district of columbia

September 30, 2020 by Leonard J. French

Strike 3 Holdings Files Almost 140 Federal Cases in September

Strike 3 Holdings, one of the most prolific filers of copyright infringement cases, has been increasing the rate they file Federal copyright complaints, filing 139 in September alone. The cases are spread across the country, including California (13 cases), the District of Columbia (2 cases), Maryland (21 cases), New Jersey (18 cases), New York (54 cases), Pennsylvania (16 cases), and Virginia (15 cases).

The reason they can file so quickly is because each case is nearly identical. Strike 3 alleges that their investigators have recorded an IP address downloading Vixen, Tushy, and/or Blacked films through BitTorrent networks, and are now suing the internet subscribers for copyright infringement. The usually sue for dozens of infringements, with each worth a minimum of $750 in damages, which the Plaintiff can argue should be tripled for “willful” infringement. Even if only granted minimal damages, a defendant could be liable for tens of thousands of dollars if they don’t mount an effective defense.

Many of these cases represent an internet subscriber that has fought against Strike 3’s original subpoena in Miami-Dade county court through a Motion to Quash. Although Strike 3 initially dismisses this defendant from their complaint, they soon file a lawsuit in Federal court for a second subpoena. This time, the case is usually filed in the correct court, making another Motion to Quash a more complicated matter.

Strike 3 is notoriously aggressive in their pursuit of these cases. If you’ve received a notice from your internet service provider, such as Comcast, Frontier Communications, Optimum Online, RCN, Spectrum, or Webpass, please contact me. I can explain your options for defense and recommend the best way forward for your situation.

June 21, 2019 by Leonard J. French

Malibu Media files 29 cases in DC, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

If You’ve Received a Notice from Malibu Media – Read This!

Twenty-nine more people will receive a notice from their ISP indicating that Malibu Media is suing them in the District of Columbia (1 case), Illinois (7 cases), Maryland (4 cases), Michigan (2 cases), New Jersey (8 cases), Pennsylvania (2 cases), and Virginia (5 cases). Malibu Media has sued thousands of people across the country based on their IP address. The Plaintiff claims to have investigators that monitor BitTorrent downloading traffic and record the IP addresses of people sharing Malibu Media’s copyrighted films (operating under the X-Art brand). Malibu Media is quite experienced and has been doing this for years. I was part of the defense for the first Malibu Media case to go to trial.

The scheme hasn’t changed much over the years. Once the Plaintiff has identified an IP address as infringing regularly (or enough that they feel they can get a large enough settlement out of it) they file a lawsuit against the internet subscriber behind the IP address. In order to serve the defendant with the lawsuit, Malibu Media subpoenas the Internet Service Provider (e.g., Charter, Comcast, Optimum Online, RCN, Spectrum, Time Warner Cable, etc.) for the subscriber’s identity.

However, this is a tenuous connection. Many people, with and without permission, may have access to a person’s internet connection. Sometimes the subscriber doesn’t even live where the internet is being provided, such as when the subscriber is a landlord. There are numerous other reasons a subscriber may not be the one responsible for copyright infringement. Still, Malibu Media has filed thousands of lawsuits over the years.

Most subscribers find out about the lawsuit when they receive a notice from their Internet Service Provider (ISP) notifying them the ISP has received a subpoena from Malibu Media to discover the subscriber’s identity. The ISP is obligated to comply with the subpoena unless a Motion to Quash is filed. This is a court motion to void or “quash” the subpoena. However, Motions to Quash are complex in these cases as the subpoena is between the Plaintiff and the ISP, meaning the subscriber is a third party. I’m happy to discuss with you whether filing a Motion to Quash or alternative motions is advisable in your case.

If you’ve received one of these notices or have even been served with the lawsuit, it’s vital to retain counsel without delay. This Plaintiff is notoriously aggressive and an effective defense can help secure the best possible outcome for you.

June 4, 2019 by Leonard J. French

Malibu Media and Strike 3 Holdings File Hundreds More Cases Across the Country

Since mid-April, Malibu Media and Strike 3 Holdings have filed more than 200 more BitTorrent based copyright lawsuits across the country. Despite Strike 3 Holdings’ lead counsel, Lincoln Bandlow, leaving the prestigious law firm Fox Rothschild, Strike 3 Holdings continues to blanket the country in lawsuits – including 30 in California, 10 in Connecticut, 5 in Maryland, 14 in Michigan, 26 in New Jersey, and 74 in New York. Malibu Media has also filed a slew of similar lawsuits – 4 in Connecticut, 1 in the District of Columbia, 10 in Illinois, 1 in Maryland, 10 in Michigan, 12 in New Jersey, 14 in New York, 6 in Pennsylvania, and 8 in Virginia.

The reason these companies are able to file so many lawsuits is in part because each lawsuit is nearly identical. The Plaintiffs each state they hire investigators to monitor BitTorrent network traffic and identify IP addresses associated with downloading the Plaintiff’s copyrighted films. Malibu Media owns the rights to X-Art, and Strike 3 Holdings owns the rights to Vixen, Tushy, and Blacked.

The Plaintiff sues the IP address and claim in order to serve the defendant with the complaint, they need to subpoena the Internet Service Provider (e.g., Charter, Comcast, Optimum Online, RCN, Spectrum, Time Warner Cable, etc.) to discover the identity of the subscriber. Of course, the internet subscriber may not be the person who downloaded the files and other people may, with or without permission, may use a subscriber’s internet connection.

Most people discover the lawsuit when they receive a notice from their ISP indicating that the Plaintiff has subpoenaed the subscriber’s identity. The ISP is obligated to comply with the subpoena unless a Motion to Quash is filed. This is a motion to void or “quash” the subpoena. However, Motions to Quash are complex in these cases as the subpoena is between the Plaintiff and the ISP, meaning the subscriber is a third party.

district of columbia

Footer