Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 8

Flynn Wirkus Young, P.C.

Matthew M. Cianflone, Esq.
PA ID No. 309468
[email protected]
400 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 601
Quincy, MA 02169
T: (617) 773-5500
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ROTTEN RECORDS, INC.
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. ______________

v.
COMPLAINT
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address
67.165.102.115,
Defendant.

Plaintiff, Rotten Records, Inc., sues Defendant John Doe subscriber assigned IP
address 67.165.102.115, and alleges:
Introduction
1.

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

amended, 17 U.S.C. 101, et seq. (the Copyright Act).

2.

Defendant is an online copyright infringer and BitTorrent user. Indeed,

Defendants IP address as set forth on Exhibit A was used to illegally distribute the
copyrighted work owned by Plaintiff listed on Exhibit B without authorization.
3.

Plaintiff is the registered owner of the copyrighted digital audio recording

set forth on Exhibit B (the Copyright-in-Suit).

Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 8

Jurisdiction and Venue

4.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); and 28 U.S.C. 1338 (patents, copyrights,

trademarks and unfair competition).
5.

Plaintiff used proven IP address geolocation technology which has

consistently worked in similar cases to ensure that the Defendants acts of copyright
infringement occurred using an Internet Protocol address (IP address) traced to a
physical address located within this District and, therefore, this Court has personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant because: (i) Defendant committed the tortious conduct
alleged in this Complaint in this State, and (ii) Defendant resides in this State and/or (iii)
Defendant has engaged in substantial and not isolated business activity in this State.
6.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c),

because: (i) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred in this District; and, (ii) the Defendant resides (and therefore can be found) in
this District and resides in this State; additionally, venue is proper in this District
pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1400(a) (venue for copyright cases) because Defendant or
Defendants agent resides or may be found in this District.
Parties
7.

Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State

of Nevada and has its principal place of business located at P.O. Box 56, Upland, CA
91785.
8.

Plaintiff only knows Defendant by his, her or its IP address. Defendants

IP address is set forth in the style of the case.

Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 8

9.

Defendants Internet Service Provider can identify the Defendant.

Factual Background

I.

Rotten Records Holds the Copyright to Widely Infringed Popular Songs

10.

Plaintiff owns the copyright to the Dog Fashion Disco albums

Experiments in Alchemy, The Embryos in Bloom, and Adultery(Album), as listed

in Exhibit A, which consists of a total of 32 songs.
11.

The Album is being widely infringed through the BitTorrent peer-to-peer

file sharing network.

II.

Defendant Used the BitTorrent File Distribution Network to Infringe Plaintiffs

Copyrights
12.

The BitTorrent file distribution network (BitTorrent) is one of the most

common peer-to-peer file sharing systems used for distributing large amounts of data,
including, but not limited to, written publications, audiovisual works, music, movies and
other digital media files (Digital Media Files).1
13.

BitTorrents popularity stems from the ability of users to directly interact

and communicate with each other in order to distribute a large file without creating a
heavy load on any individual source computer and/or network. The methodology of
BitTorrent allows users to interact and communicate directly with each other, thus
avoiding the need for intermediary host websites which are subject to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act take-down notices and potential regulatory enforcement
actions.
14.

In order to distribute a large file, the BitTorrent protocol breaks a file into

many small pieces. Users then exchange these pieces among each other, instead of
1

NetNames found in their September 2013 report, Sizing The Piracy Universe, that 78.1% of all music
on BitTorrent was infringing on copyright.

Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 8

attempting to distribute a much larger digital file.

15.

After the infringer receives all of the pieces of a digital media file, the

infringers BitTorrent client software reassembles the pieces so that the file may be
opened and utilized.
16.

Each piece of a BitTorrent file is assigned a unique cryptographic hash

17.

The entirety of the digital media file also has a unique cryptographic hash

value.

value (file hash), which acts as a digital fingerprint identifying the digital media file
(e.g., a song).

Once infringers complete downloading all pieces which comprise a

digital media file, the BitTorrent software uses the file hash to determine that the file is
complete and accurate.
18.

Plaintiffs infringement detection company, Rightscorp, Inc. (Rightscorp),

established a direct TCP/IP connection with Defendant.

19.

Rightscorp downloaded several digital media files (the Infringing Files)

from Defendant. The Infringing Files are copies of Plaintiffs work. The Infringing Files
are owned by Plaintiff.
20.

Plaintiff is the owner of the work in the Infringing Files which is registered

with the U.S. Copyright Office.

See Exhibit B for the works copyright registration

information.
21.

Plaintiff did not authorize its copyrighted work to be distributed via the

BitTorrent protocol. Instead, the initial seeder illegally uploaded the work to BitTorrent
and distributed it to numerous other individuals without Plaintiffs permission.
22.

Neither Plaintiff nor Rightscorp was the initial seeder nor can the initial

Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 5 of 8

seeder be identified.
23.

Defendant distributed all of the pieces of the Infringing Files allowing

others to assemble them into a playable audio file.

24.

Rightscorp downloaded a full copy of the Infringing Files and reviewed

them. Rightscorp further reviewed the original works and confirmed that the Infringing
File are identical to the corresponding original works.
25.

At no time did Rightscorp upload Plaintiff's copyrighted content to any

other BitTorrent users.

26.

Although there are multiple infringing transactions from Defendants IP

address, the most recent infringing transaction recorded by Rightscorp (as of the date of
this filing) is set forth on Exhibit A.
27.

Exhibit B lists the registration number, registration date, and date of first

publication for the work.

28.

Each infringing transaction between Defendants IP address and

Rightscorp is recorded in a video and a BitTorrent log file. Here, the video recording is
of a transaction between the infringers computer and Rightscorps computer. Through
each transaction, Defendant distributed a piece of the Infringing File. The video and
BitTorrent log file shows Defendants IP address, and the pieces that were distributed.
Rightscorps operator plays a portion of the files downloaded from the Defendants
computer in the video immediately after they have been downloaded.
29.

Rightscorp sent Defendant 112 notices via Defendants ISP Comcast from

June 15, 2015 to June 17, 2015 demanding that Defendant stop illegally distributing
Plaintiffs work.

Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 6 of 8

30.

Defendant ignored each and every notice and continued to illegally

distribute Plaintiffs work.

Miscellaneous
31.

All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred or have

been waived.
32.

Plaintiff has retained counsel and is obligated to pay said counsel a

reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I
Direct Infringement Against Defendant
33.

The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 are hereby re-alleged as if

fully set forth herein.

34.

Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright which covers an original work of

authorship.
35.

By using BitTorrent, Defendant copied and distributed the constituent

elements of the copyrighted work.

36.

Plaintiff did not authorize, permit or consent to Defendants distribution of

its work.
37.

As a result of the foregoing, Defendant violated Plaintiffs exclusive right

A.

Reproduce the work in copies, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(1) and 501;

B.

Redistribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of

to:

ownership, or by rental, lease or lending, in violation of 17 U.S.C.

106(3) and 501;
C.

Perform the copyrighted work, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(4) and 501,

6

Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 7 of 8

by showing the works images in any sequence and/or by making the

sounds accompanying the work audible and transmitting said performance
of the work, by means of a device or process, to members of the public
capable of receiving the display (as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 101s
definitions of perform and publically perform); and
D.

Display the copyrighted work, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(5) and 501,

by showing individual images of the work nonsequentially and transmitting
said display of the work by means of a device or process to members of
the public capable of receiving the display (as set forth in 17 U.S.C.
101s definition of publically display).

38.

Defendants infringements were committed willfully within the meaning of

17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
1.

Permanently enjoin Defendant and all other persons who are in active

concert or participation with Defendant from continuing to infringe Plaintiffs copyrighted

work;
2.

At the close of this litigation, Order that Defendant delete and permanently

remove the digital media files relating to Plaintiffs work from each of the computers
under Defendants possession, custody or control;
3.

At the close of this litigation, Order that Defendant delete and permanently

remove the infringing copies of the work Defendant has on computers under
Defendants possession, custody or control;
4.

Award Plaintiff statutory damages per infringed work pursuant to 17

Case 2:15-cv-01267-CRE Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 8 of 8

U.S.C. 504 (a) and (c);

5.

Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 17

U.S.C. 505; and

6.

Grant Plaintiff any other and further relief this Court deems just and

proper.
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff, Rotten Records,
By its attorneys,

/s/ Matthew M. Cianflone

Matthew M. Cianflone, Esq.
PA ID No. 309468
[email protected]
Flynn Wirkus Young, P.C.
400 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 601
Quincy, MA 02169
617-773-5500
H:\Rushie Law\Rightscorp\Rotten Records\PA\RR9- Rotten Records v. Doe IP 67.165.102.115\Pleadings\Complaint\RR9 Pltf Complaint.docx