IP Address Evidence in Copyright Lawsuits: What It Proves—and What It Doesn’t

Last Updated on February 22, 2026 by Rob Cashman

If you received a notice from your internet service provider stating that your IP address was linked to alleged copyright infringement, you are likely asking a very simple question: does this actually mean I’m guilty?

In BitTorrent-based copyright lawsuits, IP address evidence is the starting point for nearly every claim—but it is also one of the most misunderstood forms of evidence by defendants. Many people assume that if their IP address was “caught,” liability automatically follows. Others believe the opposite: that an IP address proves nothing at all.

Both assumptions are wrong.

This article explains what an IP address is, how it becomes visible in BitTorrent activity, why courts allow copyright plaintiffs to rely on IP address evidence at the early stages of a case, and—most importantly—where that evidence succeeds and where it breaks down.

▶

[This video displays an IP address displayed on a license plate. I used this as an analogy of a license plate as being the identifier of the driver. Reference: the “Spinning Car” Analogy article and explainer video, as seen on my TorrentLawyer Legal Blog.]

Return to Top

What Is an IP Address, and How Is It Exposed in BitTorrent Activity?

An Internet Protocol (IP) address is a numerical identifier assigned to a device when it connects to the internet. In simple terms, it functions like a temporary return address that allows data to be routed between a user’s device and the websites, servers, or peers it communicates with online.

An example of an IP address is “128.234.123.234”.

When an internet user visits any website, that website’s server necessarily receives the user’s IP address in order to send data back to the user. This exchange occurs automatically and invisibly, without any affirmative action by the user beyond initiating the connection.

BitTorrent file-sharing operates differently from ordinary web browsing. Instead of downloading content from a single centralized server, BitTorrent users connect to a decentralized “swarm” of other users who are simultaneously uploading and downloading pieces of the same file. In order for this peer-to-peer exchange to function, each participant in the swarm necessarily exposes their IP address to other peers and to any third party monitoring the swarm.

Copyright enforcement companies retained by studios such as Strike 3 Holdings routinely monitor BitTorrent swarms to detect unlicensed copying of their copyrighted works. When a user’s IP address is observed uploading or downloading a copyrighted file, the monitoring software records the IP address, date, time, and file hash associated with the activity (see here for an example of such a log; these spreadsheets are often referred to as “Exhibit A” to the complaint, and are discussed below, as they are considered “Snapshot Evidence.”) The IP address information contained in these logs form the technical basis for later claims of copyright infringement against the ISP account holder.

Critically, however, an IP address identifies an internet connection, not a person. It does not establish who was using the connection at the time of the alleged activity, whether the activity was authorized, or whether the account holder was even present when the file was shared. Internet users can even mask their real IP addresses to appear as if their activity is being conducted by an IP address belonging to another internet user. These distinctions become central in determining whether IP address evidence is sufficient to support liability.

[To demonstrate guilt in a lawsuit against an internet user who’s IP address was exposed in participating in a BitTorrent Swarm, the copyright holder has access to another important piece of forensic evidence — the PCAP file. This contains the packet capture data showing that the copyrighted content was actually downloaded or transmitted. This PCAP file is often missing in copyright lawsuits, and plaintiffs take the easier route and merely rely on circumstantial evidence that that the account holder’s IP address was observed participating in a BitTorrent swarm.]

Return to Top

The Limits and Reliability Problems of IP Address Evidence

A plaintiff can identify activities as being originated by a particular IP address belonging to a particular internet account, and an ISP is capable of using IP address logs to identify the ISP account subscriber that was assigned a particular IP address on a particular date and time. But even if infringing activity was observed by a particular IP, this does not prove that it was the account holder who engaged in that activity.

When facing a lawsuit based upon IP address evidence of infringement, aggressive copyright entities like Strike 3 Holdings LLC often forego any analysis and conclude that the ISP account holder is the infringer.

But an IP address does not stand in the shoes of the account holder. There are many ways the infringer could have been anyone other than the account holder.

Internet users OTHER THAN the account holder could have done the unlawful activity

IP addresses do not reliably identify the internet user who is making use of the account holder’s internet connection or IP address. There are many ways a non-account holder could gain access to an account holder’s internet connection (lawfully and unlawfully) and make use of the internet connection assigned to a particular IP address assigned to the account holder’s internet account.

When there is physical access to the router:

Attempts to access a router without permission could occur through simply looking at and logging in with the default password (which is typically printed on the bottom of the router, and the internet account holder is not sophisticated enough, careful enough, or security-minded enough to manually change it).

Even if the account holder was security-minded and he changed the password, the unauthorized user could press a button a reset the router to its factory settings, regaining access to the router’s password as it is printed on the router.

When there is no physical access to the router:

Attempts to access a router without permission using technological means to discover or bypass the password, and this can be done locally, or remotely. The actual methods of achieving such access are outside the scope of this article.

UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS & HACKERS

There are also illegal and unlawful ways for an internet user to gain access to an account holder’s internet connection, and those methods are beyond the scope of this article.

However, access to a router having a password on it can still happen even if the user accessing the router is able to gain access to (or bypass) the password set by the account holder.

TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS TO MODIFY OR SPOOF AN IP ADDRESS

There are also technological means where an internet user can modify their own IP address to make it appear as if the account holder’s internet connection is being used.

Changing one’s IP address is called “spoofing,” and such a user who engages in this activity does so either for privacy reasons (although doing so is unlawful), or to make it appear as if the unlawful internet activities are being done by the account holder actually assigned the spoofed IP address.

The actual location of a user making use of a ‘spoofed’ IP address could be miles, cities, or even COUNTRIES away from the location of the account holder and the actual location of the IP address.

Thus, IP address evidence alone is insufficient to prove that a particular account holder engaged in the unlawful activities claimed in the lawsuit. However, it could be a factor in conjunction with other factors to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of proof to prove that it was the account holder who did the unlawful activities.

Does an IP Address Alone Prove Copyright Infringement?

Courts have warned that an IP address, standing alone, does not automatically identify the infringer. As such, the plaintiff cannot make the assumption that the owner of the internet account assigned that IP address was the internet user who engaged in the unlawful activities.

[If he does name and serve the account holder without doing further research, the court should consider applying an actual damages standard rather than the current statutory damages available to a copyright holder who properly uses the courts to bring his infringer to justice.]

IP ADDRESS DOES NOT EQUAL A PERSON (IP ≠ PERSON)

In order to name and serve an ISP account holder as being the one who engaged in the activities observed by his IP address, many courts expect allegations that go beyond him merely being the ISP subscriber who pays the bill. Additional evidence, such as admissions, unique circumstances of access, or other corroborating facts are required in order for a court to hold the account holder liable for the unlawful activities claimed in the lawsuit.

For example, in Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 14‑20213 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2014), the court refused to rely on IP‑address geolocation to identify the defendant, holding that “there is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos.” Likewise, Judge Gary Brown explained in a widely cited BitTorrent decision that an IP address “does not necessarily identify a person,” because home networks, wireless routers, and multiple users can all share the same outward‑facing IP.

An IP address does not necessarily identify a person.

This is reflected in the following case examples:

• Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 14‑20213 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2014) – Judge Ungaro: IP address + geolocation does not identify the infringer; dismisses. (Reference: CSO Online article, 03/2014)
• In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) – cautions that an IP address is not a person, but still allows subpoenas; good for showing nuance.
• Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:19‑cv‑01887 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (default judgment denied) – subscriber status alone insufficient to impose liability.
• Gary Brown “IP ≠ person” opinion (often cited as In re BitTorrent Cases / Order & Report–Recommendation, E.D.N.Y. 2012) – detailed tech explanation why IP alone is weak evidence. (Reference: TorrentFreak article (Ernesto), 03/2012)

These opinions are important guardrails, but turning them into a blanket slogan that “IP address evidence is no evidence” misreads how courts actually treat IP data in copyright cases and can backfire when used as a primary defense.

Snapshot Evidence

IP address logs can be used to prove access or participation (how long the user was connected to the BitTorrent Swarm); it cannot prove the amount of the copyrighted file he copied. [The PCAP file does, however, show how much of the file he downloaded.]

Snapshot evidence refers to digital screenshots or logs captured by a plaintiff’s monitoring software showing a specific IP address appearing in a BitTorrent swarm at a given date and time, often displaying partial file data (e.g., hash values, file names, etc.).

In BitTorrent swarms, peers upload and download fragments of the file to each other in file pieces. A snapshot proves that the IP ‘entered the room’ of a swarm sharing the copyrighted file, but does not confirm that it downloaded or uploaded a substantial part of the work—only that it was “in the room” when the downloads were occurring.

Some plaintiffs even demonstrate “snapshot evidence” by attaching a spreadsheet listing the dates and times that a particular IP address was observed downloading their content. These spreadsheets also may involve file hashes which resolve to a particular copyrighted title owned by the plaintiff, and other data detailing the length of time the IP address was seen ‘in the room’. Such spreadsheets can usually be found in copyright infringement cases as an “Exhibit A” to the complaint, but they do not show that any copyright infringement occurred.

Copyright infringement requires unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or other use of the plaintiff’s work, but copying must be a “substantial” portion of the protected work [in quantity or quality], e.g., more than de minimus copying.

Courts have consistently held that even where copying is undisputed, “no legal consequences will follow unless the copying is substantial.” Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit further clarified that copying is de minimis—and thus non-actionable—only when it is “so meager and fragmentary that the average audience would not recognize the appropriation.” Id. at 1193.

An internet user joining a BitTorrent swarm, even with the intent (and an attempt) to copy a specific copyrighted work, cannot be found guilty of copyright infringement by mere observation that his IP address was connected to a BitTorrent Swarm for a particular amount of time, unless the downloader actually copied a substantial, recognizable portion of the copyrighted work.

However, when the entire work is downloaded, the user likely cannot claim substantiality or de minimis copying exemptions as outlined by Newton v. Diamond.

But believing that the plaintiff has “no evidence,” either:

• because they cannot prove that the account holder was ‘at the keyboard’ when his IP address was observed downloading the plaintiff’s content, or
• because the plaintiff only has snapshot evidence (in the form of an “Exhibit A“), or
• because the PCAP file documenting exactly what was downloaded is missing,

Forming such a belief is a dangerous miscalculation, because snapshot evidence is typically just the starting point for more evidence (specifically, testimony of the accused defendant to be acquired through discovery, as we will discuss later in this article).

And, while “IP Address Evidence,” might not be sufficient to prove actual infringement, it is enough to satisfy requirements for a plaintiff to obtain a subpoena.

Return to Top

The Legal Standard Governing ISP Subpoenas

Federal courts regularly authorize subpoenas and allow complaints to proceed when plaintiffs bring anything more than a bare IP address.

Despite the technical limitations of IP address evidence, courts permit early discovery based on IP data under a defined legal standard.

Federal courts evaluate ISP subpoena requests in BitTorrent copyright infringement cases under the five-factor test articulated in Sony Music Ent. Inc. v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564–65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). This framework governs whether a plaintiff may obtain early discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to identify a John Doe defendant. To satisfy this standard, the plaintiff must establish:

1. a prima facie claim of copyright infringement supported by IP address–based evidence;
2. specific identification of the allegedly infringing activity;
3. the absence of alternative, less intrusive means to identify the subscriber;
4. a concrete need for the requested information to advance the litigation; and
5. a minimal privacy interest in basic subscriber account information.

Courts across jurisdictions routinely apply this five-factor test when assessing early discovery requests in BitTorrent cases, including actions brought by Strike 3 Holdings. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:21-cv-0586 (W.D.N.Y. 2021).

This same five-factor framework governing ISP subpoenas is discussed in greater detail in our overview of ISP subpoenas.

In In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80, 84–85 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), the court acknowledged that “an IP address alone does not necessarily identify an individual” but nevertheless permitted ISP subpoenas after finding a prima facie infringement showing and applying the Sony Music v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) factors (these are discussed in depth in Article #1, ISP Subpoenas).

Other courts have similarly held that IP-address evidence, when combined with additional factual allegations, is sufficient to justify early discovery, even though it may later prove inadequate to establish liability at trial.

This is exactly the gap where defendants get into trouble: judges may echo the “IP ≠ person” concern while still treating IP‑based allegations as enough to keep the case alive and to pierce the anonymity of the ISP account holder.

Under the Cable Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), cable ISPs may disclose subscriber information when compelled by a court order, which is typically obtained via an ISP subpoena. Courts apply tests derived from Sony Music Entertainment Inc. v. Does 1–40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564–65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) to balance plaintiffs’ need for subscriber identity against the limited privacy interests in basic account data, and routinely find that IP‑address evidence satisfies that threshold in BitTorrent cases.

In practice, that means an “IP address is not a person” argument will not stop the court from unmasking the ISP account holder; it only sets the stage for later arguments about who actually used the internet connection assigned to that account holder.

By piercing the anonymity of the ISP account holder, the plaintiff is able to identify which internet account the IP address was assigned to when the unlawful activity occurred. But, just because the internet account belongs to a particular account holder, it does not mean that he (or she) was the one engaging in the unlawful conduct.

Return to Top

The Role of the IP Address in Litigation

Evidence that an internet user infringed a copyright holder’s copyrights based on an IP address that was observed doing something unlawful is insufficient to prove that it was the ISP account holder who engaged in the unlawful activity.

In a copyright infringement lawsuit where the copyright holder claims that the accused (having been assigned a particular IP address) connected to a BitTorrent swarm using peer-to-peer software, the fact that 1) the account holder was assigned that IP address by his ISP, and 2) that IP address was observed connecting to a BitTorrent swarm and was seen uploading and/or downloading pieces of the copyrighted work is not sufficient evidence to prove that it was the account holder who infringed the copyright holder’s copyrights.

The plaintiff’s reliance on an IP address being ‘observed’ does not mean it was the account holder who engaged in the unlawful activity that the plaintiff observed. Without a particular connection between an IP address being observed engaged in an unlawful activity, and the account holder actually engaging in that activity, the activities of the observed IP address is insufficient to find the account holder liable for engaging in the observed infringing activities.

However, there is a big difference in the role of an IP address as far as finding an accused defendant liable for copyright infringement, versus the role an observed IP address can play in allowing a copyright holder to file the lawsuit implicating an unknown “John Doe” defendant.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES ASSERTING IP ADDRESSES EVIDENCE IN LITIGATION

In civil copyright cases, the plaintiff must prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence—showing it is more likely than not that the defendant engaged in unauthorized copying or distribution. IP evidence contributes, but without additional proof, it cannot alone meet this standard.

This standard derives from 17 U.S.C. § 501(a)-(b), which defines infringement and authorizes civil actions without specifying a burden, but it defaults to the civil preponderance standard under federal common law. This is also known as the preponderance of the evidence.

In copyright infringement cases, the burden on the plaintiff to prove his case and find the defendant liable for infringement is that he must show that it is ‘more likely than not‘ the defendant who viewed, copied, streamed, downloaded, uploaded, made use of the copyright holder’s copyrighted work without a license.

An IP address alone cannot reliably identify the person who engaged in alleged copyright infringement. It serves only as circumstantial evidence, showing that a device connected to the internet via a particular account participated in a BitTorrent swarm. Courts consistently require additional evidence—such as admissions, corroborating logs, or unique access circumstances—to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of proof and to link the account holder to the alleged activity.

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:19‑cv‑01887 (N.D. Cal. 2023), the court denied a default judgment, finding that “merely being the registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity” was insufficient to connect the defendant to the alleged downloads. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must offer concrete evidence linking the account holder to the infringement, not just assumptions derived from IP‑address logs.

These decisions are valuable, but they show a much narrower proposition than “IP address evidence is no evidence.” Rather, they demonstrate that “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address…” status alone usually cannot win a case for the plaintiff. The cases do not show that IP logs are irrelevant for subpoenas or early pleadings — courts continue to consider them as relevant.

But in addition to mere IP address evidence, a plaintiff would need additional evidence (e.g., logs, snapshots, testimony, or other data) to meet their burden at summary judgment or trial.

In copyright infringement lawsuits, typically the plaintiff would satisfy their burden of proof in discovery — either by taking a deposition, or having the accused defendant answer questions under oath using an interrogatory.

METHODS OF PROVING GUILT IN CASES INVOLVING IP ADDRESS

Plaintiffs rely on depositions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30) and interrogatories (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33) to obtain sworn testimony and factual admissions from the defendant. These tools allow plaintiffs to link the account holder to infringing activity, supplementing IP evidence that alone cannot satisfy the preponderance of proof.

DEPOSITION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 governs depositions in federal civil cases, allowing parties to obtain sworn testimony from opposing parties, witnesses, or third parties during the discovery phase.

A DEPOSITION is where an attorney questions a deponent (e.g., a defendant) under oath, and outside of court to gather facts relevant to the claims. He will ask the questions relating to liability, without directly determining guilt, which is reserved for trial. Answers are recorded verbatim by a certified court reporter using stenographic means, audio, or video, producing a transcript considered sworn testimony admissible at trial subject to evidentiary rules like relevance and hearsay exceptions.

The TESTIMONY of the deponent helps the plaintiff meet its burden of proof by providing admissible evidence of key facts, e.g., admissions of wrongdoing. These admissions can support motions for summary judgment or prove elements like liability at trial.

In copyright infringement suits, plaintiffs depose ISP account holders (or named defendants, if not the account holder) to probe into facts surrounding access, downloading, streaming, viewing, or unlicensed copying of works. Their questions will often focus on IP addresses assigned to the defendant, device logs, or user admissions during discovery.

INTERROGATORIES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 governs interrogatories in federal civil cases, permitting each party to serve up to 25 written questions (including subparts) on another party, who must serve sworn answers or objections within 30 days.

INTERROGATORIES seek factual information, document identification, or admissions relevant to claims or defenses during discovery. They aid a party with case preparation without directly proving guilt (this occurs at trial).

In copyright infringement suits (like those by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC) plaintiffs use interrogatories to probe defendants’ knowledge of downloads, streams, or distributions via BitTorrent.

The party serving the interrogatory drafts targeted questions, such as asking a defendant to identify IP addresses, which devices they might have used for file-sharing, or witnesses with knowledge of alleged infringement. Their responses must be signed under oath by the party or their attorney certifying completeness.

Plaintiffs leverage interrogatory responses as admissible evidence to establish ownership, access, and copying—key elements under 17 U.S.C. § 501—supporting summary judgment or trial proof, such as admissions of using specific software like BitTorrent clients. More frequently, the use the admissions as ammunition to force the defendant to agree to pay them a large settlement payment.

• In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe cases (e.g., numerous district court rulings in E.D.N.Y., M.D. Fla.), plaintiffs serve interrogatories asking defendants to admit or deny downloading specific pornographic films via BitTorrent. They also ask them to list or detail household network users, to produce router logs, which could give them direct evidence of unauthorized distribution. Courts uphold these as proportional discovery, rejecting overbreadth objections.
  
  
• In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, 2021 WL 1117177 (N.D. Ill.), interrogatories confirmed that the defendant’s IP address matched the IP address observed in the swarm data, advancing the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Similar use occurred in Malibu Media cases and other BitTorrent-based copyright infringement suits, where interrogatory responses were used to satisfy the “volitional conduct” requirement (per cases like Coqui LLC v. Sling TV, 2021 WL 3622938 (D. Colo.).

Understanding the Flaw: Why Lack of Evidence Doesn’t Mean You Win The Lawsuit

Even if you believe that the plaintiff is lacking evidence to prove guilt, and you demonstrate that the plaintiff’s attorney does not have evidence that you downloaded a substantial amount of the copyrighted file, and even if you demonstrate that the plaintiff’s attorney does not have any evidence that you did anything other than observing that an IP address assigned to your internet account was observed connecting to a BitTorrent swarm…

ADMITTING GUILT UNDER OATH could undo any argument that you make about them lacking evidence of guilt against you.

As one astute attorney pointed out on social media:

“I can be the most educated, smartest, wizardly genius attorney ever to exist. No legal argument can change the fact that my client downloaded the film.”

-Rob Cashman, attorney and owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC

This statement captures the essence of the problem. The legal intricacies of your defense mean very little in the face of an admission of guilt.

Even if you are correct that the plaintiff does not have any evidence against you, if they obtain testimony from you that you participated in the infringement of their copyrighted work, you will have provided them with everything that they will need to overcome their burden of proof.

The testimony under oath that you provide them can and will undo any claim of yours that they lack evidence. Your testimony will be used to prove that you were most likely the downloader, and as a result of your testimony, you could be found liable for copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s infringed works.

Return to Top

Plan Your Defense Strategy Early to Avoid Costly Mistakes

In copyright infringement cases, particularly those involving alleged downloading via BitTorrent, defending against a lawsuit based solely on the reliance that the plaintiff does not have evidence that you were the downloader (or that all they have is IP Address Evidence) is foolish, and it could cause you to lose the lawsuit.

If you are named and served and in the discovery process you will be providing them testimony that you downloaded their copyrighted titles [or that you are a downloader of other titles] (whether you do this through a discovery, an interrogatory, or via any other method of them obtaining evidence from you), then it is wiser to not engage in the litigation at the outset.

Before getting named as a defendant, an account holder should proactively look inward and determine whether he did what the plaintiff claimed that the IP address ‘was observed doing’ while the lawsuit is still asserting their claims against an unknown “John Doe” fictitious entity. The account holder can make use of the advance notice of the potential lawsuit given to them by the ISP subpoena notification letter.

Thus, an account holder has the time and anonymity (for the moment) to decide how to proceed based on whether engaging in litigation would cause them to ‘admit guilt’ under oath at the discovery phase of the lawsuit. If so, this article introduces alternative strategies to better approach the lawsuit if answering questions under oath would be problematic.

If the account holder decides that defending the claims against him in litigation would result in him losing the lawsuit, then he should focus on alternative strategies that minimize his damage and exposure, which is the subject of the next section.

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO DEFENDING THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU IN LITIGATION

Just because you are implicated as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you need to defend the claims against you in court.

Defending against lawsuits is not only an analysis of the laws and applying them to the facts to determine whether they can satisfy their burden to prove that you committed the unlawful acts for which the plaintiff is suing you.

Defending a lawsuit also involves analysis of probabilities, and the various ways a lawsuit can play out. This could involve topics such as:

• whether to proactively speak with the plaintiff’s attorney about your guilt (or non-guilt) before you are named and served as a defendant;
  
• whether to file an answer to the complaint and initiate litigation yourself;
  
• whether to negotiate a settlement payment in order to release you from liability;
  
• whether to watch the docket and check whether the plaintiff’s attorney will name and serve you or whether he will dismiss your lawsuit if you do nothing;
  
• whether to completely ignore the lawsuit and wait to act until you are named and served.

WHETHER TO PROACTIVELY SPEAK WITH THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS GUILT / NON-GUILT

If you did not do the downloading and you want to proactively avoid being named and served as a defendant, sometimes a useful strategy is to hire an attorney to open the lines of communication between you and his/her client.

In the communications between your attorney and the plaintiff’s attorney, the two of them would discuss guilt, non-guilt, whether you did the downloading of his copyrighted titles, or not.

If you weren’t the downloader but you have a good idea of who did do it, here is where you can discuss this with the plaintiff’s attorney. That way, when he/she decides who to name and serve when amending the complaint, it would be the person who did the downloading, and not you.

Lastly, if you did the downloading, but you cannot afford to pay them anything to settle the claims against you (or you have a condition that would preclude you from being able to defend a lawsuit against you), perhaps here would be a good time to do it.

If the plaintiff’s attorney sees your financial circumstances (or your health circumstances) and agrees that you cannot pay them any kind of settlement that they would accept, then when it comes time for them to determine whether to name and serve a defendant, they might just decide instead to dismiss the lawsuit.

The reason they might do this is very often, these lawsuits are aimed not at bringing the defendant to justice and getting a judgement against the defendant, but rather, at securing a settlement. If they have already seen your financial circumstances (or your health circumstances), they might just decide that it is not worth their effort to continue the lawsuit against you.

WHETHER TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND INITIATE LITIGATION

If you did not do the downloading and you are willing to give the plaintiff’s attorney testimony under oath, and if you do not want to wait the many months it might take before you are named and served (or you want to cut off the plaintiff’s attempts to solicit a settlement from you and just move to the evidence, “the truth will set you free,” then you can simply file an answer with the court and move forward with litigation on the merits of the case.

WHETHER TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT

If you did do the downloading and you do not want to engage in litigation (where you know that you would end up giving the plaintiff testimony under oath that you were the one who did the downloading of their copyrighted works), then through your attorney, you can negotiate a settlement (which is a cash payment in return for them releasing you from liability and dismissing the lawsuit against you).

The best time to settle a lawsuit is before you become named and served as a defendant (while you are still implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant, where the court does not yet know your name).

WHETHER TO LEARN THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS PATTERNS AND “WAIT AND SEE”

Not all attorneys name and serve each and every defendant. Some manage their lawsuits and dismiss cases simply because they don’t want to ask the court for an extension of time to name and serve a defendant (for example, when the procedural deadlines come due requiring the plaintiff to name and serve a defendant, ask the court for an extension of time, or dismiss the lawsuit).

Here, a “wait and see” strategy would not be ignoring the lawsuit. Rather, you or your attorney would be regularly checking the docket for new filings, determining and calendaring the plaintiff attorney’s procedural due dates for your case, watching what he does with other cases which are similar to yours, and you would always be running a ‘risk analysis’ on what the likelihood would be that you will be named and served.

If the risk goes above your comfort level, you can switch to another strategy, e.g., a settlement, initiating discussions with the plaintiff’s attorney about guilt or non-guilt, or a proactively filing an answer with your case and proceeding to litigation.

WHETHER TO IGNORE THE LAWSUIT ENTIRELY

Some people determine that they have nothing to lose, and they don’t care if they are named and served. They are unwilling or unable to engage in any of the other options, and if the unspeakable happens (where they are named and served and thrown into litigation), they know they would be losing the lawsuit anyway if they participate in their defense.

And, even if they ignore the case entirely and end up with a default judgement against them, they have obtained legal advice from an attorney licensed in their state telling them that they could file for bankruptcy to discharge the civil judgement against them.

…Or, an attorney licensed in their state has informed whether they are considered ‘judgement proof’ and thus even if they end up with a judgement against them, there is no way that a plaintiff could collect a judgement against them.

Nothing here is to be taken as legal advice to act (or not act) in a certain way, or to engage in one strategy or another. These are all very different strategies, each one of them tailored to a different kind of defendant with different circumstances and tolerances of risk. Before deciding to do ANY of these, you should speak to an attorney who is familiar with your case and the plaintiff’s attorney who sued you.

Return to Top

IP ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN PLEADINGS

Although most defendants will never litigate a copyright infringement case through pleadings, courts routinely assess IP address evidence at the pleading stage when determining whether claims may proceed.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint in a must allege enough factual content about the case make the claim plausible.

​In a copyright infringement lawsuit where the plaintiff is asserting that it observed an IP address engage in activity which infringed its copyright rights, courts generally IP Address evidence alone as weak and insufficient to prove that a particular named individual is the infringer.

Federal pleading standards

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) teaches that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” which the Supreme Court interprets (Twombly/Iqbal) to require enough well‑pleaded facts to make the claim “plausible on its face,” not just conceivable. In IP cases, this typically means facts supporting (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying or distribution of protected works by the defendant.​

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 requires that factual statements have or are likely to have evidentiary support after reasonable investigation. This is relevant when the plaintiff sues unknown “John Doe” Defendants identified only by their IP addresses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides the mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of such pleadings; if the IP-address-based allegations do not plausibly link the alleged infringing activity to the specific defendant, dismissal is possible.​

Use of IP address evidence in BitTorrent pleadings

In BitTorrent copyright infringement cases, plaintiffs frequently file complaints against a “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 123.45.678.90.” They allege that they used monitoring software which observed this IP address participating in a BitTorrent swarm distributing their copyrighted works at specified dates and times. The complaint typically attaches a list of copyrighted works (as their Exhibit A), hash values associated with their titles, and timestamps tied to that IP address to show repeated or “persistent” infringement.​

To meet the plausibility requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, courts often look for additional factual detail beyond bare IP logs, such as:

• geolocation tying the IP to the forum,
• multiple instances of infringement over time, and
• an explanation of the monitoring method used to capture BitTorrent activity.

Several courts have allowed such complaints to proceed at least far enough to permit early discovery, finding that allegations that an identified IP address repeatedly participated in swarms sharing specific copyrighted works can state a plausible claim against the unknown John Doe subscriber.​

Case law skepticism about IP-only identification

At the same time, many decisions emphasize that the IP address alone does not reliably identify the person who actually downloaded or uploaded the work. Courts note that the ISP account holder might not be the infringer because others in the household, guests, or even unknown third parties connecting to the account holder’s unsecured wi-fi router. Any of these other non-parties could have engaged in the online infringing activity. One decision in a cluster of In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) likens relying on an IP address as evidence of guilt to assuming that the person who pays a telephone bill made a particular phone call.​

Because of these concerns, courts have sometimes denied or limited early discovery; they have either severed or consolidated mass John Doe cases, or they have warned plaintiff copyright holders against using IP address-based subpoenas as leverage for coercive settlements in pornography cases. Other decisions (for example, cases involving Malibu Media) have permitted subpoenas but expressly recognized that the subscriber information is only a starting point and does not by itself prove liability at trial.​

Practical sufficiency standards in copyright infringement complaints

Putting the rules and case law together, the sufficiency analysis usually turns on:

• Whether the complaint pleads copyright ownership and registration (or eligibility for registration) for each work in suit with some specificity.​
• Whether the pleading describes the BitTorrent activity with factual detail: the protocol used, the works’ hash values, dates/times, and the number of observed “hits” by the IP address.​
• Whether the complaint plausibly links the IP address to the defendant, at least as much as identifying a particular John Doe subscriber and tying that subscriber to the forum via geolocation, so that early discovery may be justified.​

The plaintiff’s attorney will often argue that, although an IP address does not identify a specific individual, it is enough to establish probable cause for the lawsuit. At a minimum, they are able to satisfy the pleading requirement according to the relevant statutes and current case law, and file the complaint against an unknown John Doe Defendant with an IP address. However, courts require them to obtain more evidence to satisfy their burden of proof under the lawsuit, and to find an accused named-and-served defendant guilty.

Return to Top

SUMMARY: Understanding why ‘no evidence’ is a weak argument can prevent you from jeopardizing your defense. But what should you do instead? A thorough understanding of your position and a solid strategy for protecting your identity are key to ensuring the best possible outcome.

For a comprehensive guide to navigating your defense, continue to our concluding article: Article 8: “Protecting Your Identity: Strategies for John Doe Defendants in Copyright Lawsuits”.

That final article serves as a conclusive piece that ties together all the strategies discussed in the previous articles, helping John Doe defendants protect their identity and make informed decisions about their defense.

You will learn:

• “Before Filing: Assess the Allegations and Potential Risks”
• “Finding the Right Attorney: Why Early Legal Counsel is Key”
• “Valuing Your Anonymity: Protecting Your Identity from Exposure”
• “When to Fight: Understanding When Litigation is Worthwhile”
• “Final Thoughts: Reassessing Your Strategy for Best Results”

Return to Top

THIS HAS BEEN A LAWSUIT-NEUTRAL ARTICLE WRITTEN FOR THE TORRENTLAWYER UNIVERSITY.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.