The rights-owner of The Cobbler, a whimsical comedy film starring Adam Sandler, has filed a batch of new BitTorrent copyright suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

The Cobbler was widely released earlier this year and met with generally unfavorable reviews and uncertain box office revenues.  According to a Variety review of the effort, “the result is a slow-motion zeppelin crash that starts as a dull-edged fable, and then spirals further and further out of control without ever growing more exciting or interesting.”

The nominal plaintiff in the case is Cobbler Nevada, LLC, while the U.S. distributor behind the film is Image Entertainment.  Like many other BT cases in Oregon, the new cases were filed by attorney Carl. D. Crowell.

Author’s note: When I explained the premise of The Cobbler to my wife, she was struck by its similarity to that of a long-running children’s cartoon that my 4 year- old daughter enjoys on occasion, Franny’s Feet.  

Case listings with links to complaints:

Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.250.66
Case No. 3:15-cv-00774
Date Filed: 05/05/15

Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.96.152
Case No. 6:15-cv-00776
Date Filed: 05/06/15

Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.148.189
Case No. 3:15-cv-00778
Date Filed: 05/06/15

Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.232.200.44
Case No. 3:15-cv-00779
Date Filed: 05/06/15

Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.250.66
Case No. 3:15-cv-00780
Date Filed: 05/06/15

Case No: 3:15-cv-825
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.20.84.164
Filed: 05/14/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-826
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.222.107
Filed: 05/14/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-827
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.57.11
Filed: 05/14/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-828
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.130.11
Filed: 05/14/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-829
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.186.4.5
Filed: 05/14/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-862
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.222.141
Filed: 05/20/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-863
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.134.96
Filed: 05/20/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-864
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.160.142.7
Filed: 05/20/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-865
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.22.67.130
Filed: 05/20/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-866
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.136.125
Filed: 05/20/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-907
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-173.11.1.241
Filed: 05/27/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-908
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.28.30
Filed: 05/27/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-909
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.232.194.240
Filed: 05/27/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-910
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.188.150
Filed: 05/27/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-911
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.20.14.171
Filed: 05/27/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1041
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.168.250.203
Filed: 06/11/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1075
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.168.245.223
Filed: 06/17/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1077
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.22.47.15
Filed: 06/17/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1078
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.189.117.26
Filed: 06/17/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-1182
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.231.214
Filed: 06/26/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-1183
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.231.199
Filed: 06/26/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-1184
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.246.215
Filed: 06/26/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-1185
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.139.82.199
Filed: 06/26/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-1186
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.171.142.203
Filed: 06/26/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01228
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.37.70.123
Filed: 07/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01229
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.180.38.187
Filed: 07/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01230
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.27.218.165
Filed: 07/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01231
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.79.237
Filed: 07/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01233
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.31.182
Filed: 07/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01283
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.143.152
Filed: 07/10/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01285
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.50.220
Filed: 07/10/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01286
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.64.237
Filed: 07/10/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01287
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.104.164
Filed: 07/10/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01288
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.107.215
Filed: 07/10/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01330
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.140.179
Filed: 07/17/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01331
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.123.133
Filed: 07/17/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01384
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.188.149.249
Filed: 07/24/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01385
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.22.51.32
Filed: 07/24/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01386
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.166.80.193
Filed: 07/24/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01387
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.238.48.96
Filed: 07/24/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01542
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.189.7.71
Filed: 08/14/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01544
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.112.184
Filed: 08/14/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01545
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.63.212.44
Filed: 08/14/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01634
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.22.35.40
Filed: 08/28/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01635
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.198.124
Filed: 08/28/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01677
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.115.91.41
Filed: 09/04/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-01679
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.238.92.157
Filed: 09/04/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01681
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.208.110
Filed: 09/04/2015

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01769
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.190.112.145
Filed: 09/18/2015

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01770
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.160.147.114
Filed: 09/18/2015

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01771
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.59.145.167
Filed: 09/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01813
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.106.211
Filed: 09/25/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01814
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.237.131.34
Filed: 09/25/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01864
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.141.151
Filed: 10/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01865
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.141.97.22
Filed: 10/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01866
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.141.97.23
Filed: 10/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01913
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.25.104.5
Filed: 10/09/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01914
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.34.18
Filed: 10/09/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01915
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.171.139.17
Filed: 10/09/2015

The publisher of the “A Baby for My Billionaire Stepbrother” romance novel series has sued various Doe parties over alleged misrepresentations surrounding the books’ publication rights.

Zirconia Publishing, Inc. is a Colorado company that, according to its complaint, has the exclusive right to distribute via Amazon.com the several books in the series.  Zirconia alleges that the unknown defendants, using the name “Joannah Clarkson,” submitted to Amazon a fraudulent Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice, improperly alleging that Clarkson was the true owner of rights to the books.  This act apparently “resulted in significant adverse economic consequences to Zirconia, including lost sales, ratings, and algorithm-based suggestions.”  The complaint suggests that it was a competitor of Zirconia that was ultimately responsible for the false takedown notice.

Zirconia makes a state law claim for tortious interference with contract, as well as a cause of action for misrepresentation under the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. 512(f).  Zirconia seeks all damages, an injunction against further interference, attorney’s fees and costs.  The lawsuit, Zirconia Publishing, Inc. v. John Doe 1, No. 2:15-cv-598, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by Seattle law firm Focal PLLC.

Various film companies filed batches of copyright lawsuits in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon.

Plaintiff A&T SPVH, Inc.’s new lawsuits involve the 2014 film, The Humbling, which stars Al Pacino, in what Variety describes as a “free-form adaptation of Philip Roth’s penultimate novel, about a star of stage and screen beginning to lose the tricks of his trade (and possibly his grasp on reality).”

The cases filed by Automata Productions, Inc. make claims based on Automata, the 2014 dystopian sci-fi picture, with Antonio Banderas.

Several additional cases involve the 2013 film Dallas Buyers Club, which is the subject of hundreds of prior lawsuits filed by Dallas Buyers Club, LLC in the Oregon District Court and around the nation.

The common denominator among the new lawsuits seems to be the three plaintiffs’ common association with Voltage Pictures, LLC and Millennium Films.

The complaints in the A&T SPVH and Automota Productions lawsuits allege that each company “is an affiliate of Nu Image / Millennium Films, production companies and distributors of a notable catalog of major motion pictures.”  In addition to Automata and The Humbling, several other films distributed or produced by Nu Image/Millennium have been the subject of prior enforcement actions, including The Expendables, Charlie Countryman (the owner of which film also filed a recent lawsuit), and Bad Lieutenant.

Voltage Pictures is a co-producer of Dallas Buyers Club and has claimed rights to trademarks associated with that film in many prior lawsuits.  Voltage had some role in Charlie Countryman‘s production, as previously reported.  Also suggesting a common enforcement strategy has been in effect, Voltage just hired a former Nu Image / Millennium distribution executive to assume a similar role with Voltage.

Each of the lawsuits names a single Doe party as defendant and seeks statutory damages under the Copyright Act, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.  The cases were filed by attorney Carl D. Crowell of Salem, OR.

UPDATE (12/8/15): A more recent Automata Productions case joins together the company’s claims against 6 separate Doe parties.  As discussed in a prior post, this indicates a continued effort by Crowell Law and its film company clients to return to a prior pattern of multi-Doe lawsuits in Oregon, based on allegations of common infringing conduct and permissive joinder.

Listings of the cases, together with links to complaints, are as follows:

Case No. 3:15-cv-675
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-71.237.177.28
Filed: 04/21/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-676
A&T SPVH, Inc. v. Doe-24.22.60.250
Filed: 04/24/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-695
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-74.95.35.73
Filed: 04/24/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-696
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-24.20.132.25
Filed: 04/24/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-697
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-71.193.244.148
Filed: 04/24/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-700
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-71.56.146.148
Filed: 04/24/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-701
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-67.170.134.41
Filed: 04/24/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-726
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.171.138.225
Filed: 04/29/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-728
A&T SPVH, Inc. v. Doe-24.21.212.25
Filed: 04/30/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-729
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-24.22.0.68
Filed: 04/30/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-730
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. 71.237.224.252
Filed: 04/30/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-731
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-71.237.192.131
Filed: 04/30/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-732
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-76.115.172.90
Filed: 04/30/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-733
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-73.25.80.53
Filed: 04/30/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-972
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.21.126.146
Filed: 06/03/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-973
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.246.148.255
Filed: 06/03/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-974
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.21.102.222
Filed: 06/03/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1039
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.236.225.81
Filed: 06/11/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1042
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-73.11.30.186
Filed: 06/11/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1043
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-73.25.103.153
Filed: 06/11/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1081
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-76.115.58.222
Filed: 06/17/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-1080
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-76.115.132.109
Filed: 06/17/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01327
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-98.246.113.34
Filed: 07/17/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01329
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-73.164.247.135
Filed: 07/17/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01388
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-50.188.157.254
Filed: 07/24/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01547
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-73.25.43.35
Filed: 08/14/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01631
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-76.115.8.56
Filed: 08/28/2015

Filed: 10/30/2015
Case No: 3:15-cv-02056
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-71.237.199.92

Filed: 11/29/2015
Case No: 3:15-cv-02227
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.177.239

Filed: 12/07/2015
Case No: 3:15-cv-02283
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-76.115.142.228 et al

Filed: 03/23/2016
Case No. 3:16-cv-00490
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.20.153.7

Filed: 03/27/2016
Case No. 3:16-cv-00526
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.20.92

Filed: 03/30/2016
Case No. 3:16-cv-00551
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-71.238.61.141

Filed: 06/14/2016
Case No. 3:16-cv-01080
Automata Productions, Inc. v. Doe-76.27.237.16

Filed: 06/27/2016
Case No. 3:16-cv-01309 
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-76.115.169.128

Filed: 02/11/2017
Case No. 3:17-cv-00238
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-50.139.102.235

Several production companies continue a wave of BitTorrent-related copyright lawsuits, all filed by the same lawyers in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon.

Several of the lawsuits involve the 2013 film Dallas Buyers Club.  The allegations of the complaints are similar to those made in many prior lawsuits filed by Dallas Buyers Club, LLC in the Oregon District Court.

A few other cases were filed by Killer Joe Nevada, LLC.  As Troll Defense has previously reported, these cases involve the violent 2012 “gothic” black comedy film Killer Joe.

Both Killer Joe and Dallas Buyers Club feature Matthew McConaughey in leading roles, and likely the involvement in each film of heavy-handed producer Voltage Pictures, LLC has something to do with the parallel enforcement actions.

In some of the recent actions, Voltage Pictures and Glacier Films 1, LLC are combined as plaintiffs alleging Glacier Films’ copyright infringement claims and Voltage Pictures’ claims for violations of Oregon State Trademark laws. These particular cases involve the 2014 film American Heist, which was summarized in a Variety review as follows:

As generic as its title, American Heist is a pile of crime-meller cliches, with Hayden Christensen as the good brother trying to stay on the straight-and-narrow and Adrien Brody as the bad boy who drags Junior into an ill-starred bank robbery scheme.

 This tactic was last employed by Voltage Pictures in other Oregon lawsuits filed by the same lawyer last year.  In other cases, Glacier Films (USA), Inc. is a co-plaintiff, making only copyright claims.

More recently, there was another filing by TCYK, LLC, which had been relatively inactive since earlier suits dating back over a year ago.  These actions are based on The Company You Keep, a 2012 political thriller starring Robert Redford, and another picture in which Voltage Pictures has some involvement or interest.

Each of the lawsuits names a single Doe party as defendant and seeks statutory damages under the Copyright Act, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.  The cases were filed by attorney Carl D. Crowell of Salem, OR.

UPDATE (11/30/15): A more recent Glacier Films case joins together its claims against 8 separate Doe parties.  As discussed in a prior post, this indicates a continued effort by Crowell Law and its film company clients to return to a prior pattern of multi-Doe lawsuits in Oregon, based on allegations of common infringing conduct and permissive joinder.

UPDATE (8/10/16): More recent TCYK and Glacier Films cases were filed against single Does.  This follows a handful of decisions from this Court which each concluded that BitTorrent cases were not appropriate for permissive joinder of several defendants.

Listings of the cases, together with links to complaints, are as follows:

Case No. 3:15-cv-444
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-73.25.31.24
Filed: 03/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-446
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-76.115.38.251
Filed: 03/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-447
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-198.0.58.131
Filed: 03/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-448
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-173.164.116.49
Filed: 03/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-449
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-50.137.186.141
Filed: 03/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-450
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-76.105.252.19
Filed: 03/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-608
Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Doe-67.160.136.201
Filed: 04/12/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-609
Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.164.254.7
Filed: 04/12/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-610
Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.237.173.145
Filed: 04/12/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-611
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-98.246.98.60
Filed: 04/13/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-612
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-50.139.121.165
Filed: 04/13/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-668
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Doe-50.186.40.95
Filed: 04/20/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-669
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Doe-50.137.54.92
Filed: 04/20/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-975
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-24.21.98.129
Filed: 06/03/2015

Case No. 6:15-cv-977
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-24.20.233.254
Filed: 06/03/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-1040
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-76.115.63.153
Filed: 06/11/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01332
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-24.21.161.126
Filed: 07/17/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01546
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-24.20.10.154
Filed: 08/14/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01632
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-73.25.26.28
Filed: 08/28/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01633
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-73.25.111.18
Filed: 08/28/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01725
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-76.115.17.40
Filed: 09/11/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01727
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-73.37.117.56
Filed: 09/11/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01728
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-73.190.89.157
Filed: 09/11/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01729
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-73.180.2.94
Filed: 09/11/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01730
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-71.238.59.116
Filed: 09/11/2015

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01772
Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.186.19.7
Filed: 09/18/2015

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01773
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-67.171.181.233
Filed: 09/18/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01815
Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Doe-71.237.180.187
Filed: 09/25/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01816
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-71.56.153.1
Filed: 09/25/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01817
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-73.164.151.227
Filed: 09/25/2015

Case No. 3:15-cv-01828
TCYK, LLC et al v. Doe-24.21.175.89
Filed: 09/26/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01867
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-24.20.72.210
Filed: 10/02/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-01868
Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.202.219.46
Filed: 10/02/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01911
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-71.193.182.60
Filed: 10/09/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-01912
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al v. Doe-24.21.153.226
Filed: 10/09/2015

Filed: 10/30/2015
Case No: 6:15-cv-02053
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Doe-24.20.202.92

Filed: 10/30/2015
Case No: 3:15-cv-02054
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Doe-24.22.28.35

Filed: 10/30/2015
Case No: 3:15-cv-02055
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-24.21.227.55

Filed: 11/14/2015
Case No: 3:15-cv-02139
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Doe-24.20.141.220, et al

Case No. 3:16-cv-01411
Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Doe-50.186.63.76
Filed: 07/11/2016

Case No. 3:16-cv-01485
TCYK, LLC v. Doe-173.87.37.3
Filed: 07/21/2016

In a series of new lawsuits filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Dallas Buyers Club, LLC has accused 91 Doe defendants of copyright infringement.

The allegations of the complaints are virtually identical to those made in the many prior lawsuits filed in this District Court by the producers of the 2013 film Dallas Buyers Club.  The lawsuits seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

The cases were filed by attorney David A. Lowe of Lowe Graham Jones PLLC.  The case names, together with links to complaints, are as follows:

Case No. 2:15-cv-576
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-28
Filed: 04/13/2015

Case No. 2:15-cv-579
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-21
Filed: 04/13/2015

Case No. 2:15-cv-580
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-4
Filed: 04/13/2015

Case No. 2:15-cv-581
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-6
Filed: 04/13/2015

Case No. 2:15-cv-582
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-32
Filed: 04/13/2015

 

Late last week, the purported owner to copyrights in the British film “Plastic” filed at least 20 lawsuits against anonymous Doe defendants in federal courts in both Pennsylvania and Florida.

Plastic is a 2014 crime/comedy film directed by Julian Gilbey.  Unfortunately, the film met with poor reviews upon release and it currently has a 12% aggregate score on Rotten Tomatoes.  According to some reports, Plastic’s box office gross intake was less than half of its production budget.

The copyright lawsuits were filed by Plastic the Movie Limited, a UK company claiming ownership of rights to the film, and the allegations of each of the complaints are substantially identical. The complaints describe in considerable detail the online investigation allegedly performed by Excipio GmbH, which is well known to experienced observers of BitTorrent lawsuits as an affiliate or “shell company” of German investigation firm Guardaley.

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the lawsuits were filed by attorney Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber, LLC in Harleysville, PA.  In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the cases were filed by David Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff, P.A. in Miami.

In both courts, the plaintiff seeks statutory damages pursuant to the Copyright Act, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Listings of the individual filings in each court, with a sample complaint from each, are below.  ISP subscribers receiving a subpoena in these matters can contact attorney Benjamin Justus for a free and confidential consultation.

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case No: 2:15-cv-1576
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1577
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 50.144.3.20
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1578
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 50.144.3.22
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1579
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1580
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1581
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1582
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1583
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1584
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1585
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1586
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1587
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 69.139.16.149
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1588
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 68.84.219.35
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1589
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 2:15-cv-1590
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Middle District of Florida

Case No: 3:15-cv-382
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-386
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-387
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-388
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 5:15-cv-147
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 5:15-cv-148
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 5:15-cv-149
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 5:15-cv-150
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 5:15-cv-151
Plastic The Movie Limited v. John Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-509
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-516
Plastic The Movie Limited v. Doe
Filed: 03/27/2015

Five Doe parties in Oregon were subject to new copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

The lawsuits allege infringement via BitTorrent of the Shia La Beouf psycho-thriller, “The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman,” also known as “Charlie Countryman.”   Countryman Nevada, LLC has a history of extensive BitTorrent lawsuit filings in Colorado involving this film, many of which cases remain pending.

The new Oregon cases were filed by Salem Attorney Carl D. Crowell.  The complaint allegations are quite similar to those made in other BitTorrent cases filed by Crowell, with some new editorial flourishes, such as the following:

27. The use of BitTorrent does more than cause harm through the simple theft of intellectual property. The BitTorrent distribution of pirated files is a model of business that profits from theft through sales and advertising and provides a system of rewards and compensation to the participants, each of whom contribute to and furthers enterprise that steals hundreds of millions of dollars from our economy.

One doubts whether the producers of “Charlie Countryman” could have expected that it would have served as an economic engine were it not for BitTorrent users.  The film was generally panned upon its release, with Stephen Holden of The New York Times writing “this catastrophe of a movie zigzags drunkenly between action-adventure and surreal comedy with some magical realism slopped over it like ketchup.”

Case numbers with links to complaints are below.

Case No: 3:15-cv-433
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.164.181.226
Filed: 03/17/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-437
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.139.75.183
Filed: 03/17/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-435
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-73.11.77.129
Filed: 03/17/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-436
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-98.246.54.64
Filed: 03/17/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-438
Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe-50.137.175.103
Filed: 03/17/2015

Troll Defense has learned that a company claiming the copyrights to the 2014 comedy film Dumb and Dumber To has filed at least two copyright actions against individual Doe parties in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Dumb and Dumber To is the long-awaited sequel to the 1994 hit comedy Dumb and Dumber, and it stars Jim Carrey as Lloyd Christmas, and Jeff Daniels as Harry Dunne.  Although receiving generally negative reviews from critics, the sequel performed fairly well at the box office upon its release in November 2014.

The Oregon copyright lawsuits, filed in the name of DDTo Finance LLC, allege that the defendant Does infringed the copyrights to the film by using BitTorrent software to download or upload a related file.  The complaints begin by stating the overall prevalence of such activities:

DDTo comes to court seeking relief as the motion picture Dumb and Dumber To is currently one of the top 10 most downloaded movies though BitTorrent with over 1,000 confirmed infringing Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses in Oregon alone, and DDTo is suffering notable and irreparable harm though piracy.

As with other similar lawsuits filed by DDTo’s lawyer, Carl D. Crowell of Salem, Oregon, the new actions seek statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief pursuant to the Copyright Act.  Case listings with links to the complaints are here:

Case No: 3:15-cv-254
DDTo Finance, LLC v. Doe-173.8.220.78
Filed 02/12/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-255
DDTo Finance, LLC v. Doe-24.21.211.0
Filed 02/12/2015

While only two unfortunate individuals have been targeted to date, we can only assume future lawsuits will follow shortly in Oregon and in other jurisdictions.  The 1,000 “confirmed” alleged infringers in Oregon may be wondering what the likelihood is that their accounts could be implicated.  At this point I can only tell them: there’s a chance.

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC has just filed five new copyright infringement lawsuits against individual Does in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Unlike prior lawsuits filed by Dallas Buyers Club in this court, Voltage Pictures, LLC is not a party to these cases, and there are no claims based on the Oregon Trademark Act, ORS 647.  Also omitted is the “alternate theory” of indirect copyright infringement that was made in the prior actions.

Otherwise, the copyright allegations of the complaints are quite similar to those made in the many prior cases filed by Dallas Buyers Club in the same court, seeking statutory damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief against the Does.

One colorful change from some of the prior cases is the inclusion of a 2014 quotation from a lecture by musician Iggy Pop, which Dallas Buyers Club appropriated in an attempt to illustrate the supposedly serious harms associated with BitTorrent use.  To appreciate the statements in context, which includes a range of views about the benefits of various channels of music distribution, the full lecture is available from the BBC.

The cases were filed by attorney Carl D. Crowell of Salem, Oregon. The case names, together with links to complaints, are as follows:

Case No: 3:15-cv-00218
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe – 73.37.2.222
Filed 02/08/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-00220
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe – 73.37.42.33
Filed 02/08/2015

Case No: 3:15-cv-00222
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe – 98.246.208.241
Filed 02/08/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-00219
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe – 73.25.44.231
Filed 02/08/2015

Case No: 6:15-cv-00221
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe – 67.170.167.29
Filed 02/08/2015

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC has just filed two new copyright infringement lawsuits against a total of 50 Does in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The allegations of the complaints are virtually identical to those made in the many prior lawsuits filed by this plaintiff in the same court, seeking statutory damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

The cases were filed by attorney David A. Lowe of Lowe Graham Jones PLLC. The case names, together with links to complaints, are as follows:

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-11, No.2:15-cv-00133 (W.D. Wash)

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-39, No.2:15-cv-00134 (W.D. Wash)