA0002340291 and PAu004048558.

38. Plaintiff Voltage Holdings, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in

the motion pictures Ava; A Family Man; Don Jon; Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile;

Fathers & Daughters; First Love; Good Kill; I Feel Pretty; I.T.; Lady Bloodfight; Pay the

Ghost; Revolt; Status Update; The Cobbler; The Professor and the Madman; The Company You

Keep; and The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman. The copyright registration numbers for

Ava include PA0002235557 and PAu003943693. The copyright registration numbers for A

Family Man include PA0002039392, TXu001967832, and TXu001374031. The copyright

registration numbers for Don Jon includes PA0001873185. The copyright registration numbers

for Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile include PAu003953148 and PAu003905674.

The copyright registration numbers for Fathers & Daughters include PAu003762811 and

5
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 9 of 37

PAu003713364. The copyright registration numbers for First Love includes PAu004025698.

The copyright registration numbers for Good Kill include PAu003762377 and PAu003726363.

The copyright registration numbers for I Feel Pretty include PAu003896491 and

PAu003886973. The copyright registration numbers for I.T. includes PAu003801126. The

copyright registration numbers for Lady Bloodfight includes PA0002056253. The copyright

registration numbers for Pay the Ghost include PA0001957914 and TXu001920050. The

copyright registration numbers for Revolt include PA0002047480 and PAu003854989. The

copyright registration numbers for Status Update include PAu003867210 and PAu003850446.

The copyright registration numbers for The Cobbler include PAu003744688 and

PAu003742177. The copyright registration numbers for The Professor and the Madman include

PAu003920383 and PAu003919285. The copyright registration numbers for The Company You

Keep include PAu003660935 and PAu003578816. The copyright registration numbers for The

Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman include PAu003663305 and TXu001808502.

39. Plaintiff Venice PI, LLC and Plaintiff Voltage Holdings, LLC are beneficial and

actual owners of copyrights in the motion picture Once Upon a Time in Venice. The copyright

registration numbers for this work includes PA0002039391.

40. Plaintiff Bedeviled LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in the

motion picture Bedeviled. The copyright registration numbers for this work include

PAu003830868 and PAu003800316.

41. Plaintiff Colossal Movie Productions, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of

copyrights in the motion picture Colossal. The copyright registration numbers for this work

include PAu003825360 and PAu003806054.

6
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 10 of 37

42. Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights

in the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club. The copyright registration numbers for this work

includes PA0001873195.

43. Plaintiff YAR Productions, Inc. is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in

the motion picture Distorted. The copyright registration numbers for this work include

PAu003917156 and PAu003877425.

44. Plaintiff Wonder One, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in the

motion picture Disturbing the Peace. The copyright registration numbers for this work includes

PAu003991009.

45. Plaintiff REP PRODUCTIONS 12 LTD is a beneficial and actual owner of

copyrights in the motion picture Elizabeth Harvest. The copyright registration numbers for this

work include PA0002111067 and PAu003874851.

46. Plaintiff Fun Mom Dinner, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in

the motion picture Fun Mom Dinner. The copyright registration numbers for this work includes

PAu003846211.

47. Plaintiff Chase Film Nevada, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights

in the motion picture Last Seen Alive. The copyright registration numbers for this work includes

PAu004134886.

48. Plaintiff H Films, Inc. is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in the motion

picture Redemption Day. The copyright registration numbers for this work includes

PAu004000858.

7
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 11 of 37

49. Plaintiff Ammo Entertainment, Inc. is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights

in the motion picture Room 203. The copyright registration numbers for this work includes

PAu004118373.

50. Plaintiff SF Film, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in the

motion picture Skin. The copyright registration numbers for this work includes PA0002173645.

51. Plaintiff MON, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights in the motion

pictures Singularity and Welcome Home. The copyright registration numbers for Singularity

includes PAu003848900. The copyright registration numbers for Welcome Home include

PAu004016506, PAu003900818, and PAu003900815.

52. Plaintiff Goldenrod Holdings, LLC is a beneficial and actual owner of copyrights

in the motion picture Ted Bundy: American Boogeyman. The copyright registration numbers for

this work include PA0002360803, PAu004121451, and PAu004022823.

53. Plaintiff Rep Productions Scandi LTD is a beneficial and actual owner of

copyrights in the motion picture The Bird Catcher. The copyright registration numbers for this

work includes PAu003903054.

54. Plaintiff Voltage Pictures, LLC is a beneficial owner of copyrights in the motion

picture The Rest of Us. The copyright registration numbers for this work includes

PA0002219567.

55. Plaintiff Voltage Pictures, LLC is also a beneficial owner in each of these motion

pictures.

56. Together, these motion pictures are referred to as the “Works.” The Works are the

subjects of copyright registrations, and this action is brought pursuant to Section 411 of the

8
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 12 of 37

Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 411. The Works are motion pictures currently offered for sale in

commerce.

B. Third parties directly infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works using

Comcast’s internet services.

1. The BitTorrent process.

57. Third parties using Comcast’s internet services (“Comcast users”) directly

infringed Plaintiffs’ rights in the Works. Comcast users engaged BitTorrent technology to

reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display Plaintiffs’ Works without Plaintiffs’

permission.

58. Torrenting is also known as peer-to-peer file sharing. It operates using a

torrenting protocol—a set of rules governing the communication between computers—that

allows computers to transfer files directly to many other computers.

59. BitTorrent is one of the most popular torrent protocols. BitTorrent joins

computers in a “swarm” of host computers that download and upload pieces of a file from each

other simultaneously. As soon as a user has downloaded a piece of the file, he or she starts

sharing that piece with others in the swarm, while continuing to download the rest of the file.

60. BitTorrent thus makes it much quicker for many people to share and download a

file, compared to the traditional method of directly downloading a whole file from one computer.

BitTorrent can be used to share any type of file, but many use it to share copyrighted films and

recordings without the owner’s permission—which is online piracy.

2. Torrent files and torrent sites.

61. To download a film using BitTorrent technology, a user needs to obtain a torrent

file. A user can find and download a torrent file for pirating a particular movie from a torrent

site. A torrent site is a website that indexes and provides torrent files for download. Examples

9
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 13 of 37

of torrent sites are RARBG, 1337x, The Pirate Bay, OxTorrent, and YTS. The United States

Trade Representative has listed YTS and RARBG as examples of online marketplaces that

engage in and facilitate substantial piracy.

62. The user then engages the torrent file with a BitTorrent client, a computer

program that implements the BitTorrent protocol. The BitTorrent client uses information

recorded in the torrent file to download a file constituting a digital version of a film, and to

distribute the film to other computers in the “swarm” described above. Once a user has

downloaded all pieces of the film, the BitTorrent client verifies the pieces and reassembles them

into a fully playable copy of the film. The user has the film on his or her computer, to keep and

use indefinitely.

3. Comcast users reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, and

publicly performed Plaintiffs’ Works using BitTorrent.

63. Publicly-available records from the American Registry for Internet Numbers

(“ARIN”) identify the IP addresses allocated by Comcast. ARIN initially allocates IP addresses

to Comcast, and Comcast reallocates IP addresses to its subscribers. These Comcast-allocated IP

addresses (“Comcast IP addresses”) can then be used to access the internet, and transfer and

receive files over the internet. Comcast is required to report the IP reallocation information to

ARIN. ARIN makes information about the reallocation of IP addresses publicly available on its

Whois service.

64. Plaintiffs engaged data providers such as Maverickeye UG (“Maverickeye”) to

identify the IP addresses that were used to engage the BitTorrent protocol and pirate copies of

Plaintiffs’ Works.

65. Maverickeye used forensic software to enable the scanning of peer-to-peer

networks for the presence of infringing transactions. Maverickeye extracted the resulting data

10
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 14 of 37

from the investigation and isolated the transactions and IP addresses associated with the files

identified by their hash values. Maverickeye logged information including the IP addresses, the

hash values, and hit dates (access or use dates) that show that users of Comcast’s internet

services engaged BitTorrent to download and distribute copies of Plaintiffs’ Works. For each of

the Works, Maverickeye verified that a full file distributed and downloaded in this process

contained a digital copy of a motion picture that is identical (or alternatively, strikingly similar or

substantially similar) to one of Plaintiffs’ Works. Maverickeye verified that the IP addresses

were allocated by Comcast using publicly-available information from ARIN.

66. Maverickeye’s findings show that Comcast users downloaded pirated copies of

Plaintiffs’ Works to their computers and then transmitted pieces of Plaintiffs’ Works to other

computers in a swarm using BitTorrent, so that other computers can download re-assembled and

fully-playable copies of Plaintiffs’ Works. These swarms included computers both within the

United States and outside of the United States. These transmissions are distributions of

copyright-protected elements of Plaintiffs’ Works to others.

67. These transmissions are also performances and displays of the Works to the

public. The transmissions are received by a significant number of other computers in the

BitTorrent swarm, and users at these other computers play the pirated motion pictures at separate

places and at separate times. These other users constitute members of the “public” because they

are outside of the normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.

68. These acts also constitute reproducing Plaintiffs’ Works. When a Comcast user

finishes downloading all the pieces of a copied Work through the BitTorrent process, the

BitTorrent client reassembles the pieces into a full, playable copy of a Work on the user’s

computer, thereby reproducing the Work.

11
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 15 of 37

69. Maverickeye’s investigations show that Comcast users infringed Plaintiffs’ Works

in the manner described above hundreds of thousands of times in the past three years. Each

instance of infringement used internet services (including connection and transmission services)

and IP addresses provided by and controlled by Comcast.

70. For example, a Comcast user downloaded and distributed a copy of the Work I

Feel Pretty under the file name “I Feel Pretty (2018) [BluRay] [720p] [YTS.AM],” using

Comcast internet services and the Comcast IP address 67.169.16.53.

71. For example, a Comcast user downloaded and distributed a copy of the Work

After We Fell under the file name “After.We.Fell.2021.1080p.WEBRip.x264-RARBG,” using

Comcast internet services and the Comcast IP address 67.180.168.148.

C. Comcast knowingly materially contributed to its users’ copyright

infringements.

1. Comcast knew, had reason to know, or was willfully blind to, its
users’ direct infringements of Plaintiffs’ Works.

72. Plaintiffs’ agents sent notices of infringement (“Notices”) for instances in which

Maverickeye confirmed infringement of copyright-protected content using Comcast IP

addresses.

73. Each Notice included at least the name of the copyright owner, the title of the

Work, the name of infringing file, the IP address and port number where infringement was

confirmed, the date and time of infringement, and that the infringement used the BitTorrent

protocol.

74. The recipient email address for the Notices was the email address that Comcast

provided on its website for receipts of copyright infringement claims.

12
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 16 of 37

75. The Notices gave Comcast knowledge of specific instances of third parties’

infringements of Plaintiffs’ Works using Comcast’s internet services. In the alternative, these

Notices gave Comcast reason to know of specific instances of infringements, or alerted Comcast

to the high probability that Comcast users infringed Plaintiffs’ Works, and Comcast deliberately

avoided confirming that fact. If Comcast had any doubt as to the truth of these infringement

notices, it could use the information contained in the Notices to investigate and verify the

infringements. For example, Comcast could have obtained the torrent file for downloading a

movie, using the infringing file name contained in the Notices, and opened the file in a

BitTorrent client to view information about the file, such as the infringing file’s unique hash

value. Comcast could use this unique hash value to confirm that the file contains a copy of one

of Plaintiffs’ Works. For example, Comcast could have obtained data packets of the traffic from

the IP addresses recorded in the Notices and verified that they contain copies of one of Plaintiffs’

Works.

76. Plaintiffs’ agents sent Comcast hundreds of thousands of Notices about specific

instances of infringements of Plaintiffs’ Works using Comcast’s internet services.

77. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 100,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie I Feel Pretty using Comcast internet services and Comcast IP

addresses.

78. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 10,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie Dallas Buyers Club using Comcast internet services and Comcast IP

addresses.

13
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 17 of 37

79. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 16,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile using Comcast internet

services and Comcast IP addresses.

80. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 50,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie Once Upon a Time in Venice using Comcast internet services and

Comcast IP addresses.

81. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 15,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie A Family Man using Comcast internet services and Comcast IP

addresses.

82. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 37,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie Ava using Comcast internet services and Comcast IP addresses.

83. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 9,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie After We Collided using Comcast internet services and Comcast IP

addresses.

84. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 11,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie The Professor and the Madman using Comcast internet services and

Comcast IP addresses.

85. For example, Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 12,000 Notices to Defendant concerning

infringement of the movie Status Update using Comcast internet services and Comcast IP

addresses.

14
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 18 of 37

2. Despite knowledge of specific infringements, Comcast continued to

provide infringing accounts with services essential to infringement.

86. As alleged above, Comcast knew, had reason to know, or was willfully blind to,

copyright infringements using internet service and IP addresses provided by and controlled by

Comcast, including knowledge of repeat infringements from Comcast IP addresses.

87. But Comcast did not take meaningful action to prevent ongoing infringements by

these Comcast users. Comcast failed to terminate the accounts associated with these IP

addresses or otherwise take any meaningful action in response to these Notices. Comcast often

failed to even forward the Notices to its internet service customers or otherwise inform them

about the Notice or its contents.

88. Instead, Comcast continued to provide the internet access and services necessary

for users to commit further online piracy. Comcast continued to provide access to the internet

from the IP addresses that infringers used to pirate movies. Comcast also continued to transmit

copies of Plaintiffs’ Works to a user’s computer for infringing reproduction, infringing public

performance, and/or infringing public display when a user was downloading a Work. And

Comcast continued to transmit copies of Plaintiffs’ Works from a user’s computer to distribute

the Work, and for reproduction, public performance, and public display. The provision of these

internet services is an essential step in the third-party infringements, and substantially magnifies

the underlying infringements.

89. Maverickeye also investigates infringements of other copyright-protected motion

pictures as well as Plaintiffs’ Works, and records notices of infringements sent to Comcast

regarding those infringements. Maverickeye’s records show that Comcast received hundreds of

notices about infringements at certain Comcast IP addresses. This evidence further shows that

Comcast does not terminate its internet services to repeat infringing accounts. And it shows that

15
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 19 of 37

Comcast’s continued provision of internet services to these accounts substantially magnifies

infringing activity at these accounts.

90. For example, Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP

address 76.116.226.92 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at

this address. Comcast received at least 782 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

91. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address

73.141.163.31 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this

address. Comcast received at least 626 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

92. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address 76.21.81.32

even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this address. Comcast

received at least 609 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address. Each notice

accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

93. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address

71.230.104.47 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this

address. Comcast received at least 532 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

94. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address

173.12.111.90 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this

address. Comcast received at least 515 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

16
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 20 of 37

95. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address

73.236.144.216 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this

address. Comcast received at least 434 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

96. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address

50.232.154.190 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this

address. Comcast received at least 415 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

97. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address

73.141.214.193 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this

address. Comcast received at least 400 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

98. Comcast failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address

73.203.247.81 even after Comcast received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this

address. Comcast received at least 373 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address.

Each notice accounted for at least one instance of infringement.

D. Comcast vicariously infringed Plaintiffs’ Works.

1. Comcast had the right and ability to supervise and control third
parties’ infringements.

99. Comcast supervised and controlled the infringing activity of third parties because

it had the right and ability to terminate its internet services to a customer’s account at any time.

100. For example, Comcast terminates services to customers who fail to pay for

Comcast’s internet services, after late-payment warnings.

17
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 21 of 37

101. Comcast also reserved the right to terminate internet services to customers at any

time for violating copyright law. Comcast published this statement: “We also reserve the right to

terminate our offerings at any time with or without notice for any affected user who we, in our

sole discretion, believe is infringing any copyright or other intellectual property rights.”

102. Comcast is also able to monitor its users’ accounts, including the usage,

transmissions, and content on those accounts. For example, Comcast’s internet service

customers must agree that Comcast and its suppliers “reserve the right at any time to monitor

bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the

Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast

users.”

103. Termination of internet services to infringing accounts would stop infringing

activity at those accounts. And Comcast’s provision of internet services is an essential step in

users’ copyright infringements at Comcast accounts. But, as alleged above, Comcast did not

terminate internet services to known, infringing accounts. And Comcast continues to provide

internet services to known, infringing accounts.

2. Comcast profits from facilitating online piracy.

104. By continuing to provide internet services to accounts used for repeat

infringement, rather than terminating such accounts, Comcast can continue to receive

subscription payments from those accounts. For example, Comcast currently offers internet

services in exchange for monthly payments, ranging from $39.99 per month to $120 per month.

If Comcast terminated the internet account of, or stopped providing internet services to, an

existing customer due to copyright infringements at their account, then Comcast could no longer

collect monthly payments from that customer. By not terminating the account, Comcast

continues to receive monthly payments from that account for years into the future. For example,

18
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 22 of 37

if Comcast fails to terminate a pirate account, and that subscriber continues as a Comcast

subscriber for another 5 years at $120 per month, Comcast would earn an additional $7,200 in

revenue from that subscriber, most of which would be profits for Comcast.

105. The ability to use Comcast’s internet services for pirating is also a draw for

Comcast’s customers and potential customers. Comcast’s refusal or failure to take action against

known copyright infringement is a draw for customers to purchase Comcast’s internet services.

Comcast’s continued services to customers, after Comcast receives notice that they infringed

copyrights using Comcast’s service, is similarly a draw for customers to purchase Comcast’s

services. As alleged above, certain Comcast users continued to use Comcast’s services to

infringe copyrights, even after Comcast received hundreds of copyright infringement notices for

those customer accounts.

E. Comcast does not have a safe harbor from liability.

106. In 1988, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which

provides protection or a “safe harbor” from liability for service providers. But the DMCA only

protects a service provider if the service provider “has adopted and reasonably implemented… a

policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers… who are

repeat infringers.” 17 U.S. C. § 512(i)(1)(A).

107. Comcast claims that it has such a policy, but in fact, at all relevant times, Comcast

had neither adopted nor reasonably implemented a policy that provides for the termination of

repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.

1. Comcast’s published DMCA policy.

108. Comcast had a DMCA policy published on its website. This policy stated that

“Comcast maintains a policy to terminate a Comcast account, in appropriate circumstances,

19
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 23 of 37

provided to any user who is a repeat infringer of third-party copyright rights under our repeat

infringer policy.”

109. According to Comcast, under its policy:

“We place accounts of customers for whom [it] receive[s] multiple DMCA

notifications of alleged infringement into a multi-step DMCA Repeat Infringer

Policy. Upon receipt of repeated DMCA notifications in a calendar month, the

customer account will progress from one policy step to the next one.

“Actions that we may take under the DMCA Repeat Infringer Policy

include sending alerts of increased visibility to the account’s customer of record.

In order to acknowledge these alerts, we may require the customer to log in to the

account or call our support team. We also reserve the right to suspend or

terminate, as well as apply other interim measures to, the Xfinity Internet service

of any customer for whom we have continued to receive DMCA notifications of

alleged infringement even after we have sent repeat infringer alerts. In addition,

we may terminate in our sole discretion other Xfinity services provided to these

customers when we terminate the Xfinity Internet service under this policy.”

110. Comcast also published that it reserved “the right to move a customer account to

the next step of the policy upon receiving any number of DMCA notifications from content

owners in each month.”

20
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 24 of 37

2. Comcast’s published policy did not provide for the termination of

repeat infringers under appropriate circumstances.

111. Comcast’s published policy did not provide for the termination of repeat

infringers under appropriate circumstances for several reasons. According to Comcast’s

published policy, Comcast only counted the DMCA notifications regarding a customer account

in each month, rather than counting total DMCA notifications. Under this policy, Comcast did

not terminate an account that had a very high number of infringements over several months, but

not in any one month. And under its published policy, Comcast was not required to terminate

any customer accounts at all, no matter how many DMCA notifications from content owners it

received regarding a customer account.

21
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 25 of 37

3. Comcast did not reasonably implement a policy that provided for the
termination of repeat infringers under appropriate circumstances.

112. Comcast did not implement a policy that provided for the termination of repeat

infringers under appropriate circumstances. For example, Comcast only counts infringements at

an account in each calendar month, rather than counting total infringements. For example, as

alleged above, Comcast has allowed hundreds of infringements to occur at certain accounts,

despite receiving at least as many notices of infringement regarding those accounts. Comcast

users have also reported receiving multiple infringement notices from Comcast without having

their accounts terminated. Comcast did not terminate an account even if the number of

infringements in a month reached a very high number.

F. Comcast users distributed copies of Plaintiffs’ Works with false or altered

copyright management information.

113. Section 1202 of the DMCA prohibits the distribution of false copyright

management information with intent to induce, facilitate, or enable copyright infringement. 17

U.S.C. § 1202(a). Section 1202 also prohibits a user’s distribution of altered copyright

management information, and a user’s distribution or public performance of works or copied

works with altered copyright management information, if the user knows or has reason to know

that these acts would induce, facilitate, or enable copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).

By using BitTorrent to pirate movies, Comcast users committed DMCA violations.

1. The distributed files contained false or altered copyright management

information.

114. As alleged above, Comcast users engaged BitTorrent technology to distribute and

download copies of Plaintiffs’ Works. The name of a file distributed and downloaded in this

manner is copyright management information, because it is information conveyed in connection

with copies of a work, or performances or displays of a work, in digital form, including the title

22
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 26 of 37

and other information identifying the work. But many of the distributed files include false or

altered copyright management information. Many of the file names also include information in a

format that is customary for pirating movies, such as the name or Uniform Resource Locater

(“URL”) of a torrent site, or a label indicating the method of copying the movie, such as

“BDRip” or “WEBRip.” For example, the file name of a pirated copy of Plaintiffs’ Work

distributed through BitTorrent technology was: “After.We.Fell.2021.1080p.WEBRip.x264-

RARBG.” This file name includes the title and release date identifying a copy of the Work After

We Collided. It also includes the name of the torrent site “RARBG.” And it includes a label

indicating the method by which the movie was copied, “WEBRip.” For example, the file name

of a pirated copy of Plaintiffs’ Work distributed through BitTorrent technology was “I Feel

Pretty (2018) [BluRay] [720p] [YTS.AM].” This file name includes the title and release date

identifying a copy of the Work I Feel Pretty. It also includes the name and URL of the torrent

site “YTS.AM.”

115. This information is false or altered copyright management information because

the copyright management information of a legitimate file of Plaintiffs’ Works does not contain

the name or URL of a torrent site, nor a label indicating the method of copying the movie file.

And such information does not convey information about the true author, producer, licensor, or

distributor of the Work. Instead, such information refers to the illegal pirating of the Work.

Therefore, the information is either false information about the legitimate, copyrighted Work, or

else an alteration of the copyright management information of the legitimate, copyrighted Work.

23
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 27 of 37

2. Comcast users knew, had reason to know, or were willfully blind to the fact,
that the copyright management information was false or altered.

116. Comcast users knew, had reason to know, or were willfully blind to the fact, that

file names containing the name or URL of torrent sites, or a label indicating the method of

copying a movie, were false or altered copyright management information.

117. When users engaged in online piracy using BitTorrent, they knew that torrent

sites are used for pirating, and that the films obtained through this process are infringing copies.

These users are, by definition, online users obtaining films from internet sources. A search of

any of Plaintiffs’ Works in a search engine for sites that allow renting or buying a film would

produce sites such as on Amazon Prime Video, Apple iTunes, or Google Play, all of which post

prices for renting or buying the film. The users knew that obtaining a legal copy of a film

requires payment (either directly if acquiring a single film, or indirectly, by subscribing to a

service such as Netflix). By contrast, obtaining a film using BitTorrent technology requires

actively looking for a torrent site with pirated movies, looking for and obtaining a torrent file to

pirate a particular movie, and engaging the torrent file with a BitTorrent client to download the

film for no payment. All of the infringing Comcast users obtained the films using torrent sites,

torrent files, and BitTorrent technology, at no cost.

118. Many of the users had even registered an account with a torrent site, like YTS.

The YTS website operator maintained records of activity of registered YTS user accounts

created from Comcast IP addresses. The records include the email address of the registered user

account, the torrent files that the registered account downloaded, the IP address from which the

registered user accessed the YTS website, and the dates of download. These records show that

Comcast users downloaded torrent files for pirating Plaintiffs’ Works. For example, a Comcast

user registered an account with the YTS website from the Comcast IP address 68.38.96.156

24
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 28 of 37

using the email address mmc*********gmail.com and, on March 25, 2019, downloaded the

torrent file for pirating the Work I Feel Pretty.

119. As a result, these Comcast users knew, had reason to know, or were willfully

blind to the fact, that they were obtaining pirated copies of the films; that a torrent name or URL

like “RARBG” or “YTS.AM” is not the true title, author, producer, or licensed distributor of any

of the Works; that a legitimate copy of a Work is not copied or “ripped” from a streaming

service, as a label like “WEBRip” indicates; that such information refers to the illegal

reproduction and distributing of a Work, or generally to pirating; and therefore that a legitimate

file name of a Work does not include the name or URL of a torrent site, and does not include a

label indicating the method by which a movie file was copied.

3. Comcast users knew, had reason to know, or were willfully blind to the fact,
that their acts would induce, facilitate, or enable copyright infringement.

120. As alleged above, these Comcast users knew that, by acquiring films from a

torrent site using a BitTorrent client, they were engaged in infringement.

121. They knew that distributing the false or altered copyright management

information, and distributing or publicly performing copied Works with false or altered

copyright management information, would induce, facilitate, or enable further pirating. The

users knew, had reason to know, or were willfully blind to the fact, that the name or URL of a

torrent site would enhance awareness of a torrent site, or enhance the reputation of a torrent site;

that the URL of a torrent site may induce, facilitate, or enable further infringements by helping

other users to find and access the torrent site to pirate movies; that a label indicating the method

by which a movie was copied would facilitate further pirating, by assisting others in choosing a

particular torrent file for pirating. Accordingly, Comcast users knew, or had reasonable grounds

25
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 29 of 37

to know, or were willfully blind to the fact, that their acts would induce, facilitate, or enable

copyright infringement.

122. Comcast users knowingly distributed false or altered copyright management

information, and distributed and publicly performed copied Works with false or altered copyright

management information, in the manner alleged above, thousands and thousands of times.

123. For example, a Comcast user using Comcast internet services and the Comcast IP

address 67.169.16.53 downloaded and distributed copies of the Work I Feel Pretty with the file

name “I Feel Pretty (2018) [BluRay] [720p] [YTS.AM].”

124. “YTS.AM” is the name and URL of a torrent site. “YTS.AM” is not included in

the copyright management information of legitimate copies or streams of the Work I Feel Pretty.

125. For example, a Comcast user using Comcast internet services and the Comcast IP

address 67.180.168.148 downloaded and distributed copies of the Work After We Fell with the

file name “After.We.Fell.2021.1080p.WEBRip.x264-RARBG.”

126. “RARBG” is the name of a torrent site. “RARBG” is not included in the

copyright management information of legitimate copies or streams of the Work After We Fell.

127. Adding the names or URL of torrent sites like “YTS.AM” and “RARBG”

enhances the reputation of the torrent site, creates potential users’ awareness of the torrent site,

and attracts users to the torrent site. And labels indicating the method of copying, like

“WEBRip,” facilitate or induce pirating by informing a user of the type of movie copies that are

available for torrenting.

26
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 30 of 37

G. Comcast materially contributed to third parties’ use of false or altered

copyright management information.

1. Comcast knew, had reason to know, or was willfully blind to its users’
DMCA violations.

128. As alleged above, Plaintiffs’ agents sent Notices to Comcast, for instances in

which Maverickeye confirmed infringement of copyright-protected content at Comcast IP

addresses. These Notices included at least the name of the copyright owner, the title of the

Work, that the work was infringed using BitTorrent, the file name that includes the false or

altered copyright management information, the IP address and port number where infringement

was confirmed, and the time of infringement.

129. The Notices gave Comcast knowledge of specific instances of third parties’

DMCA violations using Comcast’s internet services. In the alternative, the Notices gave

Comcast reason to know of specific instances of infringements, or alerted Comcast to the high

probability that Comcast users committed DMCA violations, and Comcast deliberately avoided

learning that fact. For example, the Notices showed that users pirated Plaintiffs’ Works with file

names containing the name or URL of a torrent site. For example, the Notices showed that users

pirated Works with file names containing a label indicating the method by which a movie was

copied, such as “WEBRip” or “BDRip.” If Comcast had any doubt that users had pirated Works

with such file names, then it could have easily investigated to verify that information. For

example, Comcast could have taken the steps alleged above to verify that third parties infringed

Plaintiffs’ Works from Comcast IP addresses. And Comcast could compare the infringing file

name recorded on the Notices with the copyright management information of a legitimate copy

of one of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted Works, such as in the copyright registration for the film, the

credits of the films, or in the file name of a legitimate Blu-ray disc copy of the film.

27
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 31 of 37

2. Despite knowledge of these violations, Comcast continued to facilitate

the violations.

130. Despite knowledge of specific and repeat DMCA violations, Comcast continued

to provide internet services to facilitate the violations. Specifically, Comcast continued to

provide access to internet services at IP addresses that committed DMCA violations. And

Comcast continued to provide the transmissions necessary for users to commit DMCA violations

while pirating Plaintiffs’ Works. The provision of internet services is an essential step in users’

DMCA violations while pirating movies. And the provision of internet services substantially

magnifies users’ DMCA violations while pirating movies. As discussed, Comcast received

hundreds of Notices concerning infringements at certain accounts. And a substantial number of

these infringements used file names containing the name or URL of a torrent site, or a label

indicating the method by which a movie was copied.

H. Comcast vicariously committed DMCA violations.

1. Comcast had the right and ability to supervise and control third
parties’ DMCA violations.

131. As alleged above, Comcast can terminate its internet services to a customer’s

account at any time. Termination of internet services to infringing accounts would stop DMCA

violations at those accounts.

2. Comcast profits from third parties’ violations.

132. If Comcast continues to provide internet services to customer accounts used for

repeat DMCA violations while pirating movies, then Comcast can continue to receive

subscription payments for those accounts.

133. As alleged above, Comcast offers internet services in exchange for monthly

payments. If Comcast terminated the internet account of, or stopped providing internet services

28
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 32 of 37

to, an existing customer due to repeat DMCA violations at their account, then Comcast could no

longer collect monthly payments from that customer.

134. The ability to use Comcast’s internet service for DMCA violations while pirating

is also a draw for Comcast’s customers and potential customers. Comcast’s refusal or failure to

take action against such violations are a draw for customers to purchase Comcast’s internet

services and to use those services.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(contributory copyright infringement)

135. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each

of the foregoing paragraphs.

136. Plaintiffs are the legal and/or beneficial copyright owners of the Works, including

the rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, and prepare derivative

works of the Works.

137. Third parties using Comcast’s internet services directly infringed Plaintiffs’

Works. Specifically, these users infringed Plaintiffs’ rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly

perform, and publicly display, the Works. Without Plaintiffs’ authorization, these users also

imported copies of Plaintiffs’ Works into the United States, exported copies of Plaintiffs’ Works

to outside of the United States, and imported copies of Plaintiffs’ Works that have been acquired

outside the United States, in violation of Section 602. 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1) and (2).

138. Defendant materially contributed to these third parties’ infringements. As

demonstrated above, Defendant knew (or in the alternative had reason to know or was willfully

blind to the fact) that third parties’ infringed Plaintiffs’ Works using Defendant’s internet

services. Despite this knowledge, Defendant facilitated the infringements by continuing to

provide the internet access and services necessary for further infringement. Defendant also failed

29
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 33 of 37

to take meaningful steps to minimize or prevent infringements. Defendant’s provision of internet

services is an essential step in the third parties’ infringements.

139. Defendant’s contributory infringement was a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs to lose profits and in causing Defendant to earn additional profits. Defendant’s

contributory infringement was also a substantial factor in causing numerous violations of the

Copyright Act that are eligible for statutory damages.

140. Defendant’s contributory infringements were committed “willfully’ within the

meaning of Section 504(c)(2) of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(vicarious copyright infringement)

141. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each

of the foregoing paragraphs.

142. Plaintiffs are the legal and/or beneficial copyright owners of the Works, including

the rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, and prepare derivative

works of the Works.

143. Third parties using Comcast’s internet services directly infringed Plaintiffs’

Works. Specifically, these users infringed Plaintiffs’ rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly

perform, and publicly display, the Works.

144. Defendant is vicariously liable for the third parties’ infringements. As

demonstrated above, Defendant had the legal right and practical ability to supervise and control

the infringements.

145. And as demonstrated above, Defendant had a direct financial interest in the third-

party infringing acts.

30
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 34 of 37

146. Defendant’s vicarious contributory infringement was a substantial factor in

causing Plaintiffs to lose profits and in causing Defendant to earn additional profits. Defendant’s

contributory infringement was also a substantial factor in causing numerous violations of the

Copyright Act that are eligible for statutory damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(contributory violation of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act)

147. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each

of the foregoing paragraphs.

148. Third parties using Defendant’s internet services knowingly distributed false

copyright management information while pirating Plaintiffs’ Works. These third parties did so

with the intent to induce, enable, or facilitate copyright infringement.

149. Third parties using Defendant’s internet services distributed or publicly

performed Plaintiffs’ Works or copies of Plaintiffs Works knowing that copyright management

information had been altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law. These third

parties did so knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know, that their acts would induce,

enable, or facilitate copyright infringement.

150. These acts constitute violations of Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium

Copyright Act (“DMCA violations”). 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a)-(b).

151. Defendant materially contributed to the DMCA violations. As demonstrated

above, Defendant knew (or in the alternative had reason to know or was willfully blind to the

fact) that third parties were committing these violations using Defendant’s internet services.

Despite this knowledge, Defendant continued to facilitate the violations by providing internet

services to users at these accounts. Defendant also failed to take steps to minimize or prevent

31
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 35 of 37

further violations. Defendant’s provision of internet services is an essential part of third parties’

DMCA violations.

152. Defendant’s contributory violations of the DMCA were a substantial factor in

causing Plaintiffs to lose profits and in causing Defendant to earn additional profits. Defendant’s

contributory violations were also a substantial factor in causing numerous violations of the

DMCA that are eligible for statutory damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(vicarious violation of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act)

153. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each

of the foregoing paragraphs.

154. Third parties using Defendant’s internet services knowingly distributed false

copyright management information while pirating Plaintiffs’ Works. These third parties did so

with the intent to induce, enable, or facilitate copyright infringement.

155. Third parties using Defendant’s internet services distributed or publicly

performed Plaintiffs’ Works or copies of Plaintiffs Works knowing that copyright management

information had been altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law. These third

parties did so knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know, that their acts would induce,

enable, or facilitate copyright infringement.

156. These acts constitute violations of Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium

Copyright Act (“DMCA violations”). 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a)-(b).

157. Defendant is vicariously liable for these DMCA violations. Defendant had the

legal right and practical ability to supervise and control the third parties’ DMCA violations.

158. And Defendant had a direct financial interest in third parties’ DMCA violations.

32
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 36 of 37

159. Defendant’s vicarious violations of the DMCA were a substantial factor in

causing Plaintiffs to lose profits and in causing Defendant to earn additional profits. Defendant’s

vicarious violations were also a substantial factor in causing numerous violations of the DMCA

eligible for statutory damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

160. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

(a) award Plaintiffs their actual damages from the copyright infringements

and Defendant’s profits in such amount as may be found; alternatively, at

Plaintiffs’ election, for statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(a)

and (c) against Defendant;

(b) award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 505 and/or 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(5);

(c) award Plaintiffs their actual damages from violations of Section 1202(a)-

(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Defendant’s profits in

such amount as may be found; or, in the alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election,

statutory damages for each violation pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c);

(d) order Defendant to adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides

for the termination of internet services to accounts at which there is repeat

copyright infringements, under appropriate circumstances;

(e) order Defendant to block users from accessing notorious piracy websites

of foreign origin including those listed in the annual trade report of

Notorious Foreign Markets published by the United States Government

such as (a) YTS; (b) Piratebay; (c) Rarbg; and (d) 1337x on networks

under its control to prevent further pirating of Plaintiffs’ Works; and

33
 Case 2:22-cv-03659 Document 1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 37 of 37

(f) grant the Plaintiffs any and all other and further relief that this Court

deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues properly triable by jury.

Dated: September 13, 2022 Respectfully submitted by,

s/ Jeremy E. Abay

Jeremy E. Abay (PA Bar No. 316730)

PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO
BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
1818 Market Street, Suite 3402
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: 215-988-1462
Email: [email protected]

Greg Dovel* (CA State Bar No. 135387)

Joanne Bui* (CA State Bar No. 340378)
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: 310-656-7066
Email: [email protected]

- and -

Kerry S. Culpepper* (HI Bar No. 9837)

CULPEPPER IP, LLC
75-170 Hualalai Rd., Suite B204
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Tel: 808-464-4047

Counsel for Plaintiffs

*Pro hac vice admission to be sought.

34